Chapter 12 – Attorneys, Trials, and Punishment
Type: E
1. In what way did the Court’s ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright extend the right to counsel?
2. Why did the framers include so many guarantees to ensure the government would not abuse
defendants during prosecution?
3. Why is it so important that the accused have the right to counsel during trial?
4. Even though Powell v. Alabama did not guarantee the right to counsel in all cases, how did it
expand the right to have counsel present?
5. How did Zerbst expand the right to counsel? Was this case a major expansion of the right?
Why or why not?
6. What was justice Black’s argument when he dissented from the Court’s ruling in Betts?
7. Compare the development of the exclusionary rule with the development of the right to
counsel.
8. Why did Justice Harlan concur in Gideon? Do you find his argument about Betts convincing?
Why or why not?
9. According to the “loss of liberty rule” established in Argesinger v. Hamlin, what indigent
defendants are eligible for counsel at the government’s expense?
10. What is the Strickland test for determining whether counsel has been defective?
11. According to Salerno what competing interests are at stake when a judge determines whether
to deny bail? Why did Marshall disagree with Rehnquist’s decision?
Type: E
12. What is Voir Dire and why is it important to the jury process?
13. What was unusual about the Burger Court’s decision in Batson v. Kentucky in light of the
14. How did J.E.B. extend the Court’s analysis is Batson?
15. What did Williams v. Florida say about jury size and fairness of the trial process?
16. What was it about the Court’s decision in Shelton that made Justice Scalia dissent?
17. How did Rehnquist’s decision in Ross limit the right to counsel on appeal?
18. Why did the Court overturn the Michigan decision that denied counsel on appeal for
indigents who had pled guilty at trial?
19. How did Congress respond to the Court’s decision in Barker v. Wingo? Why did it feel it had
to do so?
Type: E
20. According to Sheppard v. Maxwell what must a state do to guarantee an impartial trial?
21. How did the Court balance freedom of press and the right to a fair trial in Richmond
Newspapers?
22. How has the Court interpreted the confrontation clause? Which interpretation is more
intuitive? Why?
23. According to Sell, under what conditions may the government force a defendant to take
antipsychotic drugs in order to be cognizant to sit for trial?
24. When, if ever may prosecutors use someone’s silence to imply guilt? Is this fair? Why or
why not?
25. How did the Court rule in Miller v. Alabama as to whether minors convicted of murder
should face life sentences without parole? How does this decision square with the Court’s other
cruel and unusual sentencing decisions?
26. What is the purpose of the United States Sentencing Commission?
27. Why did the Supreme Court strike down Georgia’s death penalty in Furman v. Georgia but
uphold it in Gregg v. Georgia only three years later?
28. Why did the Court rule that the defendant’s sentence in Solem v. Helm violated the Cruel and
Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment? What factors does this case set out for
determining if a sentence is cruel and unusual?
29. How did the Effective Death Penalty Act change prisoners’ ability to appeal their
convictions?
30. What rationale used for determining that the death penalty should not be applied to those
who are underage or mentally retarded?
31. What did Kennedy say about the role of public opinion and the death penalty? How did
Scalia respond to this argument? Which argument do you find more persuasive? Why?
Type: E
32. Why did the Court rule that sex offender registries do not violate the Due Process Clause? *a.
33. What are the three main provisions of the Double Jeopardy clause? How has the Court
interpreted the “same offense?” Is this adequate to protect the accused from being tried a second
time? Why or why not?
Type: E
34. How did the Clinton administration along with the Court make it more difficult to challenge
the death penalty?
Type: E
35. Why did the Court rule that civil commitment for pedophiles is not double jeopardy?
36. Which statement best describes the Supreme Court’s decision in Powell v. Alabama (The
Scottsboro Boys Case)?
37. Gideon v. Wainwright overruled the Supreme Court’s decision in what previous case?
38. How has the Court ruled on the right to state-funded counsel for indigent defendants during
the appeals process?
39. What Amendment prohibits excessive bail?
40. Which of the following statements about jury selection is not true?
41. According to the Court in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, what two Amendments in
conjunction with each other guarantee the right of the public to attend trials?
42. Which of the following circumstances did the Supreme Court say violated the Confrontation
Clause of the Sixth Amendment?
43. Which of the following statements is not true?
44. What two justices argued that the death penalty is unconstitutional in all circumstances in
their decisions in both Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia?
45. Which of the following is a finding of the Baldus study that examined discrepancy in death
penalty cases for the McCleskey v. Kemp case?
46. Which statement best describes U.S. public opinion on the issue of the death penalty?
47. What Amendment contains the Double Jeopardy Clause?
48. Which of the following statements is true?
49. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act:
50. In Salerno the Court:
51. There are several fundamental rights afforded a defendant in a criminal trial, such as the right
to a speedy trial, and the right to confront witnesses. Discuss the standards the Court has set out
in U.S. v. Marion and Barker v. Wingo regarding the right to a speedy trial. Has the Court been
willing to set specific standards for courts to use when deciding if the right to a speedy trial has
been violated?
