Landmark Cases Decided By the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1960s and 1970s

Introduction

There are so many Landmark cases that U.S. Supreme Court implemented over the 1960s and 1970s. Let's now discuss them in details (McCloskey & Levinson, 2016).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Holding: It claims that unlawfully obtained evidence cannot be used in any a criminal trial. Let's take, for example, Dollree Mapp. While searching for his house, police found obscene materials and end up arresting her (Mason & Stephenson Jr, 2017). Since the police officers did not have a search warrant, Dollree Mapp claimed that the evidence is a result of illegal search and seizure that is lawfully unaccepted. Responsively, the Supreme Court supported her claim that the evidence is not enough reason for her sentencing. As per the fourth amendment, all evidence gathered from illegal search and seizure cannot be used to prove a case in court irrespective. In any case, the suspect must be aware that he is been interrogated for the purpose of gaining evidence for the case filed against him or her.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Holding: Destitute perpetrators must be given attorney or lawyers without charge. In order to verify this aspect, Gideon was accused to have committed a felony. Being poor, he appealed to the court to provide him attorney without any charge (Mason & Stephenson Jr, 2017). However, the judge, in that case, declined the request. The U.S Supreme Court reined for the persecuted, claiming that the sixth amendment claim that those who cannot afford an attorney are to provide and charged nothing.

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

Holding: For one to prove libel, the public administrators must reveal what was claimed against them and tell that it was a result of true malice. For example, the Montgomery, Alabama police commissioner sued the New York Times to have printed the advertisement containing misinterpreted information. Precisely, Supreme Court universally ruled against Montgomery, Alabama police commissioner claiming that newspaper has a right to publish all kind of statements as per the First Amendment (Mundy, 2011).

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Holding: Police must tell accused of their rights before interrogating them. For this case, the situation of Ernesto Miranda is the best example. He was accused of rape as well kidnapping a child. The police interrogated him without letting him know what was going on. Yes, he confessed that he did the action. Nevertheless, in his trial, the prosecutor claimed that he was deprived his right of been aware of what going on before asked these questions (McCloskey & Levinson, 2016). The Supreme Court accepted, claiming that it is the right of accused to have information from police before questioning. All citizens are accorded this right as per the Fifth Amendment. Even if what was said by the suspect is clear proof yet he/she was interrogated without notice, then that information is termed unreliable. The person cannot be detained irrespective of the circumstances.

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Holding: Stop as well as frisks does not infringe the Constitution under given circumstances. As for the case of Terry, acting untrustworthily in front of a given store, a police makes a conclusion that she might be planning to rob the store. However, the police stopped and frisked the suspects. They found dangerous weapon hidden on Terry. The Supreme Court claims that the search was sensible (McCloskey & Levinson, 2016). In contradiction to Mapp v. Ohio (1961) scenario that holds unlawfully obtained evidence cannot be used in any a criminal trial, the fourth amendment claim stop, and frisk do not violate the constitution laws since concerned with the safety of the citizens.

Goss v. Lopez (1975)

Holding: All Students within the U.S are eligible for particular due course rights. To outline this vividly, the case of nine students from Ohio public school who were suspended following troublesome behavior is taken as an example. These students were suspended without the administration following the right channel (Mason & Stephenson Jr, 2017). Nonetheless, the Supreme Court reigned against these suspensions, claiming that all students are entitled to education unless otherwise stated. Before rumination, the school authority must follow all the due processes as per the Fourteenth Amendment (Mundy, 2011). Irrespective where it is high school or junior school, all principal is ought to hold a hearing for concerned students before making a decision concerning their cases. Also, it is advisable to do this in presence of their guardians or parents.

Writ of Habeas Corpus

A writ of habeas corpus is an order from a court of law to a prison custodian or an agency holding a person in custody to deliver the detainee to the court in order to determine whether the person was lawfully or unlawfully detained. The court determines if the person is to be released from custody or not (Farbey et al., 2011).

In earlier times, the imprisoned had no right to protest against imprisonment. Following these, the United States wanted to eliminate such as situation. Subsequently, their constitution issued writs of habeas corpus. It was meant to help prisoners fight their rights against harsh or even falsehood imprisoning. As a result, most States recognize writs of habeas corpus an important addition to federal government constitution (Farbey et al., 2011). Before seeking relief from federal courts, it is always advisable for prisoners to exhaust accessible relief from state courts.

Even though Habeas Corpus give a chance prisoners to challenge their ongoing confinement, there exist some few limitations (Farbey et al., 2011). For example, it cannot be used to contest against a finding of guilt. Besides, the prisoners are to use civil rights complaint besides filing a case for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Common Reasons Prisoners File Habeas Corpus Writs

Most of the times, the prisoners file Habeas Corpus Writs challenging the basis of their imprisonment as well as imprisonment duration. Besides, they can challenge certain conditions of confinement which might result in certain relief (Halliday, 2010).

Also, where there are disputed facts, the confined individual might file against his/her prosecutions where during the hearing, they present evidence to proclaim against such imprisonment. On the other side, the detained might challenge against miscalculated credits awarded after an offense. If the court approves this, an individual might award the following; release from the custody, declaration of rights, issue or order stumbling illegal conditions of imprisonment or even reduce in a number of days in a prison sentence (Halliday, 2010).

Also, you can file a case for Writ of Habeas Corpus when the detained feels imprisoned without a clear proof of guiltiness (Farbey et al., 2011). Lastly, the imprisoned might feel that the conditions be subjected to is under legal least standards for humanitarian treatment.

References

Farbey, J., Sharpe, R. J., & Atrill, S. (2011). The law of habeas corpus. Oxford University Press.

Halliday, P. D. (2010). Habeas corpus: from England to empire. Harvard University Press.

Mason, A. T., & Stephenson Jr, D. G. (2017). American constitutional law: introductory essays and selected cases. Routledge.

McCloskey, R. G., & Levinson, S. (2016). The American supreme court. University of Chicago Press.

Mundy, H. (2011). Rid of Habeas Corpus-How Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Has Endangered Access to the Writ of Habeas Corpus and What the Supreme Court Can Do in Maples and Martinez to Restore It. Creighton L. Rev., 45, 185.