CLASS SET
Civics
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED – DUE PROCESS OF LAW
Objective:
To examine the rights of the accused found in the 4th-8th amendments and consider how they should be
applied in various circumstances in order to ensure the due process of law.
Directions:
For each scenario, use all available resources to respond to the two questions on a separate sheet of
paper. Base your reasoning on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and how they have been interpreted.
Scenario #1
The police see James standing at a bus stop on a downtown street, in an area where there is extensive drug dealing. The
officers ask James if they can look in his bag and he says yes. They open the bag and find drugs. James is arrested.
1. Which amendment and specific rights are at issue?
2. Was this a legal search? Explain why the search was legal or illegal, or explain what further information you need
to determine legality.
Scenario #2
Shelly was arrested and charged with armed robbery of a convenience store. While Shelly was in jail waiting for her
trial, an undercover officer was placed in Shelly’s cell. Before the officer asked any questions, Shelly said that she had
robbed the convenience store. Shelly’s statement was used against her at trial, despite the fact that she was not read
her Miranda rights.
1. Which amendment and specific rights are at issue?
2. Should the court allow the statement? Explain why the statement should be allowed or disallowed, or explain
what further information you need to make a determination.
Scenario #3
Jared was arrested on suspicion of shooting a local taxicab driver in the head and then burying the body nearby. Jared
was read his Miranda rights, and indicated that he needed to speak to a lawyer. On the way to the station, the police
began talking to each other about the murder, while Jared listened in the back seat. Without warning, Jared then
admitted to the murder. At his trial, Jared argued that the police had coerced him into admitting to the murder and
violated his right to remain silent.
1. Which amendment and specific rights are at issue?
2. Should the court allow the statement? Explain why the statement should be allowed or disallowed, or explain
what further information you need to make a determination.
Scenario #4
David was driving 40 mph in a 25 mph zone when he was pulled over. The officer approached him and requested that
he step outside of the vehicle. David stepped out of the car, and the officer asked him if he was aware how fast he was
going. In response to the officer’s questioning, David admitted that he had been speeding. At his hearing David argued
that because the officer did not read him his Miranda warnings, his confession should not be admitted.
1. Which amendment and specific rights are at issue?
2. Should the court allow David’s confession? Explain why the confession should be allowed or disallowed, or
explain what further information you need to make a determination.
Scenario #5
Mrs. Jones hears a knock at the door. She opens the door and finds three police officers asking if they can come into her
home to talk about neighborhood safety. She says yes. While sitting in the living room, one of the officers sees an
automatic weapon and a bag of what appears to be cocaine or heroin under the sofa. As a result, Mrs. Jones is arrested.
1. Which amendment and specific rights are at issue?
2. Can the police legally arrest Mrs. Jones in this situation? Explain why the arrest was legal or illegal, or explain
what further information you need to determine legality.
Scenario #6
Trina Lening and some of her friends robbed a liquor store. Trina's friend Lori did not participate, because she was sick at
home. When the police picked up Trina the following Friday, they arrested all of her friends, including Lori. At the trial,
Lori said she could prove her innocence because she had an alibi (proof that the accused was not at the scene of a
crime). But the only people who could attest to her alibi were the friends who had robbed the store. If they said she
wasn't at the store, it would reveal that they were at the robbery.
1. Which amendment and specific rights are at issue?
2. Should Trina and the others be compelled (required) to testify that Lori wasn’t with them? Explain why they
should or shouldn’t be compelled, yes, or explain what further information you need to make a determination.
Scenario #7
Benny was found guilty of attacking and killing his boss in a fit of rage. In the sentencing phase of his trial, Benny’s
lawyers produced two psychologists who testified that Benny was mentally handicapped. Benny’s lawyers and
psychologists argued that the jury should not be allowed to assign the death penalty as punishment for Benny’s crimes.
The psychologists testified that quite probably Benny did not fully understand the outcome of his actions. While this did
not absolve him of punishment, the psychologists believed that he should not be put to death.
