Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Miranda.pdf · Miranda v. Arizona and condemns the American...

LandmarksHistoric

U.S. Supreme CourtDecisionsTeacher’s Guide

Landmarks:Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

Developed by

Bill Hayes and Marshall Croddy

Writers

Bill Hayes, Keri Doggett, and Kia Hudson

Editor

Bill Hayes

Production & Design

Andrew Costly

CRF Board Reviewer

Peggy Saferstein

Todd Clark, Executive DirectorMarshall Croddy, Director of ProgramsConstitutional Rights Foundation

601 South Kingsley DriveLos Angeles, CA 90005

(213) 487-5590 • [email protected] • www.crf-usa.org

Standards reprinted with permission:

National Standards copyright 2000 McREL, Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning, 2550 S. Parker Road,Suite 500, Aurora, CO 80014, Telephone 303.337.0990.

California Standards copyrighted by the California Department of Education, P.O. Box 271, Sacramento, CA 95812.

Cover photograph: Jonathan Larsen/iStockphoto.com

ISBN: 978-1-886253-45-2Copyright 2007 Constitutional Rights Foundation. All rights reserved.

Teacher’s Guide


Teacher’s Guide

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Law-Related Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Classroom Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Handling Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Directed Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Small-Group Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Brainstorming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Simulations and Role-Playing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Resource Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

1: Inside the Marble Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

2: Marbury v. Madison (1803) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

3: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

4: Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

5: Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

6: Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

7: Schenck v. U.S. (1919) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

8: Palko v. Connecticut (1937) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

9: Brown v. Board of Education (1954) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

10: Mapp v. Ohio (1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

11: Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

12: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

13: U.S. v. Nixon (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

14: Regents of U.C. v. Bakke (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

15: Texas v. Johnson (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

16: Bush v. Gore (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

Keri

Highlight

IntroductionThe U.S. Supreme Court heads the judiciary, one of the three branches of the national government. Asthe highest court in the land, it is the final arbiter on the meaning of federal laws and the U.S.Constitution. In exercising this great power, the Supreme Court has decided numerous landmark cases,interpreting the law and deeply affecting American society. Because of its effect on our nation, theSupreme Court and its landmark cases are often studied in U.S. history as well as U.S. governmentcourses. This teacher’s guide and its companion student book provide a way for teachers to cover thesecases using the methodology of law-related education.

Landmarks consists of this teacher’s guide and a student text. The curriculum provides students excitingand provocative lessons related to the U.S. history and U.S. government courses of study. Each lessonhas a reading, discussion questions, and an exciting interactive activity to bring the material to life andfoster critical thinking in students. In addition, we have added a web site with links to additional read-ings and information about each case. The web site can also be used by students as a starting point fordoing the research activities suggested in the book.

Section I of this introduction provides the rationale behind law-related education. Section II details thecontents of the book. Section III provides pointers for implementing some of the teaching strategies inthis teacher’s guide.

I. Law-Related EducationA nation that draws its authority from the will of the people must make certain its people can identify andarticulate their will. If democracy is to work, voters must comprehend sophisticated issues, make informeddecisions, and accept the complex responsibility of social and political participation. These are learnedbehaviors. Only an educated electorate makes wise decisions. Democracy thrives on education.

American educators have expended much skill and imagination experimenting with effective education forcitizenship. One of the most promising avenues is law-related education (LRE), a special combination ofsubject matter and instructional methodology. Information about law and legal institutions is essential forcitizens. LRE uses the legal system as a model to demystify other democratic institutions. Its instructionalmethodology stimulates involvement by modeling participatory behavior. Formal evaluations conclude thatLRE programs, when properly implemented, statistically reduce delinquency. Thousands of teachers whohave used LRE report increases in student motivation, learning, and enthusiasm.

Civic participation is basic to education. The three R’s are not sufficient preparation for a democratic peo-ple. We must find a place in our curriculum to teach participation skills. Landmarks meets this challenge.

Landmarks consists of infusion materials. Most U.S. history and U.S. government courses study land-mark Supreme Court decisions. Each lesson provides U.S. history and civics standards addressed by thelesson. Thus Landmarks can easily fit into these courses.

This approach has several advantages. Districts, schools, and individuals can utilize LRE without devel-oping an entirely separate course. Educators can easily tailor this program to the needs of individualclasses. Most important, when taught LRE skills and attitudes in a traditional context rather than as anelective extra, students can more easily integrate what they learn with the rest of their schooling.

Landmarks: Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, Teacher’s Guide 4

The field of law-related education has a vast and diverse content, skill, and attitude base. The content ofLRE can be divided into six major areas:• The component parts of legal systems.• The sources of law and authority.• The functions or purposes of law.• Major legal processes.• Major legal roles.• The basic principles supporting legal systems.

LRE provides students with consistent practice in the skills needed to:

• Think critically. Students should learn to define problems and questions, gather relevant data, iden-tify and weigh alternative solutions, and implement decisions.

• Manage conflicts. Students should learn to identify and implement compromise positions, dealwith controversy, and negotiate solutions.

• Participate. Students should learn to work effectively in groups, form coalitions, persuade, bargain,and persevere.

LRE should help develop the following attitudes:

• A commitment to the peaceful resolution of conflict.• A respect for rights of others.• Self-respect.• Appreciation of individuality, community, and diversity.• A mature and balanced attitude toward authority.

II. OverviewLandmarks is designed for infusion in high school social studies classes. The illustrated student text con-tains vocabulary definitions and pronunciations, readings, discussion questions, and instructions forsome activities. The text is written clearly and simply. The reading level of the student text is at the highschool level due to the vocabulary. The teacher’s edition contains standards addressed, instructions forlessons, handouts, and basic answers to the questions in the student text.

The 16 lessons are described below:

1: Inside the Marble Temple introduces how the Supreme Court and judiciary function. In the activi-ty, students role play justices of the Supreme Court evaluating petitions for certiorari and they decidewhether Supreme Court is entitled to hear the case and, if so, whether the Supreme Court should hearthe case.

2: Marbury v. Madison (1803) explains how Chief Justice John Marshall justified judicial review, a vitalpower of the Supreme Court. In the activity, students examine hypothetical cases and determinewhether each case can be heard in federal court and, if so, whether the Supreme Court would have orig-inal or appellate jurisdiction in the case.

3: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) explores the court challenge to the second Bank of the United Statesand how Marshall’s court settled on an expansive view of national power. In the activity, students roleplay constitutional scholars determining whether Congress has the power under Article I, Section 8, toestablish or regulate proposed programs.

Landmarks: Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, Teacher’s Guide5

4: Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) looks at the first important case involving the commerce clause and howthe interpretation of this clause has changed numerous times since. In the activity, students role playmembers of the Marshall court and decide subsequent commerce clause cases based on the court’s rea-soning in Gibbons.

5: Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) reviews this notorious case that heightened sectional tensions beforethe Civil War. In the activity,

6: Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) examines the case that developed the “separate but equal” doctrine andlegally justified segregation. In the activity, students role members of the chambers of Justice Harlan,the lone dissenter in the case, and write his dissent.

7: Schenck v. U.S. (1919) looks at the issue of free speech in wartime and the development of the “clearand present danger” doctrine. In the activity, students debate three additional free speech cases arisingfrom World War I.

8: Palko v. Connecticut (1937) explains how the court interpreted the 14th Amendment to incorporaterights from the Bill of Rights and thus extend them to the states. In the activity, students role play acommittee from the United Nations selecting the most fundament rights from a given list.

9: Brown v. Board of Education (1954) explores the famous case that ended legal segregation in theUnited States. In the activity, students examine a controversial 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision inwhich both the opinion of the court and the dissent invoked the Brown decision. Students role playeditorial writers and write editorials on the meaning of the Brown decision and on which side got themeaning of Brown correct in the 2007 decision.

10: Mapp v. Ohio (1961) examines the case mandating that illegally obtained evidence be excludedfrom criminal trials. In the activity, students role play Supreme Court justices and decide actualSupreme Court cases involving whether an exception should be carved into the exclusionary rule.

11: Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) tells how the court decided that the Sixth Amendment required thegovernment to provide indigent felony defendants with attorneys. In the activity, students role playmembers of their state’s Senate Judiciary Committee and consider whether to support providing lawyersto indigent defendants in certain civil cases.

12: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) explains the origins of the “You Have the Right to Remain Silent . . . .”warning. In the activity, students role play attorneys and members of the U.S. Supreme Court and argueand decide cases related to Miranda.

13: U.S. v. Nixon (1974) looks at the case that led to a president’s resignation. In the activity, studentsrole play legal advisors to a president who would like to invoke executive privilege, and students evalu-ate whether the Supreme Court would uphold executive privilege in these circumstances.

14: Regents of U.C. v. Bakke (1978) examines a divided court grappling with the constitutionality ofaffirmative action. In the activity, students role play members of a state’s public university system andevaluate whether to change the current affirmative action program.

15: Texas v. Johnson (1989) explores the constitutionality of banning flag burning. In the activity, stu-dents role play aides to a U.S. senator on the Judiciary Committee. The committee is considering a pro-posed amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning flag burning, and the aides must make a recom-mendation on whether the senator should support or oppose the proposed amendment.

16: Bush v. Gore (2000) looks at the case that decided the 2000 election. In the activity, students roleplay Supreme Court justices and apply Bush v. Gore to hypothetical election cases.


National High School U.S. History Standard 29:Understands the struggle for racial and gender equalityand for the extension of civil liberties. (3) Understandshow various Warren Court decisions influenced society(e.g., the Warren Court’s expansion of due process rightsfor the accused and criticisms of this extension; . . . theeffectiveness of the judiciary in promoting civil libertiesand equal opportunities).

