Facts: Benjamin gitlow, a socialist, was convicted in New York courts for violating the state's crimminal anarchy laws by publishing and circulating pamphlets and leaflets detrimental to the government. These publications advocated overthrowing organized government by violent and other lawful means

Questions-

A.) Does the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution apply to the states?

B.) Does the New York State Crimminal Anarcy statute contravene the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Rulings

A.) Yes

B.) No

Facts: Clarence E. Gideon was charged in a Flordia state court with having broken into and entered a poolroom with intent to commit a misdemenor. Under Florida law, such an offense is a noncapital felony. Gideon appeared in court without funds and without a layer. he asked the court to appoint counsel for him. The court refused because Florida law permitted the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in capital cases only. Gideon appealed his conviction claiming violation of the constitutional guarantee of counsl

Question:

Must states provide cousel to an indigent defendant in noncapital cases

Decision: Yes

Facts: Cleveland police officers requested admission to a home to seek a fugitive who was reportedly hiding there. They had also received information that a large amount of policy parahernilia was hidden in the house. Without a warrent the police forced thier way into the house. They found obscene materials, which they used to convict Ms. Mapp in the state courts

Question: 

Is the evidence obtained in violation of teh search and seizure provision of the Fourth Amendment admissible in State Court?

Ruling:

NO

Facts: A series of cases went to the Supreme Court from the states of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia and Delaware. Since all the cases involved all the same basic problem- African American minors, through their legal representatives, seeking the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their respective communities on a non -segregated basis- all were determined by one decision of the court. The kansas case became the nominal leading case. In the various states, the black children were of elementary or high school age or both. Segregation requirements were on a statutory and state constitutional basis except in Kansas where only statutory provisions were involved.

Question- Does Segregation of children in ublic schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible " factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opprotunities?

Ruling: Yes

Facts: The New York State Board of Regents had recommended, and the local school board had directed the school district's principal, that the following prayer be said aloud by each class in the presence of the teacher at the beginning of each school day: "Almighty God, we acknowlege our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teahers, and our country." The parents of ten pupils challenged the use of the prayer.

Question: Does teh use of state-imposed prayer violate the establishment clause of the First amendment made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth amendment?

Decision: yes

Facts of the Case Several teenagers allegedly burned a crudely fashioned cross on a black family's lawn. The police charged one of the teens under a local bias- motivated criminal ordinance which prohibits the display of a symbol which "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." The trial court dismissed this charge. The state supreme court reversed. R.A.V. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Conclusion: Burning of the cross is okay if not meant for racism

Facts: California applied its crimminal statutes to sexually explicit materials sent through the mails to persos who did not request them.

Question:

May a State enforce obscenity statutes against publications that offend local community standards as to what is pruient?

Ruling: Yes

Fact:

Three police officers searched the entire home of Chimel in Santa Ana. California. The officers had a warrent athorizing his arrest for the burglary of a coin shop, but no search warrent. Chimel's wife admitted the officers to the house. Some items taken fro the house at this time were admitted into Chimel's trial at which he was convicted.

Question: Can the warranless search of an entire house be justified under the Fourth Amendment as incident to lawful arrest?

Ruling: No

Facts:

A seasoned police officer named McFadden observed Terry and two other men rpeatedly waling in front of a store as though they were attempting to case it. After he approached and they mumbled in response to a question, he patted down Terry and found one gun in his overcoat, and another in his companion's coat pocket. The trial court, The Ohio Court of Appeals, and the Ohio Supreme Court all failed to exclude this evidence, which had lead to a sentence for carrying a concelaed weapon.

Questions:

A.) Did the officer's actions constitute a stop and frisk?

B.)Was such a stop and frisk reasonable under provisions of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Rulings:

A.) Yes

B.) Yes

An officer stopped Knowles for speeding. He issued Knowles a citation but did not arrest him. He did however perform a full search of the car for which he had neither Knowles consent nor probable cause, and discovered marijuana and a "pot pipe" in the process. The trial court and the Iowa Supreme Court rejected Knowles's request to suppress this evidence, and he was convicted.

Question: Does a speeding citation, issued without an arrest, justify a search of an entire vehicle?

Decision: No, the arrest was unjustified and the products thereof must be excluded.

