Miranda v. Arizona - Constitutional Rights Foundation

advertisement
Landmarks
Historic
U.S . Supreme Court
Decisions
Teacher’s Guide
Landmarks:
Historic U.S . Supreme Court Decisions
Teacher’s Guide
Developed by
Bill Hayes and Marshall Croddy
Writers
Bill Hayes, Keri Doggett, and Kia Hudson
Editor
Bill Hayes
Production & Design
Andrew Costly
CRF Board Reviewer
Peggy Saferstein
Todd Clark, Executive Director
Marshall Croddy, Director of Programs
Constitutional Rights Foundation
601 South Kingsley Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90005
(213) 487-5590 • [email protected] • www.crf-usa.org
Standards reprinted with permission:
National Standards copyright 2000 McREL, Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning, 2550 S. Parker Road,
Suite 500, Aurora, CO 80014, Telephone 303.337.0990.
California Standards copyrighted by the California Department of Education, P.O. Box 271, Sacramento, CA 95812.
Cover photograph: Jonathan Larsen/iStockphoto.com
ISBN: 978-1-886253-45-2
Copyright 2007 Constitutional Rights Foundation. All rights reserved.
Landmarks:
Historic U.S . Supreme Court Decisions
Teacher’s Guide
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Law-Related Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Classroom Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Handling Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Directed Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Small-Group Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Brainstorming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Simulations and Role-Playing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Resource Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
1: Inside the Marble Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
2: Marbury v. Madison (1803) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
3: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
4: Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
5: Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
6: Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
7: Schenck v. U.S. (1919) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
8: Palko v. Connecticut (1937) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
9: Brown v. Board of Education (1954) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
10: Mapp v. Ohio (1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
11: Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
12: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
13: U.S. v. Nixon (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
14: Regents of U.C. v. Bakke (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
15: Texas v. Johnson (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
16: Bush v. Gore (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
Introduction
The U.S. Supreme Court heads the judiciary, one of the three branches of the national government. As
the highest court in the land, it is the final arbiter on the meaning of federal laws and the U.S.
Constitution. In exercising this great power, the Supreme Court has decided numerous landmark cases,
interpreting the law and deeply affecting American society. Because of its effect on our nation, the
Supreme Court and its landmark cases are often studied in U.S. history as well as U.S. government
courses. This teacher’s guide and its companion student book provide a way for teachers to cover these
cases using the methodology of law-related education.
Landmarks consists of this teacher’s guide and a student text. The curriculum provides students exciting
and provocative lessons related to the U.S. history and U.S. government courses of study. Each lesson
has a reading, discussion questions, and an exciting interactive activity to bring the material to life and
foster critical thinking in students. In addition, we have added a web site with links to additional readings and information about each case. The web site can also be used by students as a starting point for
doing the research activities suggested in the book.
Section I of this introduction provides the rationale behind law-related education. Section II details the
contents of the book. Section III provides pointers for implementing some of the teaching strategies in
this teacher’s guide.
I. Law-Related Education
A nation that draws its authority from the will of the people must make certain its people can identify and
articulate their will. If democracy is to work, voters must comprehend sophisticated issues, make informed
decisions, and accept the complex responsibility of social and political participation. These are learned
behaviors. Only an educated electorate makes wise decisions. Democracy thrives on education.
American educators have expended much skill and imagination experimenting with effective education for
citizenship. One of the most promising avenues is law-related education (LRE), a special combination of
subject matter and instructional methodology. Information about law and legal institutions is essential for
citizens. LRE uses the legal system as a model to demystify other democratic institutions. Its instructional
methodology stimulates involvement by modeling participatory behavior. Formal evaluations conclude that
LRE programs, when properly implemented, statistically reduce delinquency. Thousands of teachers who
have used LRE report increases in student motivation, learning, and enthusiasm.
Civic participation is basic to education. The three R’s are not sufficient preparation for a democratic people. We must find a place in our curriculum to teach participation skills. Landmarks meets this challenge.
Landmarks consists of infusion materials. Most U.S. history and U.S. government courses study landmark Supreme Court decisions. Each lesson provides U.S. history and civics standards addressed by the
lesson. Thus Landmarks can easily fit into these courses.
This approach has several advantages. Districts, schools, and individuals can utilize LRE without developing an entirely separate course. Educators can easily tailor this program to the needs of individual
classes. Most important, when taught LRE skills and attitudes in a traditional context rather than as an
elective extra, students can more easily integrate what they learn with the rest of their schooling.
Landmarks: Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, Teacher’s Guide
4
The field of law-related education has a vast and diverse content, skill, and attitude base. The content of
LRE can be divided into six major areas:
• The component parts of legal systems.
• The sources of law and authority.
• The functions or purposes of law.
• Major legal processes.
• Major legal roles.
• The basic principles supporting legal systems.
