Rights of people accused of crimes: the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments

Grade 12 Social Studies Worksheet - Challenge Me

Circle the best answer.

1. Read this first

   Use this

   Cards A to D on lawyers in state courts (the excerpts are exact; card C is in our words; card D is made up). Card A, "Betts v. Brady (1942), the Court". Who made it: Justice Owen Roberts, for the Supreme Court. When: decided June 1, 1942. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide whether a state had to give a lawyer to a poor person accused of a felony. Excerpt: "Asserted denial is to be tested by an appraisal of the totality of facts in a given case. That which may, in one setting, constitute a denial of fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal sense of justice, may, in other circumstances, and in the light of other considerations, fall short of such denial." Card B, "Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)". Who made it: Justice Hugo Black, for a 9 to 0 Supreme Court. When: decided March 18, 1963. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Background (from the opinion): Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with having broken and entered a poolroom with intent to commit a misdemeanor, a felony under Florida law. He asked the court to appoint a lawyer. The judge answered: "Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense." Excerpt 1: "any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him." Excerpt 2: "Upon full reconsideration we conclude that Betts v. Brady should be overruled." Excerpt 3 (the Court describing Betts): "the Court held that refusal to appoint counsel under the particular facts and circumstances in the Betts case was not so 'offensive to the common and fundamental ideas of fairness' as to amount to a denial of due process." Card C, "Afterward". Summary in our words, not a quotation: At a new trial with a lawyer in 1963, Gideon was found not guilty. Card D, "Two cases in 1964 (made up)". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words: Case 13: A state judge refuses a lawyer to a poor defendant charged with a felony, saying the case is simple and the defendant reads well. Case 14: A state court tries a poor defendant for a minor offense that carries a $25 fine and refuses to appoint a lawyer.

2. 1.

   Pia applies cards A and B to Case 13 on card D. Which reasoning is strongest?

   • Gideon governs: a poor defendant cannot be assured a fair trial without counsel, and Betts's case-by-case test was overruled
   • Betts governs: it asks whether the facts of this case make the trial unfair, and a simple case with a literate defendant may not
   • Gideon governs for a capital offense, as in the Florida judge's remark on card B, but not for other felonies
   • Gideon governs, and it also requires the state to pay for the defendant's investigators and experts at trial

3. Use this

   Cards A to E on state courts and illegally obtained evidence (the excerpts are exact; card E is made up). Card A, "Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Court". Who made it: Justice Tom C. Clark, for a 6 to 3 Supreme Court. When: decided June 19, 1961. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide whether a state court may use evidence from a search that broke the Constitution. Background (from the opinion): police searched Dollree Mapp's Cleveland home on May 23, 1957. "At the trial no search warrant was produced by the prosecution, nor was the failure to produce one explained or accounted for." Excerpt 1: "We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court." Excerpt 2: "Since the Fourth Amendment's right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth, it is enforceable against them by the same sanction of exclusion as is used against the Federal Government." Excerpt 3: "The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free." Card B, "Mapp v. Ohio, Justice Harlan dissenting" (with Justices Frankfurter and Whittaker). Excerpt 1: "I would not impose upon the States this federal exclusionary remedy." Excerpt 2: "In overruling the Wolf case the Court, in my opinion, has forgotten the sense of judicial restraint which, with due regard for stare decisis, is one element that should enter into deciding whether a past decision of this Court should be overruled." Excerpt 3: "Apart from that I also believe that the Wolf rule represents sounder Constitutional doctrine than the new rule which now replaces it." Card C, "Wolf v. Colorado (1949)". Who made it: Justice Felix Frankfurter, for the Supreme Court. When: decided June 27, 1949. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide whether a state court had to exclude evidence from an unreasonable search. Excerpt 1: "The security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police—which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment—is basic to a free society. It is therefore implicit in 'the concept of ordered liberty' and as such enforceable … the States through the Due Process Clause." Excerpt 2: "We hold, therefore, that in a prosecution in a State court for a State crime the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure." Card D, "The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 (ratified July 9, 1868)". Excerpt: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Card E, "Two cases (made up)". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words: Case 11: Officers search a home under a warrant that a judge issued on sworn evidence, and find a ledger. At the state trial the defendant asks the judge to exclude it, citing Mapp. Case 12: In 1955 a state court admitted evidence from a search with no warrant. In 1962 another state court is asked to admit the same kind of evidence.