A fourteen-year old high school freshman in New Jersey (and a companion) were discovered smoking in the school lavatory in violation of school rules. In addition her purse (which she was made to open) contained cigarette paper commonly used with marijuana, a substantial amount of money, and a list of students who owed T.L.O money. The lower court found the student delinquent and senternced her to one year's probation. The Appellate Divison affirmed but the Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the decision.

Question:

Is the reasonableness standard a proper standard for determaning the legiality of searches by school officials?

Ruling:

Yes

Facts: An assistant pricipal escorted thirteen-year-old Savana Redding from her middle school classroom to his office where he confronted her with contraband in a day plannershe had lent to another student and asked whether she had been giving pills to other students. After finding no contraband in her bacckpack, a school nurse seeking evidence of prescription-strength but over-the-counter pain relief pills, took her to her office and had her remove her outer clothing and shake her underwear, somewhat exposing her breasts and pelvic area. The Ninth Circuit Court, sitting en banc, reversed earlier summary judgments dismissing Redding's suit.

Questions:

A.) Did this warrantless search violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?

B.) Were school authorities liable for this search?

Rulings:

A.) Yes;

B.) No

Weeks was indicted in a federal court in missouri for nine counts including use of the mail for tansporting illegal lottery tickets. After a police officer arrested Weeks at work, a U.S. marshal and police officers twice entered Weeks's house without a search warrant and removed certain possessions and papers, which Weeks asked to be returned. The lower court ordered the return of the items not needed for tial, but allowed the prosecutor to use the incrimminating papers. Weeks filed another petition before his trial, but it was denied and he was convicted. Weeks subsequently appeald his conviction on the basis that evidence had been improperly gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Question:

Can evidence gathered illegally without the use of a warrent be used in a crimminal federal trial?

Ruling:

No.

Facts: Cleveland police officers requested admission to a home to seek a fugitive who was reportedly hiding there. They had also received information that a large amount of policy parahernilia was hidden in the house. Without a warrent the police forced thier way into the house. They found obscene materials, which they used to convict Ms. Mapp in the state courts

Question:

Is the evidence obtained in violation of teh search and seizure provision of the Fourth Amendment admissible in State Court?

Ruling:

NO

Facts: Cleveland police officers requested admission to a home to seek a fugitive who was reportedly hiding there. They had also received information that a large amount of policy parahernilia was hidden in the house. Without a warrent the police forced thier way into the house. They found obscene materials, which they used to convict Ms. Mapp in the state courts

Question:

Is the evidence obtained in violation of teh search and seizure provision of the Fourth Amendment admissible in State Court?

Ruling:

NO

Facts: Police obtained a facially valid search warrent to conduct a search from which they gained evidence that resulted in an indictment for possessing and distributing cocaine. This evidence was suppressed in the U.S. District Court on the basis that the affidavit had been inadequateto sustain probable cause. The U.S. Ninth Circuit affirmed this judment.

Question:

Should the exclusionary rule apply where law enforcement officials obtained evidence in reasonable, good faith reliance on the search warrant?

Decision:

No, there is a goof faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

Facts:

Clarence E. Gideon was charged in a Flordia state court with having broken into and entered a poolroom with intent to commit a misdemenor. Under Florida law, such an offense is a noncapital felony. Gideon appeared in court without funds and without a layer. he asked the court to appoint counsel for him. The court refused because Florida law permitted the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in capital cases only. Gideon appealed his conviction claiming violation of the constitutional guarantee of counsl

Question:

Must states provide cousel to an indigent defendant in noncapital cases

Decision: Yes

Facts:

Troy Gregg was convicted in a Georgia trial court of robbery and murder. The trial was in two stages, a guilt stage and a sentencing stage. Fred Simons and Bob Moore gave two hitchhikers (Troy Gregg and Floyd Allen) a lift in their car. A short while later they offered a third hitchhiker, Dennis Weaver,  a ride. He left the car in Alanta. Subsequently, the remaining four stopped for a rest, and Allen testified that Gregg ambused and killed the original occupants, Simmons and Moore, at that point, Gregg claimed the killings were in self-defense.