LRE provides students with consistent practice in the skills needed to:
• Think critically. Students should learn to define problems and questions, gather relevant data, identify and weigh alternative solutions, and implement decisions.
• Manage conflicts. Students should learn to identify and implement compromise positions, deal
with controversy, and negotiate solutions.
• Participate. Students should learn to work effectively in groups, form coalitions, persuade, bargain,
and persevere.
LRE should help develop the following attitudes:
• A commitment to the peaceful resolution of conflict.
• A respect for rights of others.
• Self-respect.
• Appreciation of individuality, community, and diversity.
• A mature and balanced attitude toward authority.
II. Overview
Landmarks is designed for infusion in high school social studies classes. The illustrated student text contains vocabulary definitions and pronunciations, readings, discussion questions, and instructions for
some activities. The text is written clearly and simply. The reading level of the student text is at the high
school level due to the vocabulary. The teacher’s edition contains standards addressed, instructions for
lessons, handouts, and basic answers to the questions in the student text.
The 16 lessons are described below:
1: Inside the Marble Temple introduces how the Supreme Court and judiciary function. In the activity, students role play justices of the Supreme Court evaluating petitions for certiorari and they decide
whether Supreme Court is entitled to hear the case and, if so, whether the Supreme Court should hear
the case.
2: Marbury v. Madison (1803) explains how Chief Justice John Marshall justified judicial review, a vital
power of the Supreme Court. In the activity, students examine hypothetical cases and determine
whether each case can be heard in federal court and, if so, whether the Supreme Court would have original or appellate jurisdiction in the case.
3: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) explores the court challenge to the second Bank of the United States
and how Marshall’s court settled on an expansive view of national power. In the activity, students role
play constitutional scholars determining whether Congress has the power under Article I, Section 8, to
establish or regulate proposed programs.
5
Landmarks: Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, Teacher’s Guide
4: Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) looks at the first important case involving the commerce clause and how
the interpretation of this clause has changed numerous times since. In the activity, students role play
members of the Marshall court and decide subsequent commerce clause cases based on the court’s reasoning in Gibbons.
5: Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) reviews this notorious case that heightened sectional tensions before
the Civil War. In the activity,
6: Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) examines the case that developed the “separate but equal” doctrine and
legally justified segregation. In the activity, students role members of the chambers of Justice Harlan,
the lone dissenter in the case, and write his dissent.
7: Schenck v. U.S. (1919) looks at the issue of free speech in wartime and the development of the “clear
and present danger” doctrine. In the activity, students debate three additional free speech cases arising
from World War I.
8: Palko v. Connecticut (1937) explains how the court interpreted the 14th Amendment to incorporate
rights from the Bill of Rights and thus extend them to the states. In the activity, students role play a
committee from the United Nations selecting the most fundament rights from a given list.
9: Brown v. Board of Education (1954) explores the famous case that ended legal segregation in the
United States. In the activity, students examine a controversial 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision in
which both the opinion of the court and the dissent invoked the Brown decision. Students role play
editorial writers and write editorials on the meaning of the Brown decision and on which side got the
meaning of Brown correct in the 2007 decision.
10: Mapp v. Ohio (1961) examines the case mandating that illegally obtained evidence be excluded
from criminal trials. In the activity, students role play Supreme Court justices and decide actual
Supreme Court cases involving whether an exception should be carved into the exclusionary rule.
11: Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) tells how the court decided that the Sixth Amendment required the
government to provide indigent felony defendants with attorneys. In the activity, students role play
members of their state’s Senate Judiciary Committee and consider whether to support providing lawyers
to indigent defendants in certain civil cases.
12: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) explains the origins of the “You Have the Right to Remain Silent . . . .”
warning. In the activity, students role play attorneys and members of the U.S. Supreme Court and argue
and decide cases related to Miranda.
13: U.S. v. Nixon (1974) looks at the case that led to a president’s resignation. In the activity, students
role play legal advisors to a president who would like to invoke executive privilege, and students evaluate whether the Supreme Court would uphold executive privilege in these circumstances.
14: Regents of U.C. v. Bakke (1978) examines a divided court grappling with the constitutionality of
affirmative action. In the activity, students role play members of a state’s public university system and
evaluate whether to change the current affirmative action program.
15: Texas v. Johnson (1989) explores the constitutionality of banning flag burning. In the activity, students role play aides to a U.S. senator on the Judiciary Committee. The committee is considering a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning flag burning, and the aides must make a recommendation on whether the senator should support or oppose the proposed amendment.
16: Bush v. Gore (2000) looks at the case that decided the 2000 election. In the activity, students role
play Supreme Court justices and apply Bush v. Gore to hypothetical election cases.
Landmarks: Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, Teacher’s Guide
6
Lesson 12
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Overview
This lesson explains Miranda v. Arizona, the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that requires police to issue
warnings to suspects in custody before questioning them.