4. 2.

   Kira applies card A to Case 11 on card E. Which reasoning is strongest?

   • Mapp applies: it makes evidence found in any search inadmissible in a state court, whether or not the search was lawful
   • Mapp applies, because a state judge's warrant is state action and Mapp bars state action in any search
   • Wolf applies: it lets a state court admit the ledger, and Mapp reaches just searches made without any warrant
   • Mapp does not apply: it excludes evidence from searches in violation of the Constitution, and the cards show no violation here

5. Use this

   Cards A to D on questioning by police (the excerpts are exact; card D is made up). Card A, "Miranda v. Arizona (1966)". Who made it: Chief Justice Earl Warren, for a 5 to 4 Supreme Court. When: decided June 13, 1966. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide when a statement made to police may be used at trial. Background (from the opinion): Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home on March 13, 1963 and questioned at a Phoenix police station. "The officers admitted at trial that Miranda was not advised that he had a right to have an attorney present." Excerpt 1: "By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." Excerpt 2: "Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed." Excerpt 3: "The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently." Excerpt 4: "Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by our holding today." Excerpt 5: "General on-the-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a crime or other general questioning of citizens in the fact-finding process is not affected by our holding." Card D, "Four cases (made up)". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words: Case 15: At 2 a.m. an officer finds a man alone beside a shop with a broken window and asks, "What happened here?" The man answers that he broke it. Case 16: Officers arrest a woman, take her to a station room and say, "Your fingerprints are on the window. Do you want to explain?" She begins to explain. No one has given her any warnings. Case 17: A man in custody, asked nothing, tells an officer who is filling out forms, "I did it." Case 18: After an arrest an officer reads the warnings, the man says he understands, signs a waiver and answers questions without a lawyer. Later he says he did not really understand.

6. 3.

   Tala applies card A to Case 18 on card D. Which reasoning is strongest?

   • Excluded: he says he did not understand, and any claim of misunderstanding voids a waiver of these rights
   • Admissible: card A says a defendant may waive the rights, and he signed a waiver after hearing the warnings read
   • It turns on whether the waiver was voluntary, knowing and intelligent, which his later claim puts in doubt
   • Excluded: card A requires an attorney to be present before any questioning begins, so a waiver cannot cure the lack

7. Use this

   Cards A to E on state courts and illegally obtained evidence (the excerpts are exact; card E is made up). Card A, "Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Court". Who made it: Justice Tom C. Clark, for a 6 to 3 Supreme Court. When: decided June 19, 1961. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide whether a state court may use evidence from a search that broke the Constitution. Background (from the opinion): police searched Dollree Mapp's Cleveland home on May 23, 1957. "At the trial no search warrant was produced by the prosecution, nor was the failure to produce one explained or accounted for." Excerpt 1: "We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court." Excerpt 2: "Since the Fourth Amendment's right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth, it is enforceable against them by the same sanction of exclusion as is used against the Federal Government." Excerpt 3: "The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free." Card B, "Mapp v. Ohio, Justice Harlan dissenting" (with Justices Frankfurter and Whittaker). Excerpt 1: "I would not impose upon the States this federal exclusionary remedy." Excerpt 2: "In overruling the Wolf case the Court, in my opinion, has forgotten the sense of judicial restraint which, with due regard for stare decisis, is one element that should enter into deciding whether a past decision of this Court should be overruled." Excerpt 3: "Apart from that I also believe that the Wolf rule represents sounder Constitutional doctrine than the new rule which now replaces it." Card C, "Wolf v. Colorado (1949)". Who made it: Justice Felix Frankfurter, for the Supreme Court. When: decided June 27, 1949. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide whether a state court had to exclude evidence from an unreasonable search. Excerpt 1: "The security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police—which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment—is basic to a free society. It is therefore implicit in 'the concept of ordered liberty' and as such enforceable … the States through the Due Process Clause." Excerpt 2: "We hold, therefore, that in a prosecution in a State court for a State crime the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure." Card D, "The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 (ratified July 9, 1868)". Excerpt: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Card E, "Two cases (made up)". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words: Case 11: Officers search a home under a warrant that a judge issued on sworn evidence, and find a ledger. At the state trial the defendant asks the judge to exclude it, citing Mapp. Case 12: In 1955 a state court admitted evidence from a search with no warrant. In 1962 another state court is asked to admit the same kind of evidence.