What has the Court said about the right to confront witnesses? Is this right absolute? If not, under
what circumstances can it be forfeited? Do the rights of witnesses matter? Address those cases
that we have discussed regarding this right. Do you agree with the majority opinion in Coy v.
52. The voir dire is a critical component of the criminal trial. It is at this stage that prosecutors
and defense attorneys may exclude potential jurors for cause or through the use of peremptory
challenges. Explain the differences between these two methods of removal and how attorneys
use them. Are there limitations on the use of peremptory challenges by either the prosecution or
the defense? If so what are they? Has the Court provided working rules to help defendants prove
that peremptory challenges have been used in a discriminatory manner? If so, what are those
rules?
53. The right to be represented at a criminal trial by a competent attorney is viewed by many as
fundamental in a modern democracy. However, the Supreme Court has recognized this right
relatively recently, making it binding on the states. How has the right to counsel evolved over
time? Discuss the Supreme Court cases that have extended to right to counsel to indigents. At
what stages are the criminally accused entitled to counsel? Do you agree with the Court’s
reasoning regarding the stages at which counsel should be provided? In your opinion, is the right
to counsel essential to a fair trial? Should the right to counsel be extended beyond criminal trials
to include civil trials as well? Does the right to represent oneself outweigh the need for counsel?
Should counsel be provided to individuals over their expressed wish to represent themselves?
54. Randall Martinez, a Hispanic man, was convicted in a Texas court for the murder of a
security guard during a bank robbery. Texas allows for the death penalty to be given when
certain aggravating circumstances accompany the murder. A defendant may be sentenced to
death if any two factors are present. Juries must consider 1. Whether the murder was committed
in the course of a robbery; 2. Whether the murder was shamelessly gross and disgusting, and; 3.
Whether the murder victim was a minor.
Prior to sentencing, the judge, William “Wild Bill” Houston, instructed the jury that all murders
are inherently gross and disgusting and that they must include that as one of the aggravating
circumstances of this crime. He also said that Hispanics were genetically prone to violent and
anti-social behavior and were not fit for society. The jury returned with a death sentence for
Martinez, having found that the murder was gross and disgusting, and that it was committed in
the course of a robbery.
The intermediate court of appeals and the Texas Supreme Court upheld Martinez’s conviction
and the death sentence. In his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Martinez relied on a study
conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University which showed that, in Texas, Hispanics
were 40% more likely to get the death penalty than black defendants, and 75% more likely to get
the death penalty than white defendants in murder trials. In murder cases tried before Judge
Houston, 90% of Hispanic defendants received the death penalty while only 40% of black
defendants and 25% of white defendants received the death penalty.
Based on this information, if you were a Justice of the Supreme Court, would you overturn his
sentence? How has the Supreme Court interpreted the 8th Amendment’s protection against cruel
and unusual punishment in regard to the death penalty? What is the primary limitation that the
Court has recognized on the application of the death penalty and does it apply to the Martinez
case? Explain your reasoning and justify your opinion with reference to cases involving the 8th
Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
55. Before Julie Martin was sent to jail in 1997 for phoning in a false police report, no lawyer
argued on her behalf, tried to cut a deal with the state’s attorney, or fought to have the charges
dismissed. Martin, who was 19 years old and making minimum wage at the local gas station,
represented herself. She did so, not by choice, but by the order of Judge Hangem High in Macon
County Alabama. Martin asked for a public defender and High appointed one. But High told
Martin she would have to pay $200, or complete 40 hours of public service at five dollars per
hour to cover the amount. When she did not pay, and told the judge she refused to work, the
public defender was taken away and Martin was told to argue the case herself. Not knowing
what to do, she took the deal offered by the state’s attorney: Plead guilty and serve four days in
jail. She ended up serving two days. The Alabama Supreme Court upheld the trial court ruling.
In so doing it cited precedent from counties that charge inmates for residing in their jails, and
argued that the policy will save the state several million dollars per year. The Supreme Court
granted certiorari.
Assume that you are the Supreme Court justice assigned to write the majority opinion in this case
(it can be for or against the state of Alabama). In light of existing precedent, how would you
decide?
Powell v. Alabama (1932)
Relevant Case Facts:
Defendants were on a freight train with seven white men and two white women. During the trip,
the two groups of men got a fight and the white men were thrown off of the train. The two
women claimed that he black men had also raped them. Before the train reached Scottsboro, the
defendants were taken off the train by the sheriff and his posse, and were taken to Scottsboro, the
county seat. The defendants were frightened, illiterate, and away from home. They also had
nobody to help them. As per Alabama law, the judge was supposed to appoint counsel to assist
the men because there were charged with a capital crime. Instead, he assigned all of the town’s
counsel to help, and no single attorney took responsibility for the defense. When an attorney did
appear on their behalf the nine trials took place quickly with 8 of the 9 receiving guilty verdicts
and the death sentence
Legal Question: Do indigents have the right to counsel in a capital case?
Reasoning:
Dissents (Butler):