First, students read about and discuss the Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona. Then in small
groups, students role play attorneys and members of the U.S. Supreme Court and argue and decide
subsequent cases related to Miranda.
Standards Addressed
Objectives
Students will be able to:
• Cite examples of confessions that violate the
14th Amendment’s due process clause and
explain why they violate it.
National High School U.S . History Standard 29:
Understands the struggle for racial and gender equality
and for the extension of civil liberties. (3) Understands
how various Warren Court decisions influenced society
(e.g., the Warren Court’s expansion of due process rights
for the accused and criticisms of this extension; . . . the
effectiveness of the judiciary in promoting civil liberties
and equal opportunities).
• Explain the court’s decision in Miranda and
express a reasoned opinion on whether they
agree with it.
National High School Civics Standard 25: Understands
issues regarding personal, political, and economic
rights. (1) Understands the importance to individuals and
to society of the right to due process of law . . . .
• Identify the Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination.
California History-Social Science Content Standard
12.1: Students explain the fundamental principles and
moral values of American democracy as expressed in
the U.S . Constitution and other essential documents of
American democracy. (6) Understand that the Bill of
Rights limits the powers of the federal government and
state governments.
• Make arguments on subsequent cases related
to Miranda.
California History-Social Science Content Standard
12.5: Students summarize landmark U.S . Supreme
Court interpretations of the Constitution and its
amendments. (1) Understand the changing interpretations
of the Bill of Rights over time, including interpretations of
. . . the due process and equal-protection-of-the-law clauses
of the Fourteenth Amendment. (4) Explain the controversies that have resulted over changing interpretations of civil
rights, including those in . . . Miranda v. Arizona . . . .
Preparation
Reading in the student text: “Miranda v. Arizona
(1966),” pp. 61–64
Activity in the student text: “Interpreting
Miranda,” pp. 65–67
55
Landmarks: Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, Teacher’s Guide
Vocabulary
Below are vocabulary words from this lesson. Their pronunciations and definitions can be found in the
Glossary, which begins on page 91 of the student text.
appellate court
oral argument
writ of certiorari
arraignment
petitioner
due process
respondent
interrogation
testify
Procedure
I. Focus Discussion
A. Hold a brief discussion by asking students:
• What is due process of law?
The basic requirement that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
fair procedures being used. The phrase has also been interpreted to include the fundamental rights “rooted in the tradition and conscience of our people” (Palko v. Connecticut).
• In a criminal case, what due process rights do you think a defendant has?
Among the rights students may come up with are the right to:
• get notice of the charges.
• have an attorney.
• confront and cross-examine witnesses.
• refuse to talk to police or testify against oneself at trial.
• have a public trial.
• have a speedy trial.
• have the prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
• not be tried twice for the same crime.
• have a jury trial.
• present evidence at the trial.
• compel others to testify at the trial.
B. Tell students that today they are going to learn about one of the most famous Supreme Court cases
involving the rights of criminal suspects.
II. Reading and Discussion—Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
A. Ask students to read “Miranda v. Arizona (1966),” pages 61–64. Ask them to look for:
• How the court dealt with forced confessions before Miranda.
• Why the court made the decision it did in Miranda.
B. When students finish reading, hold a discussion using the questions on page 64.
1. The Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination did not always apply to the states.
The article gives examples of seven cases where the Supreme Court ruled that the confessions
obtained violated due process of law (guaranteed by the 14th Amendment). Do you agree that
each of these cases violated due process? Explain.
Accept reasoned responses.
Landmarks: Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, Teacher’s Guide
56
2. What did the court decide in Miranda? What were the reasons for the decision? What reasons
did the dissenters give against the decision? Do you agree with the majority opinion? Explain.
The court held in Miranda that the Fifth Amendment required that before police can
question a suspect in custody they must issue warnings and receive a waiver acknowledging
that the suspect understands and waives his or her right to remain silent and have an
attorney present during questioning.
The court wanted to issue clear guidelines for police and courts to follow. The court found
“that without proper safeguards” police questioning of suspects inherently compels suspects to speak when they would not do so otherwise and therefore they should be warned
of the consequences of speaking with police and also told of their right to remain silent
and to have an attorney.
The dissenters argued that Miranda failed to address the problem of coerced confessions
and that the traditional method of reviewing confessions should remain in place. They
also argued that the Fifth Amendment did not apply to confessions but was only meant to
protect against defendants being forced to testify in court.
As to whether students agree with the majority opinion, accept reasoned responses.
3. When do police have to give Miranda warnings? Do you think people should be considered in
custody when police pull them over for a traffic stop? When they are briefly stopped and
frisked for weapons? Explain.
Police must give Miranda warnings to suspects in custody before any interrogation can
begin. If police fail to issue Miranda warnings when questioning a suspect in custody,
nothing said by the suspect can be introduced as evidence against the suspect at trial.
As for whether people should be considered in custody when police pull them over for a
traffic stop or when briefly stopped and frisked for weapons, accept reasoned responses.