8. 4.

   Ren compares cards A and B. Which statement best captures what the majority and the dissent disagree about?

   • The dissent argues the Fourth Amendment should not apply to the States, as Barron held
   • They disagree about whether the search was lawful: the majority says no warrant was produced, and the dissent says one was unnecessary
   • They disagree about whether Wolf was right on the privacy right, which the majority found wrong
   • They disagree about the remedy and about overruling Wolf, not about whether the privacy right binds the States
9. 5.

   Bo must object to Mapp's inference in excerpt 2 on card A, using card C. Which is the strongest objection?

   • Exclusion cannot apply to a state court, since states set their own rules for the evidence their courts may hear
   • Wolf already made the privacy right binding on the States without the exclusion remedy, so the right alone does not require it
   • Criminals should not go free because of an officer's mistake, so the Court should not have required exclusion in state courts
   • The right of privacy is not enforceable against the States, so the majority begins from a false premise about the Fourteenth Amendment
10. 6.

    A student says Justice Harlan's dissent defended the Cleveland search. Noah tests this with card B. What is the best verdict?

    • Not supported: the excerpts object to the remedy and to overruling Wolf, and say nothing in defense of the search
    • Supported: his reference to the Wolf rule shows he approved of how the police acted in searching the home
    • Supported: he would not impose the remedy on the States, so he must think the search itself was lawful
    • Refuted: he says the Court forgot judicial restraint, so he agrees that the search broke the Constitution

11. Use this

    Cards A to D on questioning by police (the excerpts are exact; card D is made up). Card A, "Miranda v. Arizona (1966)". Who made it: Chief Justice Earl Warren, for a 5 to 4 Supreme Court. When: decided June 13, 1966. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide when a statement made to police may be used at trial. Background (from the opinion): Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home on March 13, 1963 and questioned at a Phoenix police station. "The officers admitted at trial that Miranda was not advised that he had a right to have an attorney present." Excerpt 1: "By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." Excerpt 2: "Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed." Excerpt 3: "The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently." Excerpt 4: "Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by our holding today." Excerpt 5: "General on-the-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a crime or other general questioning of citizens in the fact-finding process is not affected by our holding." Card D, "Four cases (made up)". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words: Case 15: At 2 a.m. an officer finds a man alone beside a shop with a broken window and asks, "What happened here?" The man answers that he broke it. Case 16: Officers arrest a woman, take her to a station room and say, "Your fingerprints are on the window. Do you want to explain?" She begins to explain. No one has given her any warnings. Case 17: A man in custody, asked nothing, tells an officer who is filling out forms, "I did it." Case 18: After an arrest an officer reads the warnings, the man says he understands, signs a waiver and answers questions without a lawyer. Later he says he did not really understand.

12. 7.

    Zee applies card A to Case 17 on card D. Which reasoning is strongest?

    • Admissible if he repeats the statement after warnings, because card A requires a second statement
    • Excluded: custody plus an officer's presence made it interrogation under the definition in card A
    • Excluded: he was in custody, and card A bars any statement taken from a person in custody without warnings
    • Admissible: card A says volunteered statements are not barred, and the officer asked him nothing
13. 8.

    Esme applies card A to Case 15 on card D. Which reasoning is strongest?

    • Excluded: any question an officer asks that draws out a confession needs the warnings first, wherever it is asked
    • Excluded unless the officer first told him that he was free to leave the scene, which card A requires
    • Admissible: general on-the-scene questioning is not affected by the holding, and the man was not in custody
    • Admissible because a confession made at the scene is voluntary, whatever the officer's words or manner may have been

