Cases Expanding Rights of the Accused - Mrs. Toxqui

Cases Expanding Rights of the
Accused
Unit 4 – Civil Liberties
Rights of the Accused Comic Strip:
Due end of class on Tues, 5/5
○ Group size: 2 people. (Groups of 1 or 3 case by case issue)
○ Read/annotate each packet. Only one copy of each packet (two
packets total) per group.
○ Add Mapp v. Ohio, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Miranda v. Arizona to
your Supreme Court case list.
○ Create an annotated comic strip (see next page).
Rights of the Accused Comic Strip:
Due end of class on Tues, 5/5
○ Use the 11”x17” paper for your comic strip. You can use colored paper and coloring
supplies as needed. Comics must be colored.
○ Create a comic strip that describes the rights of the accused. Comics need text
and images. You can create a story or explain step by step what would happen to
someone accused. All stories/crimes must be classroom appropriate.
○ How do we annotate?! - Either in the margins or underneath each row of boxes in
your comic, write a narrative explaining what court case, amendment, etc. gives the
accused that right or protects that right.
○ Due: End of class on 5/5.
○ Points: 10 points (Project) - Graded on neatness, effort, accuracy, details, creativity,
content (addressing each case & amendment).
Rights of the Accused Comic Strip:
Due end of class on Tues, 5/5
○ Example (YOU MAY NOT COPY THIS):
Look, Hank will
have to get a
warrant if he
wants to see
my lab and find
out if I really
am
Heisenberg.
Walter’s brother-inlaw Hank can only
do a lawful search
with a warrant. This
is protected at the
national level by the
4th amendment,
which prohibits
unlawful searches
and seizures.
Think of annotation as
connecting the story
in your comic to the
case or amendment.
4th Amendment
○ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
5th Amendment
○ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual
service time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for
the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
6th Amendment
○ In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses
against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
7th Amendment
○ In suits of common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact
tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United
States, than according to the rules of the common law.
8th Amendment
○ Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
14th Amendment
○ [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws.
Mapp v. Ohio, 1961
○ Dollree Mapp’s house was searched in Ohio as the police were looking
for a fugitive. Instead, they found indecent pornographic material that
violated the law. The police seized the evidence and Mapp was
convicted. The Supreme Court heard Mapp’s appeal and ruled that the
evidence was not admissible in court. This was because the
protections of the Fourth Amendment applied to the states through the
Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.
Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963
○ Clarence Gideon was accused of breaking into a billiards establishment
in Florida. At his trial, he was denied the right to an attorney because
Floridian procedure meant only appointing lawyers to capital offenses.
He was found guilty. The Warren Court later ruled that his rights were
violated. His Sixth Amendment rights should have applied to the state
of Florida because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.
He was retried and acquitted.
Miranda v. Arizona, 1966
○ Ernesto Miranda admitted to charges of rape and kidnapping after a
lengthy interrogation. Because he did not know that he had a right to
remain silent, the Supreme Court ruled that Miranda did not receive fair
due process. Since his Fifth Amendment rights were violated, he had to
be retried. The controversy of the Warren Court’s decision has
changed the way police conduct arrests. Now a priority is the reading
of the “Miranda rights” upon arrest. Miranda was later retried and
convicted.