4. When Miranda was decided, its critics claimed that suspects would stop making confessions.
This claim has proved false. Do you think Miranda sufficiently protects suspects’ Fifth
Amendment rights? Do you think it goes too far? Explain.
Accept reasoned responses.
III. Small-Group Activity—Interpreting Miranda
A. Tell students that the Supreme Court has decided many cases in the wake of Miranda. Tell them that
they are going to get the chance to argue and decide one of these cases.
B. Review with students “Activity: Interpreting Miranda” on page 65. Answer any questions students
may have.
C. Divide the class into groups of five students each (if you have leftover students, make some groups
have six members and assign two judges to these groups). Assign two members of each group to be
prosecutors, two others to be defense attorneys, and the final member to be a Supreme Court justice. Assign each group one of the three cases (more than one group can have the same case). Have
students meet in their group of five for a couple of minutes, make sure they know their roles and
which case they are assigned, and tell them they will return to this group to argue the case.
57
Landmarks: Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, Teacher’s Guide
D. Then tell all the justices to meet in one corner of the room, all the prosecutors in another corner,
and all the defense attorneys in another. In their respective corners, the groups should read and follow their instructions. They should discuss their cases and prepare their arguments or questions.
Give students time to prepare. Circulate among the groups and answer questions.
E. When students are ready, ask them to return to their group of five, and the Supreme Court justice
in each group should call the court to order and conduct the oral argument. Tell the class how
much time they have so that the justice can give each side an equal amount of time.
F. Call time. Ask the justices to come to the front of the room. Ask which justices decided Case #1:
Rhode Island v. Innis. Have one of these justices explain the facts of the case. Have another read the
issue. Then have the justices explain their decisions in this case. Hold a class discussion. Repeat this
process for each of the remaining cases. The Supreme Court’s decision in each of the cases is listed
below.
Case #1: Rhode Island v. Innis (1980). By a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court held that the officers’
conversation did not amount to interrogation.
Justice Stewart for the court: “[T]he term ‘interrogation’ under Miranda refers not only to
express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than
those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably
likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. . . . It cannot be said, in short, that
[in this case, the officers] should have known that their conversation was reasonably likely to
elicit an incriminating response from the respondent. There is nothing in the record to suggest
that the officers were aware that the respondent was peculiarly susceptible to an appeal to his
conscience concerning the safety of handicapped children.”
Justice Marshall dissenting: “I am substantially in agreement with the Court’s definition of
‘interrogation’ within the meaning of Miranda v. Arizona . . . . I am utterly at a loss, however,
to understand how this objective standard as applied to the facts before us can rationally lead
to the conclusion that there was no interrogation. . . . One can scarcely imagine a stronger
appeal to the conscience of a suspect—any suspect—than the assertion that if the weapon is not
found an innocent person will be hurt or killed. And not just any innocent person, but an
innocent child—a little girl—a helpless, handicapped little girl on her way to school.”
Case #2: New York v. Quarles (1984) . By a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court decided to create a
public safety exception to Miranda.
Justice Rehnquist for the court: “We conclude that the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination. We decline to place officers
such as Officer Kraft in the untenable position of having to consider, often in a matter of seconds, whether it best serves society for them to ask the necessary questions without the
Miranda warnings and render whatever probative evidence they uncover inadmissible, or for
them to give the warnings in order to preserve the admissibility of evidence they might uncover but possibly damage or destroy their ability to obtain that evidence and neutralize the
volatile situation confronting them.”
Justice Marshall dissenting: “Without being advised of his right not to respond, the suspect
incriminated himself by locating the gun. The majority concludes that the State may rely on
Landmarks: Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, Teacher’s Guide
58
this incriminating statement to convict the suspect of possessing a weapon. I disagree. The
arresting officers had no legitimate reason to interrogate the suspect without advising him of
his rights to remain silent and to obtain assistance of counsel. By finding on these facts justification for unconsented interrogation, the majority abandons the clear guidelines enunciated in
Miranda v. Arizona and condemns the American judiciary to a new era of post hoc inquiry
into the propriety of custodial interrogations. More significantly and in direct conflict with
this Court’s longstanding interpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the majority has endorsed
the introduction of coerced self-incriminating statements in criminal prosecutions.”
Case #3: Dickerson v. U.S(2000) . By a vote of 7–2, the U.S . Supreme Court ruled that Section
3501 was unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Rehnquist for the court: “We hold that Miranda, being a constitutional decision
of this Court, may not be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress, and we decline to overrule
Miranda ourselves. We therefore hold that Miranda and its progeny in this Court govern the
admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation in both state and federal
courts.”
