Why do you think the Court ruled against Butts but in favor of Walker?
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.
Why did Holmes and Brandeis rule against Schenk but rule for Abrams?
What is the difference between an arrest and a stop? Do you agree they are different?
Why?
Why did the Court reach disparate outcomes in Reynolds and Pierce?
How did Butts and Walker change to whom the actual malice standard applies?
What is the exclusionary rule? How does it protect the rights of the criminally accused?
What did the dissenters argue in Williams do they make a good case that Ferber and
Free Speech Coalition have been overturned?
Explain the belief action dichotomy and how the Court used it to decide Cantwell v.
Connecticut. How does this legal test affect the fortunes of those who seek religious
freedom?
What did Williams v. Florida say about jury size and fairness of the trial process?
What was it about the Court’s decision in Shelton that made Justice Scalia dissent?
How has the Court applied its obscenity law to depictions of acts of violence or cruelty?
Should these fall under the same category of jurisprudence? Why or why not?
What two criteria must be met for a consent search to be valid?
Did Ashcroft v. ACLU [I] settle the issue of internet pornography regulation? Why or
why not?