1. Which amendment and specific rights are at issue?
2. Should Benny be eligible for the death penalty? Explain why he should be eligible or ineligible, or explain what
further information you need to determine eligibility.
Scenario #8
Darren was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and rape. He was taken to the police station, where the victim picked
Darren out of a lineup. An officer pointed to a woman in the police station and asked if she was the victim. Darren told
them, “Yeah, that’s her.” The police then took him to an interrogation room where he was questioned for two hours. He
verbally confessed to the crime, and signed a written statement, prepared by the police, admitting his guilt. Darren’s
confession included a statement that he was aware of his rights, and that any statements he made could be used against
him. However, the police made little effort throughout the interrogation to allow Darren access to a lawyer, or generally
notify of him of his rights.
1. Which amendment and specific rights are at issue?
2. Should the court allow any of the statements made by Darren to be admitted into the trial? Explain why the
statement should be allowed or disallowed, or explain what further information you need to make a
determination.
Scenario #9
Elaine, a respected physician in the community, was accused of murdering her husband Adam. Elaine continually
maintained her innocence in Adam’s death. The murder trial was a media sensation—reporters were in the courtroom,
and were even assigned seats between the jurors and the defendant. The story was all over the local and state press for
weeks. Editorials demanded a guilty verdict. The jury was not sequestered and had access to the media coverage. Elaine
was found guilty. After her conviction, Elaine claimed that the extensive media coverage tainted her prosecution, and
led to an unfair guilty verdict. She appealed her conviction, arguing that the media coverage biased the opinions of
those in her community, requiring that her guilty verdict be overturned.
1. Which amendment and specific rights are at issue?
2. Should the verdict be overturned? Explain why the verdict should be overturned or sustained, or explain what
further information you need to make a determination.
Scenario #10
Sara, a public high school student, was caught smoking cigarettes in the school bathroom. The teacher who caught Sara
took her to the principal’s office, where a school official questioned her about whether she was smoking in the
bathroom. She denied it. The principal, not believing her story, decided to take further action by looking into Sara’s
purse. He found a pack of cigarettes as well as a bag of rolling papers commonly associated with drug use. The official
then decided to thoroughly search Sara’s purse. He discovered a bag of marijuana and various papers that seemed to
indicate that Sara was dealing marijuana. He placed Sara on suspension and called the police.
1. Which amendment and specific rights are at issue?
2. Should the school official be allowed to search Sara’s bag and suspend her for the drugs they found? Explain why
the suspension is valid or invalid, or explain what further information you need to make a determination.
Scenario #11
Someone informed the police that Rick was selling illegal drugs. Rick was living with his grandmother. The police officers
decided to investigate the matter by going to Rick’s grandmother's home, searching for illegal drugs. Although the
grandmother tried to deny the police access to her home, they entered anyway and found illegal substances.
1. Which amendment and specific rights are at issue?
2. Should the police be allowed to use the evidence they found against Rick? Explain why the evidence should be
allowed or disallowed, or explain what further information you need to make a determination.
Scenario #12
Jim used a car bomb to blow up the federal court house in San Jose, killing 100 people, including several federal
employees. He was arrested by the FBI and put on trial in a federal court and convicted of committing acts of terrorism
and murdering federal officials. He was sentenced to death. The state of California then put Jim on trial for murder. Jim
argued that California could not hold the trial since he had already been convicted by the federal government.
1. Which amendment and specific rights are at issue?
2. Should California be allowed to put Jim on trial? Explain why the trial should be allowed or disallowed, or explain
what further information you need to make a determination.
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED – DUE PROCESS OF LAW
INSTRUCTOR NOTES
Scenario #1
The police see James standing at a bus stop on a downtown street, in an area where there is extensive drug dealing. The officers ask James if they
can look in his bag and he says yes. They open the bag and find drugs. James is arrested.
1.
2.
Which amendment and specific rights are at issue? 4th search and seizure
Was this a legal search?