Justice Scalia dissenting: “In imposing its Court-made code upon the States, the original opinion at least asserted that it was demanded by the Constitution. Today’s decision does not pretend that it is—and yet still asserts the right to impose it against the will of the people’s representatives in Congress. Far from believing that stare decisis compels this result, I believe we
cannot allow to remain on the books even a celebrated decision . . . that has come to stand for
the proposition that the Supreme Court has power to impose extraconstitutional constraints
upon Congress and the States. This is not the system that was established by the Framers, or
that would be established by any sane supporter of government by the people.”
59
Landmarks: Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, Teacher’s Guide
landmarks_student_cover:Layout 1
1/24/2008
12:07 PM
Page 1
LANDMARKS
Landmarks examines 15 historic U.S. Supreme Court cases. Each reading gives background on
the case and the issues involved, explains the majority and dissenting opinions, and looks at
the effect of the case. Each concludes with questions to guide discussions and an interactive
activity to engage students and foster critical thinking. The book consists of 16 readings:
Inside the Marble Temple introduces how
the Supreme Court and judiciary function.
Marbury v. Madison (1803) explains how
Chief Justice John Marshall justified judicial
review, a vital power of the Supreme Court.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) explores the
court challenge to the second Bank of the
United States and how Marshall’s court settled on an expansive view of national power.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) looks at the first
important case involving the commerce
clause and how the interpretation of this
clause has changed numerous times since.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) examines the case
that developed the “separate but equal” doctrine and legally justified segregation.
Schenck v. U.S. (1919) looks at the issue of
free speech in wartime and the development
of the “clear and present danger” doctrine.
Palko v. Connecticut (1937) explains how the
court interpreted the 14th Amendment to
incorporate rights from the Bill of Rights
and thus extend them to the states.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) examines the case mandating that illegally obtained evidence be
excluded from criminal trials.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) tells how the
court decided that the Sixth Amendment
required the government to provide indigent
felony defendants with attorneys.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) explains the origins of the “You Have the Right to Remain
Silent . . . .” warning.
U.S. v. Nixon (1974) looks at the case that
led to a president’s resignation.
Regents of U.C. v. Bakke (1978) examines a
divided court grappling with the constitutionality of affirmative action.
Texas v. Johnson (1989) explores the constitutionality of banning flag burning.
Bush v. Gore (2000) looks at the case that
decided the 2000 election.
In addition, our web site offers links to the
court opinion and more readings and information on each case. Go to www.crf-usa.org
and click on Links and on Landmarks Links.
Constitutional Rights Foundation
601 South Kingsley Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90005
(213) 487-5590 Fax (213) 386-0459
www.crf-usa.org • [email protected]
Constitutional Rights Foundation
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) reviews this
notorious case that heightened sectional tensions before the Civil War.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
explores the famous case that ended legal segregation in the United States.
LANDMARKS: HISTORIC U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Historic U. S. Supreme Court Decisions
LANDMARKS
Hist oric U.S. Supreme
Court Decisions
Landmarks:
Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
Developed by
Marshall Croddy
Bill Hayes
Writers
Bill Hayes, Marshall Croddy, Carlton Martz,
Lucy Eisenberg, Erwin Chemerinsky, Hillary A. Bounds,
Yoni A. Fife, Coral Suter, and Paul Von Blum
Editor
Bill Hayes
Production & Design
Andrew Costly
CRF Board Reviewers
L. Rachel Helyar, Lisa M. Rockwell, Paul W.A. Severin,
K. Eugene Shutler, Gail Midgal Title, and Carlton Varner
Todd Clark, Executive Director
Marshall Croddy, Director of Programs
Constitutional Rights Foundation
601 South Kingsley Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90005
(213) 487-5590 • [email protected] • www.crf-usa.org
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Landmarks : historic U.S. Supreme Court decisions / writers, Bill Hayes ... [et al.].
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-1-886253-42-1 (alk. paper)
1. Constitutional law—United States—Cases. 2. Constitutional history—United States—Cases. I. Hayes, Bill, 1945- II. Title.
KF4550.Z9L355 2007
342.73—dc22
2007032279
Copyright 2007 Constitutional Rights Foundation. All rights reserved.
3rd Printing
Landmarks:
Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
Table of Contents
Preface ........................................................................................................4
Inside the Marble Temple ...........................................................................5
Marbury v. Madison (1803).......................................................................12
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)...................................................................16
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)..........................................................................20
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) ..................................................................25
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) .........................................................................31
Schenck v. U.S. (1919)...............................................................................34
Palko v. Connecticut (1937) ......................................................................39
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) .........................................................43
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) .................................................................................49
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) ....................................................................55
Miranda v. Arizona (1966).........................................................................61
U.S. v. Nixon (1974) ..................................................................................68
Regents of U.C. v. Bakke (1978) ...............................................................74
Texas v. Johnson (1989) ............................................................................79
Bush v. Gore (2000)...................................................................................85
Glossary ....................................................................................................91
List of Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court...............................................96
List of Chief Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court .....................................98
U.S. Constitution .......................................................................................99
For Further Reading................................................................................112
Table of Cases .........................................................................................113
Index .......................................................................................................114
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
‘You Have the Right to Remain Silent . . . .’