National High School Civics Standard 25: Understandsissues regarding personal, political, and economicrights. (1) Understands the importance to individuals andto society of the right to due process of law . . . .

California History-Social Science Content Standard12.1: Students explain the fundamental principles andmoral values of American democracy as expressed inthe U.S. Constitution and other essential documents ofAmerican democracy. (6) Understand that the Bill ofRights limits the powers of the federal government andstate governments.

California History-Social Science Content Standard12.5: Students summarize landmark U.S. SupremeCourt interpretations of the Constitution and itsamendments. (1) Understand the changing interpretationsof the Bill of Rights over time, including interpretations of. . . the due process and equal-protection-of-the-law clausesof the Fourteenth Amendment. (4) Explain the controver-sies that have resulted over changing interpretations of civilrights, including those in . . . Miranda v. Arizona . . . .

Preparation

Standards AddressedObjectives

Overview

Students will be able to:

• Identify the Fifth Amendment right againstself-incrimination.

• Cite examples of confessions that violate the14th Amendment’s due process clause andexplain why they violate it.

• Explain the court’s decision in Miranda andexpress a reasoned opinion on whether theyagree with it.

• Make arguments on subsequent cases relatedto Miranda.

Reading in the student text: “Miranda v. Arizona(1966),” pp. 61–64

Activity in the student text: “InterpretingMiranda,” pp. 65–67

This lesson explains Miranda v. Arizona, the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that requires police to issuewarnings to suspects in custody before questioning them.

First, students read about and discuss the Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona. Then in smallgroups, students role play attorneys and members of the U.S. Supreme Court and argue and decidesubsequent cases related to Miranda.

Lesson 12Miranda v. Arizona (1966)


VocabularyBelow are vocabulary words from this lesson. Their pronunciations and definitions can be found in theGlossary, which begins on page 91 of the student text.

appellate court arraignment due process interrogationoral argument petitioner respondent testifywrit of certiorari

ProcedureI. Focus Discussion

A. Hold a brief discussion by asking students:

• What is due process of law?

The basic requirement that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property withoutfair procedures being used. The phrase has also been interpreted to include the fundamen-tal rights “rooted in the tradition and conscience of our people” (Palko v. Connecticut).

• In a criminal case, what due process rights do you think a defendant has?

Among the rights students may come up with are the right to:• get notice of the charges.• have an attorney.• confront and cross-examine witnesses.• refuse to talk to police or testify against oneself at trial.• have a public trial.• have a speedy trial.• have the prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.• not be tried twice for the same crime.• have a jury trial.• present evidence at the trial.• compel others to testify at the trial.

B. Tell students that today they are going to learn about one of the most famous Supreme Court casesinvolving the rights of criminal suspects.

II. Reading and Discussion—Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

A. Ask students to read “Miranda v. Arizona (1966),” pages 61–64. Ask them to look for:

• How the court dealt with forced confessions before Miranda.

• Why the court made the decision it did in Miranda.

B. When students finish reading, hold a discussion using the questions on page 64.

1. The Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination did not always apply to the states.The article gives examples of seven cases where the Supreme Court ruled that the confessionsobtained violated due process of law (guaranteed by the 14th Amendment). Do you agree thateach of these cases violated due process? Explain.

Accept reasoned responses.


2. What did the court decide in Miranda? What were the reasons for the decision? What reasonsdid the dissenters give against the decision? Do you agree with the majority opinion? Explain.

The court held in Miranda that the Fifth Amendment required that before police canquestion a suspect in custody they must issue warnings and receive a waiver acknowledgingthat the suspect understands and waives his or her right to remain silent and have anattorney present during questioning.

The court wanted to issue clear guidelines for police and courts to follow. The court found“that without proper safeguards” police questioning of suspects inherently compels sus-pects to speak when they would not do so otherwise and therefore they should be warnedof the consequences of speaking with police and also told of their right to remain silentand to have an attorney.

The dissenters argued that Miranda failed to address the problem of coerced confessionsand that the traditional method of reviewing confessions should remain in place. Theyalso argued that the Fifth Amendment did not apply to confessions but was only meant toprotect against defendants being forced to testify in court.

As to whether students agree with the majority opinion, accept reasoned responses.

3. When do police have to give Miranda warnings? Do you think people should be considered incustody when police pull them over for a traffic stop? When they are briefly stopped andfrisked for weapons? Explain.

Police must give Miranda warnings to suspects in custody before any interrogation canbegin. If police fail to issue Miranda warnings when questioning a suspect in custody,nothing said by the suspect can be introduced as evidence against the suspect at trial.

As for whether people should be considered in custody when police pull them over for atraffic stop or when briefly stopped and frisked for weapons, accept reasoned responses.

4. When Miranda was decided, its critics claimed that suspects would stop making confessions.This claim has proved false. Do you think Miranda sufficiently protects suspects’ FifthAmendment rights? Do you think it goes too far? Explain.

Accept reasoned responses.