YES – key cases Florida v. Bostick (1991), Ohio v. Robinette (1996), U.S. v. Drayton (2002) – the issue centers around
coercive atmosphere and the individual’s reasonable expectation of being able to refuse the search or end the search
even if they give consent. SCOTUS has moved increasingly towards allowing the police latitude in searches, they
generally restrict search powers when the individuals being searched are not aware, for example use of infrared
scanners, but that when the individual is present and consents the police are allowed to proceed in good faith
NO – there aren’t key cases that would uphold no answer – profiling has largely been disregarded by the Court
although there are challenges on that basis
Scenario #2
Shelly was arrested and charged with armed robbery of a convenience store. While Shelly was in jail waiting for her trial, an undercover officer was
placed in Shelly’s cell. Before the officer asked any questions, Shelly said that she had robbed the convenience store. Shelly’s statement was used
against her at trial, despite the fact that she was not read her Miranda rights.
1.
2.
Which amendment and specific rights are at issue? 4th/5th amendment – self incrimination
Should the court allow the statement?
YES – key cases Illinois v. Perkins (1990) specific to this incident and then McNabb v. United States (1943), Mallory v.
United States (1957), Miranda v. Arizona (1966), Colorado v. Connelly (1986), Corley v. United States (2009) – the
Perkins case established that this is a legal statement because this exchange is not being done in a coercive
environment such as police custody which is the basis for Miranda i.e. if an individual does not feel like they can
reasonably leave the scene or refuse to answer questions then their rights should be stated and they can invoke them
NO – given the decision in Perkins the no side doesn’t have any recent cases but could make the argument that sitting
in a cell is by definition a coercive environment and the failure of the police to inform Shelly of her Miranda rights prior
to placing the undercover officer in the cell represents an abuse of power
Scenario #3
Jared was arrested on suspicion of shooting a local taxicab driver in the head and then burying the body nearby. Jared was read his Miranda rights,
and indicated that he needed to speak to a lawyer. On the way to the station, the police began talking to each other about the murder, while Jared
listened in the back seat. Without warning, Jared then admitted to the murder. At his trial, Jared argued that the police had coerced him into
admitting to the murder and violated his right to remain silent.
1.
2.
Which amendment and specific rights are at issue? 4th/5th amendment – self incrimination
Should the court allow the statement?
YES – Miranda v. Arizona (1966) – once informed of your rights and by asking for a lawyer Jared indicates he
understands then anything you say can be used against you. The police are allowed to lie and use manipulative tactics
to get you to talk.
NO – Dickerson v. United States (1999) – SCOTUS ruled that Miranda does apply in custody cases although there wasn’t
an interrogation taking place in this instance the coercive environment of the police car and Jared’s request for a
lawyer should have triggered the police to not have the discussion they were having
Scenario #4
David was driving 40 mph in a 25 mph zone when he was pulled over. The officer approached him and requested that he step outside of the
vehicle. David stepped out of the car, and the officer asked him if he was aware how fast he was going. In response to the officer’s questioning,
David admitted that he had been speeding. At his hearing David argued that because the officer did not read him his Miranda warnings, his
confession should not be admitted.
1.
2.
Which amendment and specific rights are at issue? 4th amendment search and seizure – arrest
Should the court allow David’s confession?
YES – SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that a traffic stop does not constitute police custody so Miranda does not apply.
California v. Hodari (1991), 11th circuit decision in Purcell v. United States (2001)
NO – no real legal legs to stand on here but it would go back to the idea of ‘reasonable expectation’ so did David have a
reasonable expectation that he could leave the scene or refuse to respond to the question and if the answer is no then
Miranda would apply however, given that it was traffic stop and the courts have deemed questions regarding the stop
itself and for identification as within the scope of police power it’s unlikely this would fly
Scenario #5
Mrs. Jones hears a knock at the door. She opens the door and finds three police officers asking if they can come into her home to talk about
neighborhood safety. She says yes. While sitting in the living room, one of the officers sees an automatic weapon and a bag of what appears to be
cocaine or heroin under the sofa. As a result, Mrs. Jones is arrested.
1.
2.
Which amendment and specific rights are at issue? 4th amendment search and seizure – exclusionary rule
Can the police legally arrest Mrs. Jones in this situation?
YES – ‘in plain view’ doctrine (established by Horton v. California (1990)) would be at play here and relevant cases are
Washington v. Chrisman (1982), Maryland v. Buie (1990). Jones invited the officers in so they were lawfully present and
what the officers can reasonably conclude these were contraband.
NO /UNSURE – were the police really present to talk about neighborhood safety? Is the possession of automatic
weapons illegal in that state? Is the assumption that the bag contains drugs a correct one?
Scenario #6
Trina Lening and some of her friends robbed a liquor store. Trina's friend Lori did not participate, because she was sick at home. When the police
picked up Trina the following Friday, they arrested all of her friends, including Lori. At the trial, Lori said she could prove her innocence because she
had an alibi (proof that the accused was not at the scene of a crime). But the only people who could attest to her alibi were the friends who had
robbed the store. If they said she wasn't at the store, it would reveal that they were at the robbery.
1.
2.
Which amendment and specific rights are at issue? 5th amendment self incrimination , 6th amendment right to mount
defense
Should Trina and the others be compelled (required) to testify that Lori wasn’t with them?
YES – there are no legal legs to stand on here as far as court decisions go but if Trina and her fellow criminals are
granted ‘use immunity’ it means they can testify in Lori’s case and their testimony cannot be used against them in their
own cases or more traditional ‘transactional immunity’ where they would get immunity from prosecution in exchange
for testimony – this wouldn’t work here though because it is unlikely the prosecutor who brought the case against Lori
is suddenly going to grant immunity
NO – Malloy v. Hogan (1964), Griffin v. California (1965), - no one can be compelled to testify in a way that would lead
to their self-incrimination so they could be subpoenaed and put on the stand thus fulfilling Lori’s 6 th amendment right
but can plead the 5th on the stand and that plea cannot be used against them in their own trials. While one could make
the argument that just saying you were there doesn’t mean you are guilty once they agree to testify they are open to
cross-examination and therefore charges of perjury in addition to criminal prosecution.
Scenario #7
Benny was found guilty of attacking and killing his boss in a fit of rage. In the sentencing phase of his trial, Benny’s lawyers produced two
psychologists who testified that Benny was mentally handicapped. Benny’s lawyers and psychologists argued that the jury should not be allowed to
assign the death penalty as punishment for Benny’s crimes. The psychologists testified that quite probably Benny did not fully understand the
outcome of his actions. While this did not absolve him of punishment, the psychologists believed that he should not be put to death.
1.
Which amendment and specific rights are at issue? 8th amendment cruel and unusual
2.
Should Benny be eligible for the death penalty?
YES – Gregg v. Georgia (1976) Penry v. Lynaugh (1989), Ford v. Wainwright (1986) (concurring) – all cases that
established constitutionality of death penalty and right to put insane and other mentally handicapped to death
NO – Furman v. Georgia (1972), Ford v. Wainwright (1986) (majority), Atkins v. Virginia (2002) – while SCOTUS
continues to uphold the death penalty as not being in violation of 8 th amendment it has placed limitations on who
qualifies for the punishment so Atkins is the case where individual who are deemed ‘mentally retarded’ are not
eligible because they do not have the capacity to fully understand that what they did was wrong and in violation of
laws and social mores, same is true for the insane and juveniles – these limitations are meant to reflect the idea of
the ‘evolving standard of decency’
Scenario #8
Darren was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and rape. He was taken to the police station, where the victim picked Darren out of a lineup. An
officer pointed to a woman in the police station and asked if she was the victim. Darren told them, “Yeah, that’s her.” The police then took him to
an interrogation room where he was questioned for two hours. He verbally confessed to the crime, and signed a written statement, prepared by
the police, admitting his guilt. Darren’s confession included a statement that he was aware of his rights, and that any statements he made could be
used against him. However, the police made little effort throughout the interrogation to allow Darren access to a lawyer, or generally notify of him
of his rights.