In everyday encounters
with people, police do
not have to issue
Miranda warnings. But if
they take a suspect into
custody, they must read
the suspect Miranda
warnings and obtain a
waiver before questioning
the suspect.
n the 1960s, two currently well-known government warnings first came into use. One appears on
every pack of cigarettes and warns against smoking. The other is issued to criminal suspects before
questioning by police:
I
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of
law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.
This latter warning grew out of the highly controversial 1966 Supreme Court decision of Miranda v.
Arizona. The court ruled that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution required police to issue
this warning before questioning suspects in custody.
The Fifth Amendment, in part, says that “(no) person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be
a witness against himself. . . .” The Supreme Court did not rule that the Fifth Amendment applied to
the states until 1964. But even before this, it struck down cases where confessions were not made voluntarily. The court determined that these cases violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
This clause declares that no “State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law. . . .” Due process of law guarantees fair procedures and basic liberties.
61
Landmarks: Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
A witness identified Ernesto Miranda, number 1, from this lineup after his arrest in 1963.
Over the years the Supreme Court struck down
many state court cases as violating due process.
The court ruled that confessions were coerced in
the following situations:
• Police ignored the defendant’s request for
his lawyer and questioned him for eight
straight hours, finally sending in a childhood
friend, a policeman with four children, who
falsely told the defendant he would be fired
unless the defendant confessed (Spano v. New
York, 1959).
• Deputies whipped the defendant and threatened not to stop until he confessed (Brown v.
Mississippi, 1936).
• Police told the defendant that if she confessed, nothing would happen to her, but if
she did not, her children would be taken
away from her (Lynum v. Illinois, 1963).
• Police hid the defendant from his friends and
attorney and questioned him continuously
for three days (Ward v. Texas, 1942).
• Police questioned the suspect for 36 hours with
only one five-minute break (Ashcraft v. Tennessee,
1944).
Finally in 1964 in Malloy v. Hogan, the
Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth
Amendment protection against self-incrimination applied to the states. But courts still
faced the difficult task of determining on a
case-by-case basis whether confessions were
coerced or voluntary. So in 1966 in the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme
Court laid down clearer guidelines for police
and courts to follow.
• Police took the defendant to a hotel room
instead of jail, stripped him, and questioned
him for three hours while he was naked
(Malinski v. New York, 1945).
• Police questioned the defendant for days allowing him little sleep, brought in a doctor trained
in hypnosis, wired the room so they could listen in, and had the doctor repeatedly suggest
that the defendant confess (Leyra v. Denno,
1954).
Landmarks: Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
62
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
The court looked at interrogation techniques
taught in police manuals. The techniques the
court cited ranged from having false witnesses
identify the defendant to police officers playing
“good-cop, bad-cop.” The court summed up the
techniques as getting the suspect alone, depriving
“him of any outside support. The aura of confidence in his guilt undermines his will to resist. . . .
Patience and persistence, at times relentless questioning, are employed.”
In this case, Ernesto Miranda was suspected of kidnapping and rape. Police arrested him at his home
and took him to the police station. A witness identified him, and two detectives took him into a special room. After two hours of interrogation, the
officers got Miranda to sign a written confession.
At his trial, Miranda was convicted of kidnaping
and rape and was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in
prison. But police had never told him of his
Fifth Amendment right not to talk to them.
The court concluded “that without proper safeguards,” police questioning of suspects in custody “contains inherently compelling pressures
which work to undermine the individual’s will to
resist and to compel him to speak where he
would not otherwise do so freely.” The court
decided that any interrogation of a suspect in
custody is unconstitutional unless the police have
clearly issued these warnings to the suspect:
Writing for the five-member majority, Chief
Justice Earl Warren stressed that the Fifth
Amendment does not just apply to criminal trials. Its command that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself ” also applies to suspects in police
custody. Any confession made to police must be
voluntarily made. The court quoted from a
unanimous 1924 Supreme Court decision that
itself was citing an 1897 decision:
• You have the right to remain silent.
• Anything you say may be used against you in
court.
. . . voluntariness is not satisfied by establishing merely that the confession was not
induced by a promise or a threat. A confession is voluntary in law if, and only if, it
was, in fact, voluntarily made. A confession
may have been given voluntarily, although it
was made to police officers, while in custody,
and in answer to an examination conducted
by them. But a confession obtained by compulsion must be excluded . . . .
• You have a right to a lawyer.
• If you want a lawyer but can’t afford one, the
court will appoint one before any questioning.
Also, after giving a suspect these warnings, the
police may not go on interrogating unless suspects “knowingly and intelligently” waive their
rights. That is, suspects must completely understand their rights before they can give them up.
