Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Relevant Case Facts:
Gideon was charged with breaking and entering into a poolroom in Florida. Because Florida did
not provide free lawyers to those charged with anything less than a capital offense, Gideon tried
to defend himself but failed. He was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.
Legal Question: Should the Court’s holding in Betts v. Brady be reconsidered?
Reasoning:
Concurrence (Harlan):
Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
Relevant Case Facts:
Batson, a black man, was indicted for burglary and receipt of stolen goods. At voir dire the
prosecution used its peremptory challenges to remove all four black jurors from the panel, and
left Batson with a jury of all white people. The defense moved to discharge the jury on ground
that the prosecutor’s actions were violation of the defendant’s right to an impartial jury
representing a cross-section of the community under the 6th and 14th Amendments. The trial
judge said that peremptory challenges can be used to strike anyone you want.
Legal Question: May prosecutors use their peremptory challenges to eliminate prospective
jurors of a specific race?
Reasoning:
Concurrence (Marshall):
Dissent (Rehnquist and Burger):
Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966)
Relevant Case Facts:
Sheppard was accused of killing his wife. Before trial, Sheppard was vilified in the press for not
cooperating with the police. During trial the press published the names of the jurors, and as a
result these jurors received many phone calls from people wanting to voice their opinions on the
case. During jury selection an article was run that was titled, “But who will speak for Marilyn
(Sheppard’s wife).” The courtroom was filled with journalists, and photos of the jurors appeared
more than 40 times in Cleveland newspapers. The jurors were not supervised and were able to
make calls during deliberations and no records were kept as to who they called or about what
they discussed. After five days the jury returned a guilty verdict.
Legal Question: Did the judicial indifference shown to Sheppard in regards to protecting him
from media attention, deny him of the right to a fair trial?
Reasoning:
Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980)
Relevant Case Facts:
Defendant was charged with murder, and convicted. The conviction was overturned by an
appellate court because evidence obtained was improperly admitted into evidence. The
defendant was then retried twice, but each ended in a mistrial. By the time the fourth trial began
the case had garnered a good deal of attention. As such, at the request of the defendant, and to
make sure there was no interference with jury selection the judge cleared the courtroom. With
no objection from the prosecution, the judge granted the request per Virginia law. Reporters
covering the case brought suit against the state, arguing that its law violated the First
Amendment.
Legal Question: Is the right of the press and the public to attend criminal trials guaranteed by
the Constitution?
Reasoning:
Concurring in the Judgment (Brennan and Marshall):
Dissenting (Rehnquist):
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
Relevant Case Facts:
In response to Furman v. Georgia, the state of Georgia changed its death penalty law. The new
law called for a bifurcated trial, which had a trial and sentencing phase. The first stage allowed
the jury to find a defendant guilty or not guilty. If found guilty a second stage began, in which
the prosecution could seek the death penalty. Here the defendant could present mitigating facts
and the prosecution could present aggravating facts. The mitigating factors were not spelled out
in the law, but there were 10 aggravating factors. If the prosecution could prove that one
aggravating factor existed, then the jury could give the death penalty. This law was meant to
reduce discretion and therefore to protect the defendant. As a further safeguard, the Georgia
Supreme Court would review all jury determinations of death. The law was applied to Gregg at
his murder trial.
Legal Question: Does the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of murder under Georgia
law violate the 8th and 14th Amendments?
Reasoning: (Judgment of the Court):
Concurring in the judgment (White and Rehnquist):
Dissenting (Brennan):
Dissenting (Marshall):
Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
Relevant Case Facts:
Armed with a semiautomatic weapon, Atkins and Jones abducted a man. They robbed him,
made him withdraw cash from an automated teller machine, and then drove him to an isolated
location and killed him. Jones pleaded guilty in exchange for testimony against Atkins. At trial,
both men claimed the other shot the man and the jury believe that Atkins had done so. He was
convicted and sentenced to death. At his second sentencing hearing, the jury heard testimony
that Atkins had an IQ of 59 and that he had an impaired capacity to understand the criminality of
his conduct or to conform his behavior to the law. They also heard about his 16 prior felony
convictions, and they sentenced him to death.
Legal Question: Are executions of mentally retarded criminals cruel and unusual under the 8th
Amendment?
Reasoning:
Dissenting (Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas):
Dissenting (Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas):
CASE CUT DELETE IF YOU LIKE
Ewing v. California (2003)
Relevant Case Facts:
California passed a three-strikes-and-you’re-out law which imposed long prison sentences for
someone convicted of a third felony. Ewing was out on parole from a 9 year prison term, and
stole three golf clubs values at $399 each. He was indicted for grand theft instead of for a
misdemeanor, found guilty, and sentenced to 25 years to life based on the three strikes law in
California.
Legal Question: Does the 8th Amendment prohibit the state of California from sentencing a
repeat felon to a prison term of 25 years to life under its three strikes law?
Reasoning:
Concurring in Judgment (Scalia):
Concurring in the Judgment (Thomas):
Dissenting (Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg):