A) Fifth; Fifth
B) Sixth; Sixth
C) Fifth, Sixth
D) Sixth; Seventh
F) B) and D)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
The Court in Miranda v. Arizona attempte...View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
A) because of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct
B) because of racially discriminatory jury selection
C) because the defendant was younger than 21
D) because the defendant was older than 15 but younger than 18
F) A) and C)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
Powell v. Alabama (1932) and Palko v. Connecticut (1937) both involve disputes over the meaning and application of the U.S. Constitution, specifically in relation to the rights of criminal defendants. In both cases, the Supreme Court was asked to interpret the Constitution in the context of criminal trials and the rights of the accused.
One commonality between the two cases is that they both dealt with issues related to the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to counsel in criminal cases. In Powell v. Alabama, the Court ruled that the defendants had been denied their right to counsel, as they were not given adequate representation during their trial for capital offenses. Similarly, in Palko v. Connecticut, the Court considered the issue of whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause incorporates the right to counsel from the Sixth Amendment and applies it to the states.
However, there are also significant differences between the two cases. In Powell v. Alabama, the Court's decision focused on the specific circumstances of the case, where the defendants were not provided with legal representation at a critical stage of the trial. In contrast, Palko v. Connecticut dealt with the broader issue of whether certain rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are fundamental to the American scheme of justice and therefore applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Additionally, Palko v. Connecticut is notable for introducing the concept of "selective incorporation," where the Court held that not all rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are fundamental to the American scheme of justice and therefore applicable to the states. This stands in contrast to the approach taken in Powell v. Alabama, where the Court focused on the specific circumstances of the case and the denial of the right to counsel.
In summary, while both Powell v. Alabama and Palko v. Connecticut involve disputes over the meaning of the U.S. Constitution in relation to criminal defendants' rights, they differ in their specific legal issues and the broader constitutional principles at stake.
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
In U.S. v. Leon, the "objectively reason...View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
In his dissent in United States v. Leon ...View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
B) False
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) a wiretapped telephone call
B) a cell phone
C) possession of marijuana
D) assault of a police officer
F) None of the above
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
In Kyllo v. United States, the "new rule...View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
a. The crucial threshold question common...View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
A) White; Rehnquist
B) Warren; Stewart
C) Blackmun; Burger
D) Marshall; Brennan
F) A) and C)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
Mapp v. Ohio, decided by the United Stat...View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
B) False
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
The majority justifies its decision in M...View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
In Katz v. United States (1967), the iss...View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
In Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001), the bright-line rule that the majority adopts is that police officers have the authority to arrest individuals for any offense, no matter how minor, without a warrant. Justice O'Connor finds this rule objectionable because it allows for the potential abuse of power by law enforcement officers. She argues that this broad authority to arrest individuals for minor offenses without a warrant goes against the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Justice O'Connor believes that such a rule undermines the balance between individual rights and law enforcement authority, and she is concerned that it could lead to unnecessary and unjustified arrests. She emphasizes the importance of judicial oversight and the need for a more nuanced approach to balancing individual rights and law enforcement discretion.
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
Justice Thomas seems to be standing on m...View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
In Terry v. Ohio (1968), the Supreme Court was presented with a Fourth Amendment dilemma in at least two respects. First, the case raised the question of whether the stop and frisk of an individual by a police officer constituted a "search and seizure" under the Fourth Amendment. The Court had to consider whether the officer's actions in stopping and frisking Terry were a violation of Terry's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Second, the Court had to grapple with the issue of whether the officer had the necessary reasonable suspicion to justify the stop and frisk. The Court had to determine whether the officer's observations and suspicions about Terry's behavior were sufficient to meet the standard of reasonable suspicion required for a stop and frisk under the Fourth Amendment.
Ultimately, the Court's decision in Terry v. Ohio established the legal framework for stop and frisk encounters, outlining the conditions under which such encounters are permissible under the Fourth Amendment. The case remains a significant precedent in the realm of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
In the case of Kyllo v. United States, t...View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
In Chimel v. California (1969), Justice ...View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
Showing 1 - 20 of 45
Related Exams