III. Small-Group Activity—Interpreting Miranda

A. Tell students that the Supreme Court has decided many cases in the wake of Miranda. Tell them thatthey are going to get the chance to argue and decide one of these cases.

B. Review with students “Activity: Interpreting Miranda” on page 65. Answer any questions studentsmay have.

C. Divide the class into groups of five students each (if you have leftover students, make some groupshave six members and assign two judges to these groups). Assign two members of each group to beprosecutors, two others to be defense attorneys, and the final member to be a Supreme Court jus-tice. Assign each group one of the three cases (more than one group can have the same case). Havestudents meet in their group of five for a couple of minutes, make sure they know their roles andwhich case they are assigned, and tell them they will return to this group to argue the case.


D. Then tell all the justices to meet in one corner of the room, all the prosecutors in another corner,and all the defense attorneys in another. In their respective corners, the groups should read and fol-low their instructions. They should discuss their cases and prepare their arguments or questions.Give students time to prepare. Circulate among the groups and answer questions.

E. When students are ready, ask them to return to their group of five, and the Supreme Court justicein each group should call the court to order and conduct the oral argument. Tell the class howmuch time they have so that the justice can give each side an equal amount of time.

F. Call time. Ask the justices to come to the front of the room. Ask which justices decided Case #1:Rhode Island v. Innis. Have one of these justices explain the facts of the case. Have another read theissue. Then have the justices explain their decisions in this case. Hold a class discussion. Repeat thisprocess for each of the remaining cases. The Supreme Court’s decision in each of the cases is listedbelow.

Case #1: Rhode Island v. Innis (1980). By a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court held that the officers’conversation did not amount to interrogation.

Justice Stewart for the court: “[T]he term ‘interrogation’ under Miranda refers not only toexpress questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other thanthose normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonablylikely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. . . . It cannot be said, in short, that[in this case, the officers] should have known that their conversation was reasonably likely toelicit an incriminating response from the respondent. There is nothing in the record to suggestthat the officers were aware that the respondent was peculiarly susceptible to an appeal to hisconscience concerning the safety of handicapped children.”

Justice Marshall dissenting: “I am substantially in agreement with the Court’s definition of‘interrogation’ within the meaning of Miranda v. Arizona . . . . I am utterly at a loss, however,to understand how this objective standard as applied to the facts before us can rationally leadto the conclusion that there was no interrogation. . . . One can scarcely imagine a strongerappeal to the conscience of a suspect—any suspect—than the assertion that if the weapon is notfound an innocent person will be hurt or killed. And not just any innocent person, but aninnocent child—a little girl—a helpless, handicapped little girl on her way to school.”

Case #2: New York v. Quarles (1984) . By a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court decided to create apublic safety exception to Miranda.

Justice Rehnquist for the court: “We conclude that the need for answers to questions in a situ-ation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protect-ing the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination. We decline to place officerssuch as Officer Kraft in the untenable position of having to consider, often in a matter of sec-onds, whether it best serves society for them to ask the necessary questions without theMiranda warnings and render whatever probative evidence they uncover inadmissible, or forthem to give the warnings in order to preserve the admissibility of evidence they might uncov-er but possibly damage or destroy their ability to obtain that evidence and neutralize thevolatile situation confronting them.”

Justice Marshall dissenting: “Without being advised of his right not to respond, the suspectincriminated himself by locating the gun. The majority concludes that the State may rely on


this incriminating statement to convict the suspect of possessing a weapon. I disagree. Thearresting officers had no legitimate reason to interrogate the suspect without advising him ofhis rights to remain silent and to obtain assistance of counsel. By finding on these facts justifi-cation for unconsented interrogation, the majority abandons the clear guidelines enunciated inMiranda v. Arizona and condemns the American judiciary to a new era of post hoc inquiryinto the propriety of custodial interrogations. More significantly and in direct conflict withthis Court’s longstanding interpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the majority has endorsedthe introduction of coerced self-incriminating statements in criminal prosecutions.”

Case #3: Dickerson v. U.S(2000) . By a vote of 7–2, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Section3501 was unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Rehnquist for the court: “We hold that Miranda, being a constitutional decisionof this Court, may not be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress, and we decline to overruleMiranda ourselves. We therefore hold that Miranda and its progeny in this Court govern theadmissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation in both state and federalcourts.”

Justice Scalia dissenting: “In imposing its Court-made code upon the States, the original opin-ion at least asserted that it was demanded by the Constitution. Today’s decision does not pre-tend that it is—and yet still asserts the right to impose it against the will of the people’s repre-sentatives in Congress. Far from believing that stare decisis compels this result, I believe wecannot allow to remain on the books even a celebrated decision . . . that has come to stand forthe proposition that the Supreme Court has power to impose extraconstitutional constraintsupon Congress and the States. This is not the system that was established by the Framers, orthat would be established by any sane supporter of government by the people.”