This meant that if police did not give suspects in
custody these warnings before questioning them,
nothing that they said could be introduced as
evidence against them at their trials.
Warren’s opinion examined what made a confession coerced. One method of coercing a confession is through physical brutality. But, quoting
another Supreme Court decision, the court
stressed that:
The court left open the possibility that Congress
or state legislatures could modify the procedures
set forth in the opinion. But the new procedures
must be “at least as effective in apprising accused
persons of the right of silence and in assuring a
continuous opportunity to exercise it. . . .”
“. . . coercion can be mental as well as physical, and . . . the blood of the accused is not
the only hallmark of an unconstitutional
inquisition.” . . . Interrogation still takes
place in privacy. Privacy results in secrecy and
this in turn results in a gap in our knowledge
as to what in fact goes on in the interrogation rooms.
63
Landmarks: Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
The Dissenters
Miranda‘s Aftermath
Four members of the court dissented and wrote
three separate dissents. They saw no reason for
adopting new rules on confessions. They believed
the court should continue to review confessions
individually to determine whether they were
coerced.
Ernesto Miranda’s conviction was reversed. He
was retried, without his confession being admitted into evidence, and convicted again.
The majority opinion indicated that defense
attorneys would be more involved in custodial
interrogations. The dissenters predicted that confessions would “markedly decrease.” Neither prediction came to pass. Many suspects waive their
rights and talk to police without attorneys. The
number of confessions has not declined.
The new rules are not designed to guard
against police brutality or other unmistakably
banned forms of coercion. Those who use
third-degree tactics and deny them in court
are equally able and destined to lie as skillfully about warnings and waivers.
For Discussion
1. The Fifth Amendment’s protection against
self-incrimination did not always apply to the
states. The article gives examples of seven
cases (on page 62) where the Supreme Court
ruled that the confessions obtained violated
due process of law (guaranteed by the 14th
Amendment). Do you agree that each of
these cases violated due process? Explain.
Historically, they argued, the Fifth Amendment
did not apply to confessions. It was meant to
protect against a defendant being forced to testify in court.
Finally, the dissenters believed the court was
unwise in discouraging confessions.
The obvious underpinning of the Court’s decision is a deep-seated distrust of all confessions.
. . . I see nothing wrong or immoral, and certainly nothing unconstitutional, in the police’s
asking a suspect whom they have reasonable
cause to arrest whether or not he killed his
wife or in confronting him with the evidence
on which the arrest was based, at least where he
has been plainly advised that he may remain
completely silent . . . . Particularly when corroborated . . . such confessions have the highest reliability and significantly contribute to
the certitude with which we may believe the
accused is guilty. Moreover, it is by no means
certain that the process of confessing is injurious to the accused. To the contrary it may provide psychological relief and enhance the
prospects for rehabilitation.
Landmarks: Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
2. What did the court decide in Miranda? What
were the reasons for the decision? What reasons did the dissenters give against the decision? Do you agree with the majority opinion? Explain.
3. When do police have to give Miranda warnings? Do you think people should be considered in custody when police pull them over
for a traffic stop? When they are briefly
stopped and frisked for weapons? Explain.
4. When Miranda was decided, its critics claimed
that suspects would stop making confessions.
This claim has proved false. Do you think
Miranda sufficiently protects suspects’ Fifth
Amendment rights? Do you think it goes too
far? Explain.
64
ACTIVITY
Ask each side to introduce themselves and tell
who they represent.
Interpreting Miranda
The petitioner should be the first to argue. (The
petitioner is the side that lost in appellate court
and is named first in the case name.)
The Supreme Court has made many decisions
interpreting the Miranda decision. For example,
Miranda requires the police to read suspects in
custody their rights before any interrogation.
Police do not need to get people to waive their
rights if they are not in custody. The court has
clarified what “in custody” means. To be in custody, a person’s freedom must be significantly
restrained. The court has held that most people
stopped briefly by police are not in custody,
because they will soon be on their way. Thus routine traffic stops and even “stop and frisks”
(when officers briefly stop people and pat them
down for weapons) do not normally require
Miranda warnings.
The respondent should argue second. (The
respondent is the side that won in appellate court
and is named last in the case name.)
Give both sides an opportunity to respond to
each other’s arguments.
Deciding the Case
After hearing the arguments, think about them
and also about how Miranda and the Fifth
Amendment apply to your case. Decide the issue
presented in the case. Be prepared to give reasons
for your decision.
Instructions for Attorneys
You are responsible for presenting the court with
sound arguments for your side.
In this activity, you will role play attorneys and
members of the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing
and deciding three important decisions actually
heard by the Supreme Court. Your teacher will
assign your group one of the cases on the next
pages and also will assign each group member
one of the following roles: Supreme Court justice, defense attorney, or prosecutor.
Preparing for the Argument
1. Read your assigned case.
2. Think about the issue before the court. Be
sure of which side you are arguing.