Question:

Do the Georgia death penalty statutes violate the cruel and the unusual punishment provisions under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Decision:

No 

Daryl Atkins was convicted of a number of crimes including capital murder for the robbery and shooting of Eri Nesbitt. The jury foung aggrivating circumstances and sentenced Atkins to death despite testimony at his penalty hearing indicating that he was "mildly mentally retarded" with an IQ of seventy to seventy-five or lower. The supreme court of Virginia issued a divided opinion upholding Atkins's capital sentence.

Question:

Does it violate the Eighth (Cruel and unusual punishment) and the Fourteenth Amendments to execute an individual who is mildly retarded?

Decision:

Yes

Facts of the Case Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death in 1993, when he was only 17. A series of appeals to state and federal courts lasted until 2002, but each appeal was rejected. Then, in 2002, the Missouri Supreme Court stayed Simmon's execution while the U.S. Supreme Court decided Atkins v. Virginia, a case that dealt with the execution of the mentally ill. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that executing the mentally ill violated the Eighth and 14th Amendment prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment because a majority of Americans found it cruel and unusual, the Missouri Supreme Court decided to reconsider Simmons' case. Using the reasoning from the Atkins case, the Missouri court decided, 6-to-3, that the U.S. Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Stanford v. Kentucky, which held that executing minors was not unconstitutional, was no longer valid. The opinion in Stanford v. Kentucky had relied on a finding that a majority of Americans did not consider the execution of minors to be cruel and unusual. The Missouri court, citing numerous laws passed since 1989 that limited the scope of the death penalty, held that national opinion had changed. Finding that a majority of Americans were now opposed to the execution of minors, the court held that such executions were now unconstitutional. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the government argued that allowing a state court to overturn a Supreme Court decision by looking at "evolving standards" would be dangerous, because state courts could just as easily decide that executions prohibited by the Supreme Court (such as the execution of the mentally ill in Atkins v. Virginia) were now permissible due to a change in the beliefs of the American people.

Minors and mentally ill cannot be executed

Eugene V. Debs and  associates, officers of the American Railway Union had instituted a strike against the Pullman Company of Chicago. To enforce their demands, they picketed the railway cars of that company and would not allow them to enter or leave Chicago. In doing this, they stopped interstate commerce, and also cars carrying U.S. Mail. The federal court granted an injunction against the union picketing, and when Debs and other officers of the Union resisted, they were convicted of contempt.

Question

Is the federal government able to enforce a visable obstruction of interstate commerce and the mail?

Ruling:

Yes

Facts:

Abrams and four other Russians were indicted for conspiring to violate the Espionage Act. They published two leaflets that denounced the efforts of capitalist nations to interfere with the Russian Revolution, criticized the president and the "plutocratic gang in Washington" for sending American troops into Russia, and urged workers producing munitions in the United States not to betray their Russian Comrades.

Question:

Does the Espionage Act violate the First Amendment?

Ruling:

No

Facts:

Eleven leaders of the Communist Party were convicted of violating the 1940 Smith Act. The defendants were convicted of conspiring to organize the Comunist Party for the purpose of having it teach and advocate the overthrow and destruction of the U.S. government by force and violence. They claimed Articles Two and Three of the act violated the First Amendment and other provisions of the Bill of Rights and the First and Fifth Amendments because of indefiniteness.

Question:

Did the Smith Act violate the right of free speech, or the due process?

Decision:

No

Facts

After he publicly burned a U.S. Flag at a protest at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, the state sentenced Johnson to jail and fined him under a Texas law prohibiting the desecration of a venerated object. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas affirmed the conviction, but the Texas Court of Crimminal Appeals overturned the conviction on the basis that burning the flag was a form of protectedd symbolic speech.

Question:

Was Johnson's action in publicly burning a U.S. flac a from of protected expression that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protected?

Decision: Yes

Facts

Students at University of Wisconsin, Madison, challenged the espenditure of student activites fees in support of organizations that advocate a number of political views to which they object. Bothe the U.S. District Court, and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the use of such fees for such purposes

Questions

A.) Do funds charged to students by a public university for extracurricular activites violate the free speech , free association, and/or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment as applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment?

B.)Can the designation of such fees be made through student referendums?

Decisions:

A.) Such fees are constitutional if they are expended in a way that they are "viewpoint neutral."

B.) The lower courts need to reexamine the referendum provision.