LANDMARKSHistoric U.S. Supreme

Court Decisions

LANDMARKSHistoric U. S. Supreme Court Decisions

Landmarks examines 15 historic U.S. Supreme Court cases. Each reading gives background onthe case and the issues involved, explains the majority and dissenting opinions, and looks atthe effect of the case. Each concludes with questions to guide discussions and an interactiveactivity to engage students and foster critical thinking. The book consists of 16 readings:

Constitutional Rights Foundation601 South Kingsley DriveLos Angeles, CA 90005(213) 487-5590 Fax (213) 386-0459www.crf-usa.org • [email protected]

LANDMARKS:

HIST

ORICU.S.S

UPREMECOURTDECISIO

NS

Constitution

alRights

Foundation

Inside the Marble Temple introduces howthe Supreme Court and judiciary function.

Marbury v. Madison (1803) explains howChief Justice John Marshall justified judicialreview, a vital power of the Supreme Court.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) explores thecourt challenge to the second Bank of theUnited States and how Marshall’s court set-tled on an expansive view of national power.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) looks at the firstimportant case involving the commerceclause and how the interpretation of thisclause has changed numerous times since.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) reviews thisnotorious case that heightened sectional ten-sions before the Civil War.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) examines the casethat developed the “separate but equal” doc-trine and legally justified segregation.

Schenck v. U.S. (1919) looks at the issue offree speech in wartime and the developmentof the “clear and present danger” doctrine.

Palko v. Connecticut (1937) explains how thecourt interpreted the 14th Amendment toincorporate rights from the Bill of Rightsand thus extend them to the states.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)explores the famous case that ended legal seg-regation in the United States.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) examines the case man-dating that illegally obtained evidence beexcluded from criminal trials.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) tells how thecourt decided that the Sixth Amendmentrequired the government to provide indigentfelony defendants with attorneys.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) explains the ori-gins of the “You Have the Right to RemainSilent . . . .” warning.

U.S. v. Nixon (1974) looks at the case thatled to a president’s resignation.

Regents of U.C. v. Bakke (1978) examines adivided court grappling with the constitution-ality of affirmative action.

Texas v. Johnson (1989) explores the consti-tutionality of banning flag burning.

Bush v. Gore (2000) looks at the case thatdecided the 2000 election.

In addition, our web site offers links to thecourt opinion and more readings and infor-mation on each case. Go to www.crf-usa.organd click on Links and on Landmarks Links.

landmarks_student_cover:Layout 1 1/24/2008 12:07 PM Page 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Landmarks : historic U.S. Supreme Court decisions / writers, Bill Hayes ... [et al.].p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 978-1-886253-42-1 (alk. paper)1. Constitutional law—United States—Cases. 2. Constitutional history—United States—Cases. I. Hayes, Bill, 1945- II. Title.

KF4550.Z9L355 2007342.73—dc22

2007032279


Developed byMarshall Croddy

Bill Hayes

WritersBill Hayes, Marshall Croddy, Carlton Martz,

Lucy Eisenberg, Erwin Chemerinsky, Hillary A. Bounds,Yoni A. Fife, Coral Suter, and Paul Von Blum

EditorBill Hayes

Production & DesignAndrew Costly

CRF Board ReviewersL. Rachel Helyar, Lisa M. Rockwell, Paul W.A. Severin,

K. Eugene Shutler, Gail Midgal Title, and Carlton Varner

Todd Clark, Executive DirectorMarshall Croddy, Director of ProgramsConstitutional Rights Foundation

601 South Kingsley DriveLos Angeles, CA 90005

(213) 487-5590 • [email protected] • www.crf-usa.org

Copyright 2007 Constitutional Rights Foundation. All rights reserved.

3rd Printing


Table of Contents

Preface ........................................................................................................4

Inside the Marble Temple ...........................................................................5

Marbury v. Madison (1803).......................................................................12

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)...................................................................16

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)..........................................................................20

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) ..................................................................25

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) .........................................................................31

Schenck v. U.S. (1919)...............................................................................34

Palko v. Connecticut (1937) ......................................................................39

Brown v. Board of Education (1954).........................................................43

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) .................................................................................49

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) ....................................................................55

Miranda v. Arizona (1966).........................................................................61

U.S. v. Nixon (1974) ..................................................................................68

Regents of U.C. v. Bakke (1978) ...............................................................74

Texas v. Johnson (1989) ............................................................................79

Bush v. Gore (2000)...................................................................................85

Glossary ....................................................................................................91

List of Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court...............................................96

List of Chief Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court .....................................98

U.S. Constitution.......................................................................................99

For Further Reading................................................................................112

Table of Cases .........................................................................................113

Index .......................................................................................................114

Keri

Highlight

In everyday encounterswith people, police donot have to issueMiranda warnings. But ifthey take a suspect intocustody, they must readthe suspect Mirandawarnings and obtain awaiver before questioningthe suspect.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

‘You Have the Right to Remain Silent . . . .’

