Supreme Court
Cases and the
Watergate Scandal
Kylie Prymak, Shaneann Fross,
Colleen Lloyd
Mapp v. Ohio - 1961
• If the police find evidence, but they violated the fourth
amendment in order to find it, it is inadmissible in court.
• Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures…but upon probable
cause.
• Found obscene material after getting a “search warrant”
that was later never introduced as evidence in her trial.
They originally entered her house looking for a bombing
suspect and betting equipment.
Mapp
v.
Ohio
Causes
• Warren Court
• Warren wanted to start a
revolution in the criminal
justice system.
• Wanted to nationalize the Bill
of Rights
• He also wanted to protect
people in the areas of legal
council, confessions, and
searches.
• The development for the
exclusion of illegal evidence
began in the Weeks case
(1914), continued in Elkins
(1960), and culminated with
Mapp. (Elkins overturned the
“silver platter doctrine)
Effects
• Places requirement of
excluding illegally obtained
evidence from court at all
levels of the government
• In order for it to be legal, the
police must obtain a search
warrant from the court.
• The warrant should only be
issued if there is probable
cause.
• Launched the court on a
troubled course of determining
how and when to apply the
exclusionary rule
• Protected privacy
Gideon v. Wainwright - 1962
• Clarence Gideon broke into a pool room
• In and out of prison for nonviolent crimes
•
•
•
•
•
Was denied legal counsel
Jury convicted him and he was sentenced to five years
Appealed to Florida Supreme Court – denied
Appealed to Supreme Court
Controversy over the Sixth Amendment
• Sixth Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial… and to have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
• Gideon was unanimously voted for
Gideon v. Wainwright
Causes
Effects
• In Florida, only poor people
accused of capital crimes
• Florida afraid everyone
would want an attorney
• Betts v. Brady
• Justice Owens
determined that the Sixth
Amendment only
protected your right to
counsel, but didn’t require
the State to provide it for
you.
• Warren Court
• Protect the right to counsel
• Confirmed the public’s right to
have the Assistance of Counsel
for his defense.
• Protect the people in court
• Reexamine Betts v. Brady
• Set precedent for right to
counsel
• The Supreme Court ruled
“Lawyers in criminal courts are
necessities, not luxuries.”
• The right to counsel was reassessed for misdemeanors
and juvenile proceedings.
• The promise of Gideon remains
unfulfilled
Escobedo v. Illinois - 1964
• Escobedo and his sister were arrested for the shooting of
his brother-in-law. (Immigrants)
• He didn’t know he could remain silent
• Attorney wasn’t allowed to see Escobedo- for 14 hours
•Denied counsel- said attorney didn’t want to see him
•Violated Sixth Amendment
• Eventually confessed to murder
• Justice Goldberg ruled person had “an absolute right to
remain silent”
•First time ever mentioned
• Moved from the Sixth to Fifth Amendment- appropriate
warnings and waiving of right to remain silent
Escobedo v. Illinois
Causes
• Warren Court (19621965)
• Illinois police said he
wasn’t formally arrested,
so no due process
• violated 14 and 5
• Interrogation en route to
police station (for 14
hours??)
• Couldn’t meet with
counsel until end of
arrestment process
Effects
• Precursor to Miranda v.
Arizona
• American Civil Liberties
Union- got reversal
•Working for protection
of rights
• Started series of trials
concerning the fifth and
the sixth amendment
• Criminal suspects have a
right to counsel during
police interrogations
Miranda v. Arizona - 1965
• A court called upon to consider the constitutionality of a
number of instances in which were deprived of freedoms
or questioned.
•Miranda v. Arizona: Miranda held for two hours for
questioning.
•Vignera v. New York the petitioner made admissions
and signed a statement without being notified of his right
to counsel.
•Westover v. United States the petitioner signed
statements without notification of his right to counsel
•California v. Steward the petitioner was interrogated for
five days without notification of his right to counsel.