Instructions for Supreme Court Justices
Preparing for the Argument
3. Review the Miranda decision and with other
attorneys on the same side and discuss how
Miranda and the Fifth Amendment apply to
this case.
1. Read your assigned case.
2. Think about the issue before the court.
Review the Miranda decision and with other
justices discuss how Miranda and the Fifth
Amendment might apply to this case.
4. Think up arguments that support your side.
Be prepared to answer questions from justices
and to counter arguments that the other side
may present.
3. Think up questions to ask the prosecution
and defense attorneys.
At Oral Argument
State your name and who you represent. When
asked to present an argument, do so clearly and
strongly, but courteously. Do not interrupt the
other side.
Conducting the Oral Argument
You will be in charge of hearing arguments from
both sides of the case. Each side should get an
equal amount of time. You can interrupt at any
time to ask questions. This happens all the time
in actual oral argument before the court. Ask
both sides to answer your questions.
65
Landmarks: Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
#2: New York v. Quarles (1984). Police chased
Quarles, a rape suspect, through a supermarket.
Finally catching and handcuffing him, they
found he had an empty shoulder holster. An
officer asked him where the gun was. Nodding
toward some empty boxes, Quarles said, “The
gun is over there.” The police retrieved a loaded
.38 caliber handgun from a box. Quarles was
charged with illegal possession of a gun. At trial,
the judge excluded Quarles’s statement and the
gun from evidence because Quarles was not given
Miranda warnings before being questioned. The
prosecution appealed, claiming the Miranda rule
should not apply in an emergency situation
given the gun’s danger to the public. The New
York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals
both rejected the prosecution’s argument and
affirmed the trial court’s decision. The U.S.
Supreme Court granted certiorari. The issue
before the court: Should there be a public safety
exception to the Miranda rule?
Cases
#1: Rhode Island v. Innis (1980). Miranda
requires the police to read suspects in custody
their rights before any interrogation. This case
brought forth the question of what interrogation
means. Innis was arrested on suspicion of using a
shotgun to rob a taxi driver a few hours earlier.
Although he was arrested while still on the street,
no weapon was found in his possession. He was
given his Miranda warnings, and he requested to
speak with a lawyer before any questioning. Three
police officers were in the car transporting Innis
to the police station. They began a conversation
among themselves about how it would be too
bad if children attending a nearby school for the
handicapped found the abandoned shotgun that
Innis had supposedly used in the robbery. Innis
spoke up and directed the officers to the gun.
Innis was indicted for kidnapping and armed
robbery and for the murder of another taxi driver. Innis moved to suppress the prosecution’s
introduction into evidence of the shotgun and
his statements made to police officers. The trial
court, however, allowed them in, and he was convicted of all charges. On appeal, the Rhode
Island Supreme Court reversed his conviction,
saying the trial court erred in allowing the evidence because Innis had asked for a lawyer before
being questioned and the police had ignored this
and engaged in interrogation on the way to the
station. The prosecution requested certiorari
from the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue before
the Supreme Court: Did the officers’ conversation amount to interrogation?
Landmarks: Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
66
#3: Dickerson v. U.S. (2000). Under questioning
by federal agents, Dickerson admitted driving the
getaway car in a series of bank robberies.
Dickerson later claimed he had not been given
his Miranda warnings, and the trial court therefore ruled his confession could not be used in
evidence. The prosecution appealed. The appellate court ruled that since Dickerson’s confession
was voluntary, it could be admitted under
Section 3501 of the U.S. Code, a federal law that
was more than 30 years old. Enacted by
Congress, Section 3501 responded to the Miranda
case by permitting a confession in federal cases
to be admitted in evidence “if it is voluntarily
given.” Thus the law returned to the voluntariness test that existed before Miranda. For 30
years, prosecutors and police had ignored this
law. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The issue before the U.S. Supreme Court: Is this
law constitutional?
such defendant was without the assistance of counsel when questioned and
when giving such confession.
The presence or absence of any of the
above-mentioned factors to be taken into
consideration by the judge need not be
conclusive on the issue of voluntariness
of the confession.
The relevant parts of the Section 3501 read as
follows:
(a) In any criminal prosecution brought by
the United States . . . a confession . . .
shall be admissible in evidence if it is
voluntarily given. . . .
(b) The trial judge in determining the issue
of voluntariness shall take into consideration all the circumstances surrounding
the giving of the confession, including
(1) the time elapsing between arrest and
arraignment of the defendant making
the confession, if it was made after arrest
and before arraignment, (2) whether such
defendant knew the nature of the offense
with which he was charged or of which
he was suspected at the time of making
the confession, (3) whether or not such
defendant was advised or knew that he
was not required to make any statement
and that any such statement could be
used against him, (4) whether or not
such defendant had been advised prior
to questioning of his right to the assistance of counsel; and (5) whether or not
67
Landmarks: Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
Download