Landmarks: Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions61

In the 1960s, two currently well-known government warnings first came into use. One appears onevery pack of cigarettes and warns against smoking. The other is issued to criminal suspects before

questioning by police:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court oflaw. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.

This latter warning grew out of the highly controversial 1966 Supreme Court decision of Miranda v.Arizona. The court ruled that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution required police to issuethis warning before questioning suspects in custody.

The Fifth Amendment, in part, says that “(no) person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to bea witness against himself. . . .” The Supreme Court did not rule that the Fifth Amendment applied tothe states until 1964. But even before this, it struck down cases where confessions were not made volun-tarily. The court determined that these cases violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.This clause declares that no “State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without dueprocess of law. . . .” Due process of law guarantees fair procedures and basic liberties.

• Police ignored the defendant’s request forhis lawyer and questioned him for eightstraight hours, finally sending in a childhoodfriend, a policeman with four children, whofalsely told the defendant he would be firedunless the defendant confessed (Spano v. NewYork, 1959).

• Police told the defendant that if she con-fessed, nothing would happen to her, but ifshe did not, her children would be takenaway from her (Lynum v. Illinois, 1963).

Finally in 1964 in Malloy v. Hogan, theSupreme Court ruled that the FifthAmendment protection against self-incrimina-tion applied to the states. But courts stillfaced the difficult task of determining on acase-by-case basis whether confessions werecoerced or voluntary. So in 1966 in the land-mark case of Miranda v. Arizona, the SupremeCourt laid down clearer guidelines for policeand courts to follow.

Over the years the Supreme Court struck downmany state court cases as violating due process.The court ruled that confessions were coerced inthe following situations:

• Deputies whipped the defendant and threat-ened not to stop until he confessed (Brown v.Mississippi, 1936).

• Police hid the defendant from his friends andattorney and questioned him continuouslyfor three days (Ward v. Texas, 1942).

• Police questioned the suspect for 36 hours withonly one five-minute break (Ashcraft v. Tennessee,1944).

• Police took the defendant to a hotel roominstead of jail, stripped him, and questionedhim for three hours while he was naked(Malinski v. New York, 1945).

• Police questioned the defendant for days allow-ing him little sleep, brought in a doctor trainedin hypnosis, wired the room so they could lis-ten in, and had the doctor repeatedly suggestthat the defendant confess (Leyra v. Denno,1954).

A witness identified Ernesto Miranda, number 1, from this lineup after his arrest in 1963.

Landmarks: Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions 62

The court looked at interrogation techniquestaught in police manuals. The techniques thecourt cited ranged from having false witnessesidentify the defendant to police officers playing“good-cop, bad-cop.” The court summed up thetechniques as getting the suspect alone, depriving“him of any outside support. The aura of confi-dence in his guilt undermines his will to resist. . . .Patience and persistence, at times relentless ques-tioning, are employed.”

The court concluded “that without proper safe-guards,” police questioning of suspects in cus-tody “contains inherently compelling pressureswhich work to undermine the individual’s will toresist and to compel him to speak where hewould not otherwise do so freely.” The courtdecided that any interrogation of a suspect incustody is unconstitutional unless the police haveclearly issued these warnings to the suspect:

• You have the right to remain silent.

• Anything you say may be used against you incourt.

• You have a right to a lawyer.

• If you want a lawyer but can’t afford one, thecourt will appoint one before any questioning.

Also, after giving a suspect these warnings, thepolice may not go on interrogating unless sus-pects “knowingly and intelligently” waive theirrights. That is, suspects must completely under-stand their rights before they can give them up.This meant that if police did not give suspects incustody these warnings before questioning them,nothing that they said could be introduced asevidence against them at their trials.

The court left open the possibility that Congressor state legislatures could modify the proceduresset forth in the opinion. But the new proceduresmust be “at least as effective in apprising accusedpersons of the right of silence and in assuring acontinuous opportunity to exercise it. . . .”

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)In this case, Ernesto Miranda was suspected of kid-napping and rape. Police arrested him at his homeand took him to the police station. A witness iden-tified him, and two detectives took him into a spe-cial room. After two hours of interrogation, theofficers got Miranda to sign a written confession.

At his trial, Miranda was convicted of kidnapingand rape and was sentenced to 20 to 30 years inprison. But police had never told him of hisFifth Amendment right not to talk to them.

Writing for the five-member majority, ChiefJustice Earl Warren stressed that the FifthAmendment does not just apply to criminal tri-als. Its command that no person “shall be com-pelled in any criminal case to be a witnessagainst himself ” also applies to suspects in policecustody. Any confession made to police must bevoluntarily made. The court quoted from aunanimous 1924 Supreme Court decision thatitself was citing an 1897 decision:

. . . voluntariness is not satisfied by establish-ing merely that the confession was notinduced by a promise or a threat. A confes-sion is voluntary in law if, and only if, itwas, in fact, voluntarily made. A confessionmay have been given voluntarily, although itwas made to police officers, while in custody,and in answer to an examination conductedby them. But a confession obtained by com-pulsion must be excluded . . . .

