The State supreme court subsequently set aside Defendant’s death sentences on the armed robbery counts, on the basis, that defendants are rarely subject to capital punishment for that crime.

was convicted of murder as a result of the incident and sentenced to death.  Although defendandt did not intend to kill the resident, the fact that he nevertheless killed that resident during the commission of a felony, was an aggravating factor, and the one in particular which made him eligible for the death penalty. The legal question presented was whether the imposition and execution of the death penalty in such cases qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court held that defendants’s rights had been violated.

defendant was stopped and searched by an officer after the officer observed the Petitioner seemingly casing a store for a potential robbery. The officer approached the Petitioner for questioning and decided to search him first.An officer may perform a search for weapons without a warrant, even without probable cause, when the officer reasonably believes that the person may be armed and dangerous

If an officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of serious bodily harm either to fellow officers or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

After failing to gain entry on an initial visit, the officers returned with what purported to be a search warrant, forcibly entered the residence, and conducted a search in which obscene materials were discovered. The petitioner was tried and convicted for these materials. All evidence discovered as a result of a search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution shall be inadmissible in State court proceedings.

Police entered defendant’s home and executed a warrantless search of the premises, and found evidence that was used to convict him of transporting lottery tickets through the mail.  Consequent to his conviction, defendant petitioned for the return of his possessions that had been seized by the police. The legal question presented was whether the search and seizure of defendant's home violated Weeks’ Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court held that the search and seizure defendant's home were unconstitutional. First use of the “exclusionary rule.”

a 16-year-old boy, was detained and interrogated by the police in connection with several incidents involving robbery and rape. After defendant admitted some involvement, the juvenile court waived its jurisdiction. This allowed defendant to be tried as an adult. He was indicted in district court. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment because the juvenile court did not conduct a “full investigation” before waiving jurisdiction, as required by the Juvenile Court Act. The Supreme Court determined there was not a sufficient investigation prior to the juvenile court waiver of jurisdiction. Defendant did not receive a hearing, access to counsel, or access to his record prior to the waiver. This was the first Supreme Cout decision that extended due process rights to children.

a 12-year old boy, committed an act that if committed by an adult would have been a crime, thus justifying the juvenile delinquency he was charged with. Defendant contended that a finding such as this had to be based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A juvenile charged with an adult crime cannot be convicted without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

fifteen years old, was taken into custody for allegedly making an obscene phone call. defendant had previously been placed on probation. The police did not leave notice with his parents, who were at work, when the youth was arrested. After proceedings before a juvenile court judge, defendant was committed to the State Industrial School until he reached the age of 21. The Court held that the proceedings for juveniles had to comply with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. These requirements included adequate notice of charges, notification of both the parents and the child of the juvenile's right to counsel, opportunity for confrontation and cross- examination at the hearings, and adequate safeguards against self- incrimination. The Court found that the procedures used in defendant's case met none of these requirements. Due process!

was charged with robbery, larceny, and receiving stolen goods. All three offenses were felonies under state law. However, defendant was only sixteen at the time of his arrest. Represented by counsel at the time of his adjudication hearing, defendant requested a jury trial. His motion was denied. The Court held that jury trials are not required for the adjudicative proceedings in the juvenile justice systems of the States.

A 17 year old kid robbed a store with a deadly weapon he was adjudicated (charged) as a delinquent in juvenile court and then transferred to adult court was also charged and convicted which they argued that was double jeopardy and they won that case set the precedent.

probable cause justified the search of the lawfully stopped vehicle, it justified the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may have concealed the object of the search.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a New York statute allowing pretrial detention of juveniles presenting a ‘‘serious risk’’ that they may commit another crime before trial. 

Any search in an arrestee’s home beyond arrestee’s person and the area within his immediate control is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

Chief Justice claimed that the Supreme Court had the right to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.

The right under the Sixth Amendment of a defendant in a criminal case to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Defendant was charged with a felony in Florida state court. He appeared before the state Court, informing the Court he was indigent and requested that the Court appoint him an attorney. The Court declined to appoint Defedendant an attorney, stating that under Florida law, the only time an indigent defendant is entitled to appointed counsel is when he is charged with a capital offense. The Sixth Amendment constitutional requirement that indigent defendants be appointed counsel is so fundamental and essential to a fair trial that it is made obligatory on the states by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

The Court ruled that defendant was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places,"  

Verbal evidence which derives so immediately from an unlawful entry and an unauthorized arrest as the officers’ action in the present case is no less the ‘fruit’ of official illegality than the more common tangible fruits of the unwarranted intrusion.”This is one of the Supreme Court’s seminal cases on the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine.

A search warrant was issued to search the Respondent residence wherein a large quantity of illegal drugs was found. The affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued was found to be insufficient on its face. The evidence was suppressed at trial.

Reasonable reliance upon an otherwise invalid search warrant does not render evidence obtained during the search inadmissible.

Good faith doctrine