14. Use this

    Cards A to D on lawyers in state courts (the excerpts are exact; card C is in our words; card D is made up). Card A, "Betts v. Brady (1942), the Court". Who made it: Justice Owen Roberts, for the Supreme Court. When: decided June 1, 1942. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide whether a state had to give a lawyer to a poor person accused of a felony. Excerpt: "Asserted denial is to be tested by an appraisal of the totality of facts in a given case. That which may, in one setting, constitute a denial of fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal sense of justice, may, in other circumstances, and in the light of other considerations, fall short of such denial." Card B, "Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)". Who made it: Justice Hugo Black, for a 9 to 0 Supreme Court. When: decided March 18, 1963. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Background (from the opinion): Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with having broken and entered a poolroom with intent to commit a misdemeanor, a felony under Florida law. He asked the court to appoint a lawyer. The judge answered: "Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense." Excerpt 1: "any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him." Excerpt 2: "Upon full reconsideration we conclude that Betts v. Brady should be overruled." Excerpt 3 (the Court describing Betts): "the Court held that refusal to appoint counsel under the particular facts and circumstances in the Betts case was not so 'offensive to the common and fundamental ideas of fairness' as to amount to a denial of due process." Card C, "Afterward". Summary in our words, not a quotation: At a new trial with a lawyer in 1963, Gideon was found not guilty. Card D, "Two cases in 1964 (made up)". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words: Case 13: A state judge refuses a lawyer to a poor defendant charged with a felony, saying the case is simple and the defendant reads well. Case 14: A state court tries a poor defendant for a minor offense that carries a $25 fine and refuses to appoint a lawyer.

15. 9.

    Jun applies cards B and C to Case 14 on card D, a $25 fine. Which statement is best supported?

    • Not covered: the Florida judge limited counsel to capital offenses, and Gideon merely widened that to felonies
    • Not covered: Gideon applies when the defendant also risks a prison term of more than a year in custody
    • The cards do not decide it: the words speak of any person haled into court, but the case before the Court was a felony
    • Covered: Gideon says any person haled into court, and a case over a $25 fine is a case in court, so counsel is required

16. Use this

    Cards A to E on state courts and illegally obtained evidence (the excerpts are exact; card E is made up). Card A, "Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Court". Who made it: Justice Tom C. Clark, for a 6 to 3 Supreme Court. When: decided June 19, 1961. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide whether a state court may use evidence from a search that broke the Constitution. Background (from the opinion): police searched Dollree Mapp's Cleveland home on May 23, 1957. "At the trial no search warrant was produced by the prosecution, nor was the failure to produce one explained or accounted for." Excerpt 1: "We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court." Excerpt 2: "Since the Fourth Amendment's right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth, it is enforceable against them by the same sanction of exclusion as is used against the Federal Government." Excerpt 3: "The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free." Card B, "Mapp v. Ohio, Justice Harlan dissenting" (with Justices Frankfurter and Whittaker). Excerpt 1: "I would not impose upon the States this federal exclusionary remedy." Excerpt 2: "In overruling the Wolf case the Court, in my opinion, has forgotten the sense of judicial restraint which, with due regard for stare decisis, is one element that should enter into deciding whether a past decision of this Court should be overruled." Excerpt 3: "Apart from that I also believe that the Wolf rule represents sounder Constitutional doctrine than the new rule which now replaces it." Card C, "Wolf v. Colorado (1949)". Who made it: Justice Felix Frankfurter, for the Supreme Court. When: decided June 27, 1949. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide whether a state court had to exclude evidence from an unreasonable search. Excerpt 1: "The security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police—which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment—is basic to a free society. It is therefore implicit in 'the concept of ordered liberty' and as such enforceable … the States through the Due Process Clause." Excerpt 2: "We hold, therefore, that in a prosecution in a State court for a State crime the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure." Card D, "The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 (ratified July 9, 1868)". Excerpt: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Card E, "Two cases (made up)". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words: Case 11: Officers search a home under a warrant that a judge issued on sworn evidence, and find a ledger. At the state trial the defendant asks the judge to exclude it, citing Mapp. Case 12: In 1955 a state court admitted evidence from a search with no warrant. In 1962 another state court is asked to admit the same kind of evidence.

17. 10.

    Luz traces the rule from Wolf to Mapp for the 1955 and 1962 cases (Case 12). Which statement is best supported?

    • Mapp barred evidence from any search, so by 1962 the court must exclude whatever the police find, lawful or not
    • Wolf and Mapp reached the same result, and the dissent merely added a rule about when the Court may overrule a case
    • In 1955 Wolf let the state court admit it; by 1962 Mapp bars it, though the privacy right bound the States in both years
    • In 1955 the privacy right did not yet bind the States, and Mapp added that right and the exclusion rule together in 1961