•The S.C. declared that a defendant must be warned prior
to questioning that he has the right to remain silent and
proper questioning must take place in order to use
confessions.
Miranda v. Arizona
Cause
Effect
• Mapp v. Ohio, Gideon v.
Wainwright, and
Escobedo v. Illinois gave
the “fundamentals of
fairness” standard. Thank
you Judge Warren.
• Because there was
already groundwork for
“fair questioning and right
to counsel” the Miranda
case fit into the niche of
both and allowed the S.C.
to specify exactly what
individuals deserved.
● The mandatory “Miranda
Rights” came into being.
● The defendant must also
be told about his right to
counsel
● If an individual indicates
that he wishes to remain
silent the questioning
must cease or if he
wants an attorney the
questioning must cease
until an attorney is
present.
Yates v. United States - 1956
• Fourteen Communist Party leaders were convicted
under the Smith Act
• Prohibited willfully and knowingly conspiring to teach
and advocate the overthrow of the government by
force
• Final decision: 6 for Yates, 1 against
• There was a District Court retrial
• Court saw the Act inapplicable to organizational acts
• Difference between “advocacy and teaching of
forcible overthrow as an abstract principle” and
“advocacy and teaching of concrete action for the
forcible overthrow of the Government
Yates v. United States
Cause
•
•
•
Warren Court
Smith Act (1940)
• didn’t overturn the act, but
didn’t apply it
Schneiderman v. United States 1943
• Tried to revoke
Schneiderman’s citizenship
because he was a
communist
• Communist party advocated
a violent overthrow of the
government
• Ruled U.S. didn’t prove
Communist Party malice or
that he denied the
Constitution
• Protect the First Amendment
Effect
•
•
Smith Act (1940)
• Said it didn’t apply to
existing or subsequent
organizational acts
• Concrete v. abstract
teaching about overthrowing
the government
• speech - advocacy of action
Bradenburg v. Ohio - 1969
• Bradenburg, a leader of the
Ku Klux Klan, gave a speech
• Ohio Criminal Syndicalism
Law - illegal to advocate for
terroristic acts to start
industrial or political reform
• Ruled Ohio violated first
amendment
Engel v. Vitale - 1961
● In New York the Board of Regents authorized a short,
voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of the school
day.
○ A parent sued for his child arguing that it violated the
First Amendment.
○ The S.C. concurred that this prayer violated the
“establishment of religion” clause in the First
Amendment.
● The government is not allowed to endorse any
particular belief system, even if many American people
believe in some sort of religion.
Engel v. Vitale
Cause
Effect
● McGowan v. Maryland
(1962): Religious stuff
must be done by
individuals and groups,
not the government.
● West Virginia Board of
Education v. Barnette
(1943): If someone
objects to reciting a
prayer they cannot be
forced to do so and must
not be publicly
embarrassed.
● Still unpopular with a
majority of Americans
● The precedent for cases
dealing with religion
● Affected religion in public
especially whether the
government can fund
religious schools
● Wallace v. Jaffree
(1985), Lee v. Weisman
(1992), and Sante Fe
ISD v. Doe (2000)
Griswold v. Connecticut - 1964
● Griswold was a lady who worked at Planned
Parenthood and gave advice to married couples about
birth control. She was convicted because under
Connecticut law it was a crime to provide counseling to
married people about preventing conception.
● The S.C. ruled that Connecticut, by trying to ban
contraceptives, violated the right to marital privacy.
○ It was decided that marital privacy is a “fundamental
right”
■ The right to privacy isn’t specifically mentioned in
the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, but it is a
firmly rooted tradition. Its protection is mandated
by Amendments: 1, 9, 14.
Griswold v. Connecticut
Cause
Effect
● A belief in the privacy of
marriage.
● Poe v. Ullman
● A desire to curb the
population and allow
women more time between
pregnancies.
● The idea of Due Process
from the 14th Amendment
was still up in the air for
many cases and many
voted for Griswold based
on this clause.
