Title: 18-01pp.625
1. Which of the following statements best describes the Supreme Court’s decision in Powell v.
Alabama (the “Scottsboro boys” case)?
2. Gideon v. Wainwright overruled the Supreme Court’s decision in what previous case?
3. How has the Court ruled on the right to state-funded counsel for indigent defendants during
the appeals process?
4. Which amendment prohibits excessive bail?
5. Which of the following statements about jury selection is not true?
6. Which of the following circumstances did the Supreme Court say violated the confrontation
clause of the Sixth Amendment?
7. Which one of the following statements is not true?
8. Which two justices argued that the death penalty is unconstitutional in all circumstances in
9. Which amendment contains the double jeopardy clause?
10. Which one of the following statements is true?
11. In what way did the Court’s ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright extend the right to counsel?
12. According to the “loss of liberty rule” established in Argersinger v. Hamlin, what indigent
defendants are eligible for counsel at the government’s expense?
13. 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?
14. 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?
15. Why did the Court rule that sex offender registries do not violate the due process clause?
16. What are the three main provisions of the double jeopardy clause? How has the Court
interpreted “the “same offense”?
17. Voir dire is a critical component of a 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?
18. The right to be represented at a criminal trial by a competent attorney is widely viewed as
fundamental in a modern democracy. However, the Supreme Court has recognized this right only
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 the 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 wishes to represent themselves?
19. 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 a murder. A defendant may be sentenced to death
if any two of the following three factors are present. The jury 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 Martinez’s sentencing, the judge, William “Wild Bill” Houston, instructed the jurors 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 are genetically prone to
violent and anti-social behavior and are 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 the findings
of a study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University. The study showed that, in Texas
murder trials, Hispanic defendants were 40 percent more likely than African American
defendants, and 75 percent more likely than white defendants to get the death penalty.
defendants. In murder cases tried before Judge Houston, 90 percent of Hispanic received the
death penalty, but only 40 percent of African American defendants and 25 percent of white
defendants were sentenced to death.
Based on this information, if you were a Supreme Court justice, would you overturn Martinez’s
sentence? How has the Supreme Court interpreted the Eighth Amendment’s protection against
cruel and unusual punishment in regard to the death penalty? What is the primary limitation 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
Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
20. 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
against her dismissed. Martin, who was nineteen 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 he told Martin she would have to pay $200, or complete forty hours of public
service at $5 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?