Warren’s opinion examined what made a confes-sion coerced. One method of coercing a confes-sion is through physical brutality. But, quotinganother Supreme Court decision, the courtstressed that:

“. . . coercion can be mental as well as physi-cal, and . . . the blood of the accused is notthe only hallmark of an unconstitutionalinquisition.” . . . Interrogation still takesplace in privacy. Privacy results in secrecy andthis in turn results in a gap in our knowledgeas to what in fact goes on in the interroga-tion rooms.


The DissentersFour members of the court dissented and wrotethree separate dissents. They saw no reason foradopting new rules on confessions. They believedthe court should continue to review confessionsindividually to determine whether they werecoerced.

The new rules are not designed to guardagainst police brutality or other unmistakablybanned forms of coercion. Those who usethird-degree tactics and deny them in courtare equally able and destined to lie as skillful-ly about warnings and waivers.

Historically, they argued, the Fifth Amendmentdid not apply to confessions. It was meant toprotect against a defendant being forced to testi-fy in court.

Finally, the dissenters believed the court wasunwise in discouraging confessions.

The obvious underpinning of the Court’s deci-sion is a deep-seated distrust of all confessions.. . . I see nothing wrong or immoral, and cer-tainly nothing unconstitutional, in the police’sasking a suspect whom they have reasonablecause to arrest whether or not he killed hiswife or in confronting him with the evidenceon which the arrest was based, at least where hehas been plainly advised that he may remaincompletely silent . . . . Particularly when cor-roborated . . . such confessions have the high-est reliability and significantly contribute tothe certitude with which we may believe theaccused is guilty. Moreover, it is by no meanscertain that the process of confessing is injuri-ous to the accused. To the contrary it may pro-vide psychological relief and enhance theprospects for rehabilitation.

Miranda‘s AftermathErnesto Miranda’s conviction was reversed. Hewas retried, without his confession being admit-ted into evidence, and convicted again.

The majority opinion indicated that defenseattorneys would be more involved in custodialinterrogations. The dissenters predicted that con-fessions would “markedly decrease.” Neither pre-diction came to pass. Many suspects waive theirrights and talk to police without attorneys. Thenumber of confessions has not declined.

For Discussion1. The Fifth Amendment’s protection against

self-incrimination did not always apply to thestates. The article gives examples of sevencases (on page 62) where the Supreme Courtruled that the confessions obtained violateddue process of law (guaranteed by the 14thAmendment). Do you agree that each ofthese cases violated due process? Explain.

2. What did the court decide in Miranda? Whatwere the reasons for the decision? What rea-sons did the dissenters give against the deci-sion? Do you agree with the majority opin-ion? Explain.

3. When do police have to give Miranda warn-ings? Do you think people should be consid-ered in custody when police pull them overfor a traffic stop? When they are brieflystopped and frisked for weapons? Explain.

4. When Miranda was decided, its critics claimedthat suspects would stop making confessions.This claim has proved false. Do you thinkMiranda sufficiently protects suspects’ FifthAmendment rights? Do you think it goes toofar? Explain.


Ask each side to introduce themselves and tellwho they represent.

The petitioner should be the first to argue. (Thepetitioner is the side that lost in appellate courtand is named first in the case name.)

The respondent should argue second. (Therespondent is the side that won in appellate courtand is named last in the case name.)

Give both sides an opportunity to respond toeach other’s arguments.

Deciding the Case

After hearing the arguments, think about themand also about how Miranda and the FifthAmendment apply to your case. Decide the issuepresented in the case. Be prepared to give reasonsfor your decision.

Instructions for AttorneysYou are responsible for presenting the court withsound arguments for your side.

Preparing for the Argument

1. Read your assigned case.

2. Think about the issue before the court. Besure of which side you are arguing.

3. Review the Miranda decision and with otherattorneys on the same side and discuss howMiranda and the Fifth Amendment apply tothis case.

4. Think up arguments that support your side.Be prepared to answer questions from justicesand to counter arguments that the other sidemay present.

At Oral Argument

State your name and who you represent. Whenasked to present an argument, do so clearly andstrongly, but courteously. Do not interrupt theother side.

A C T I V I T Y

Interpreting MirandaThe Supreme Court has made many decisionsinterpreting the Miranda decision. For example,Miranda requires the police to read suspects incustody their rights before any interrogation.Police do not need to get people to waive theirrights if they are not in custody. The court hasclarified what “in custody” means. To be in cus-tody, a person’s freedom must be significantlyrestrained. The court has held that most peoplestopped briefly by police are not in custody,because they will soon be on their way. Thus rou-tine traffic stops and even “stop and frisks”(when officers briefly stop people and pat themdown for weapons) do not normally requireMiranda warnings.