• The First, Third, Fourth
and Ninth Amendments
created the new
constitutional right to
privacy in marital relations
• Legalized the use of birth
control and new
acceptance of
contraceptives
• Other court cases followed
with similar ideas:
Eisenstaedt v. Baird and
Roe v. Wade
The Watergate Scandal
•
•
•
June 17. 1972
• Break in at the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate office complex
(Washington D.C.)
• Wiretap phones and steal secret documents
• G. Godran Liddy (former FBI agent), E. Howard Hunt (retired CIA worker)
• Other burglars: James McCord (handle the bugging) Bernard Baker (photograph
the documents) and Virgilio Gonzalez (pick the locks)
Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP)
• Liddy and McCord worked in the committee = direct link to Nixon
• Federal bank fraud
Coverage from the Washington Post
• Bob Woodward and Carls Burnstein: found even more details on the break-in
and cover up
• connections in the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, and White House
• Biggest source for Woodward: Deep Throat
• Secretly met in underground parking garages and helped Woodward
make the connections about the scandal
• Eventually revealed about 30 years later as FBI #2, Mark Felt
The Watergate Scandal (Cont.)
•
March 25, 1973: the Watergate Committee began the investigation
• White House Chief of Staff: H. R. Haldeman
• April 9, 1973: Washington Post picks up the inside scoop between the bugging and cover-up:
CREEP was providing “slush funds” to the burglars. (Hush money, keep them quiet!)
• On April 24, Nixon found out White House counsel John Dean testified to the White House
ordering the break-in
• The crack also sucked in John Ehrlichman (also White House counsel and assistant in
Foreign Domestic Affairs) and H.R. Haldeman (White House Chief of Staff)
• Nixon “tearfully” had them resigned, further covering his involvement in the scandal
• On May 17, the Watergate Committee hearings officially began
• Nixon was getting cornered, but he still refused to testify or provide White House
documents, calling it “Executive privilege”
• Alexander Butterfield testified about a new issue: the Nixon tapes
• Nixon had supposedly installed recording devices in the oval office for later use
• In the summer, VP Spiro Agnew resigned to avoid criminal proceedings (accepted bribes totaling
more than $100,000)
• Saturday Night Massacre: firing of Special Prosecutor Cox and Justice Department resignations
• Occurred from the Stennis Compromise - Nixon wanted Senator Stennis to review and
summarize the tapes for the prosecutor (Archibald Cox)
• Smoking Gun Tape: Nixon was caught in the tape attempting to obstruct justice and approving
the break-in
• Nixon formally resigned on August 8, 1974
Watergate
Causes
•
•
•
•
•
At the time people assumed the
President could wiretap any
conversation
• “Our Man Flint”
Nixon believed winning reelection was crucial
Nixon was paranoid
(Trying to cover it up made it
worse)
Checkers Speech - accused of
accepting bribes while running as
Eisenhower’s vice president
• publicly denied it on TV
Effects
•
•
•
•
Loss of respect for the
Presidency and the U.S.
Government
The Republican Party had issues
bouncing back
Even bigger issue to return to
normal after the Tehran
Hostages
New laws established to “rein in
Presidential power”
• Law of Unintended
Consequences
• New regulatory agencies -the OSHA and NHTSA
Works Cited
• http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitutionactivities/sixth-amendment/right-counsel/facts-case-summary-gideon.aspx
• http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_615
• http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759
• http://www.northeastern.edu/news/2013/03/gideonwainwright/
• http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitutionactivities/first-amendment/freedom-religion/facts-case-summary.aspx
• http://www2.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/compulegal/engel_v__vitale_precedents
.htm
• https://shprs.clas.asu.edu/sites/default/files/Schneiderman_v_US.pdf
• http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_6
• http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorshipfirstamendmentissues/co
urtcases
• http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_492
• http://watergate.info/
• http://watergate.info/1952/09/23/nixon-checkers-speech.html