Rights of the Accused Court Cases

Rights of the Accused Court Cases 

 

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement. In the United States court system, the “exclusionary rule” means prosecutors cannot use evidence at a trial that was obtained by means that violated the Fourth Amendment. This could include evidence seized without a warrant or heard through an illegal wiretap.

Dollree Mapp lived in Cleveland in the 1950s, where she was involved in illegal gambling operations. Police received a tip that a suspect in a different crime might be at Mapp’s home. After Mapp refused to let them enter, they broke in without a warrant. During their search, they discovered betting slips and illicit pornographic material. Mapp was charged, but law enforcement never presented a valid search warrant during the search or at trial. Mapp was still convicted because earlier Supreme Court cases had determined the exclusionary rule did not apply to state and local police. Mapp sued, arguing that law enforcement had violated her Fourth Amendment rights.

In 1961, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mapp in a 6-3 decision      determining that the exclusionary rule should be incorporated, or applied, to the states. Justice Tom Clark wrote the opinion, which stated, “There is no war between the Constitution and common sense. Presently, a federal prosecutor may make no use of evidence illegally seized, but a State’s attorney across the street may, although he supposedly is operating under the enforceable prohibitions of the same Amendment. Thus, the State, by admitting evidence unlawfully seized, serves to encourage disobedience to the Federal Constitution which it is bound to uphold.”

In his dissenting opinion, Justice John Marshall Harlan argued states should have wide discretion in determining their own criminal justice laws. He wrote, “The preservation of a proper balance between state and federal responsibility in the administration of criminal justice demands patience on the part of those who might like to see things move faster among the States in this respect. Problems of criminal law enforcement vary widely from State to State. One State…may conclude that the need for embracing the [exclusionary rule] is pressing because other remedies are unavailable or inadequate to secure compliance with the substantive Constitutional principle involved. Another…may choose to [allow] all evidence relevant to guilt to be brought into a criminal trial, and dealing with Constitutional infractions by other means.”

Along with other cases of this time, like Miranda and Gideon, Mapp expanded the rights of the accused. Some Americans were frustrated with these Supreme Court decisions, believing they went too far in protecting criminals. On the other hand, supporters argued that the innocent can be accused of a crime, and safeguarding the rights of all Americans, even possible criminals, is essential in a free society.

 

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 

Police arrested Ernesto Miranda in 1963 for kidnapping and rape. After going through an interrogation process, Miranda signed a confession statement admitting to committing the crimes. No lawyer was present, and the police did not inform him that he had a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Miranda later motioned to redact his confession as evidence because he was not informed by the police of his rights.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda. The majority determined that law enforcement must inform suspects of their rights upon arrest. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion, stating, “The Fifth Amendment privilege is so fundamental to our system of constitutional rule and the expedient of giving an adequate warning as to the availability of the privilege so simple, we will not pause to inquire in individual cases whether the defendant was aware of his rights without a warning being given…whatever the background of the person interrogated, a warning at the time of the interrogation is indispensable to overcome its pressures and to insure that the individual knows he is free to exercise the privilege at that point in time.”

The dissenting justices feared that the majority ruling created a new right that was not protected in the Constitution. They also warned the decision would make law enforcement more difficult. Justice Byron White wrote, “I have no desire whatsoever to share the responsibility for any such impact on the present criminal process. In some unknown number of cases, the Court’s rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him. As a consequence, there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity.”

The Court’s decision has resulted in police reading suspects their “Miranda Rights” immediately upon arrest, such as the right to remain silent, which is frequently depicted in TV shows and movies.

 

 

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 

In 1961, someone broke into a pool hall in Panama City, Florida, smashed a cigarette machine, and stole money. The police arrested Clarence Earl Gideon after a witness identified him as a suspect. Gideon requested that the trial court provide him with a public defender because he was too poor to hire one. The court denied his request, asserting that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a lawyer only applied to federal cases. After he was convicted, Gideon handwrote a petition from prison for the Supreme Court to hear his case.

In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gideon. Its ruling incorporated, or applied to the state and local level, the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a lawyer. Writing for the majority, Justice Hugo Black stated, “Lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries. The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours. From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.” The Court’s ruling established that in order for justice to be carried out, the accused must have access to legal counsel, regardless of social status.