In this activity, you will role play attorneys andmembers of the U.S. Supreme Court, arguingand deciding three important decisions actuallyheard by the Supreme Court. Your teacher willassign your group one of the cases on the nextpages and also will assign each group memberone of the following roles: Supreme Court jus-tice, defense attorney, or prosecutor.

Instructions for Supreme Court JusticesPreparing for the Argument

1. Read your assigned case.

2. Think about the issue before the court.Review the Miranda decision and with otherjustices discuss how Miranda and the FifthAmendment might apply to this case.

3. Think up questions to ask the prosecutionand defense attorneys.

Conducting the Oral Argument

You will be in charge of hearing arguments fromboth sides of the case. Each side should get anequal amount of time. You can interrupt at anytime to ask questions. This happens all the timein actual oral argument before the court. Askboth sides to answer your questions.


#2: New York v. Quarles (1984). Police chasedQuarles, a rape suspect, through a supermarket.Finally catching and handcuffing him, theyfound he had an empty shoulder holster. Anofficer asked him where the gun was. Noddingtoward some empty boxes, Quarles said, “Thegun is over there.” The police retrieved a loaded.38 caliber handgun from a box. Quarles wascharged with illegal possession of a gun. At trial,the judge excluded Quarles’s statement and thegun from evidence because Quarles was not givenMiranda warnings before being questioned. Theprosecution appealed, claiming the Miranda ruleshould not apply in an emergency situationgiven the gun’s danger to the public. The NewYork Appellate Division and Court of Appealsboth rejected the prosecution’s argument andaffirmed the trial court’s decision. The U.S.Supreme Court granted certiorari. The issuebefore the court: Should there be a public safetyexception to the Miranda rule?

Cases#1: Rhode Island v. Innis (1980). Mirandarequires the police to read suspects in custodytheir rights before any interrogation. This casebrought forth the question of what interrogationmeans. Innis was arrested on suspicion of using ashotgun to rob a taxi driver a few hours earlier.Although he was arrested while still on the street,no weapon was found in his possession. He wasgiven his Miranda warnings, and he requested tospeak with a lawyer before any questioning. Threepolice officers were in the car transporting Innisto the police station. They began a conversationamong themselves about how it would be toobad if children attending a nearby school for thehandicapped found the abandoned shotgun thatInnis had supposedly used in the robbery. Innisspoke up and directed the officers to the gun.Innis was indicted for kidnapping and armedrobbery and for the murder of another taxi driv-er. Innis moved to suppress the prosecution’sintroduction into evidence of the shotgun andhis statements made to police officers. The trialcourt, however, allowed them in, and he was con-victed of all charges. On appeal, the RhodeIsland Supreme Court reversed his conviction,saying the trial court erred in allowing the evi-dence because Innis had asked for a lawyer beforebeing questioned and the police had ignored thisand engaged in interrogation on the way to thestation. The prosecution requested certiorarifrom the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue beforethe Supreme Court: Did the officers’ conversa-tion amount to interrogation?


such defendant was without the assis-tance of counsel when questioned andwhen giving such confession.

The presence or absence of any of theabove-mentioned factors to be taken intoconsideration by the judge need not beconclusive on the issue of voluntarinessof the confession.

#3: Dickerson v. U.S. (2000). Under questioningby federal agents, Dickerson admitted driving thegetaway car in a series of bank robberies.Dickerson later claimed he had not been givenhis Miranda warnings, and the trial court there-fore ruled his confession could not be used inevidence. The prosecution appealed. The appel-late court ruled that since Dickerson’s confessionwas voluntary, it could be admitted underSection 3501 of the U.S. Code, a federal law thatwas more than 30 years old. Enacted byCongress, Section 3501 responded to the Mirandacase by permitting a confession in federal casesto be admitted in evidence “if it is voluntarilygiven.” Thus the law returned to the voluntari-ness test that existed before Miranda. For 30years, prosecutors and police had ignored thislaw. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.The issue before the U.S. Supreme Court: Is thislaw constitutional?

The relevant parts of the Section 3501 read asfollows:

(a) In any criminal prosecution brought bythe United States . . . a confession . . .shall be admissible in evidence if it isvoluntarily given. . . .

(b) The trial judge in determining the issueof voluntariness shall take into consider-ation all the circumstances surroundingthe giving of the confession, including(1) the time elapsing between arrest andarraignment of the defendant makingthe confession, if it was made after arrestand before arraignment, (2) whether suchdefendant knew the nature of the offensewith which he was charged or of whichhe was suspected at the time of makingthe confession, (3) whether or not suchdefendant was advised or knew that hewas not required to make any statementand that any such statement could beused against him, (4) whether or notsuch defendant had been advised priorto questioning of his right to the assis-tance of counsel; and (5) whether or not


Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Miranda.pdf · Miranda v. Arizona and condemns the American...

Documents

Transcript of Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Miranda.pdf · Miranda v. Arizona and condemns the American...