1.
Which amendment and specific rights are at issue? 4th/5th amendment – self incrimination
2.
Should the court allow any of the statements made by Darren to be admitted into the trial?
YES – Miranda v. Arizona (1966), Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) – SCOTUS has narrowed Miranda some recently so
essentially if you are informed of your rights and you acknowledge you’ve understood them then unless you explicitly
invoke them during interrogation, any statements you make can be used against you, refusal to answer questions by
remaining silent or uttering brief responses does not constitute a clear invocation of rights. Darren’s initial
identification of the woman may not be used, that could be grounds but it does not constitute ‘fruit of the poisonous
tree’ because he subsequently confessed and acknowledged he knew his rights.
NO – Miranda v. Arizona (1966)– possible that Darren felt coerced by the situation especially the initial encounter with
the victim and so confessed because didn’t think he had a choice
Scenario #9
Elaine, a respected physician in the community, was accused of murdering her husband Adam. Elaine continually maintained her innocence in
Adam’s death. The murder trial was a media sensation—reporters were in the courtroom, and were even assigned seats between the jurors and
the defendant. The story was all over the local and state press for weeks. Editorials demanded a guilty verdict. The jury was not sequestered and
had access to the media coverage. Elaine was found guilty. After her conviction, Elaine claimed that the extensive media coverage tainted her
prosecution, and led to an unfair guilty verdict. She appealed her conviction, arguing that the media coverage biased the opinions of those in her
community, requiring that her guilty verdict be overturned.
1.
Which amendment and specific rights are at issue? 6th amendment right to fair impartial jury/trial
2.
Should the verdict be overturned?
YES – Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966), Marshall v. United States (1959)
NO – Murphy v. Florida (1975), Chandler v. Florida (1986) - these more recent cases show SCOTUS has moved away
from its earlier decisions based on the idea that media coverage alone isn’t sufficient to call jury impartiality into
question and that it is the burden of the lawyers in the voire dire (jury selection) to determine if and when a potential
juror demonstrate inability or unwillingness to maintain objectivity. Violation of judges orders and/or sequestration
would be grounds for mistrial. Also request to move the trial to a different jurisdiction would be one way to ensure
impartiality. The Rodney King case presents an interesting alternative where the case got moved to Simi Valley that
had a high population of police and their families but was deemed a fair place to hold the trial. More recently was the
Zimmerman case and the question of escaping media saturation period.
Scenario #10
Sara, a public high school student, was caught smoking cigarettes in the school bathroom. The teacher who caught Sara took her to the principal’s
office, where a school official questioned her about whether she was smoking in the bathroom. She denied it. The principal, not believing her story,
decided to take further action by looking into Sara’s purse. He found a pack of cigarettes as well as a bag of rolling papers commonly associated
with drug use. The official then decided to thoroughly search Sara’s purse. He discovered a bag of marijuana and various papers that seemed to
indicate that Sara was dealing marijuana. He placed Sara on suspension and called the police.
1.
2.
Which amendment and specific rights are at issue? 4th amendment search and seizure
Should the school official be allowed to search Sara’s bag and suspend her for the drugs they found?
YES – New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) – due to the nature of a school environment SCOTUS deemed the standard for a legal
search is “reasonableness” versus “probable cause” so the cigarette usage made the search reasonable. Additionally
‘suspicionless’ searches are also allowed where everyone in a group is subject to search.
NO – for this particular case there is no real basis for no as SCOTUS has consistently upheld the idea that the school
environment allows for restriction of rights but there are limits so Safford Unified v. Redding (2008) limits how
extensive a search may be and ‘reasonableness’ means your search has to be reasonable i.e. strip searches aren’t
reasonable in most cases as they are an excessive intrusion of privacy
Scenario #11
Someone informed the police that Rick was selling illegal drugs. Rick was living with his grandmother. The police officers decided to investigate the
matter by going to Rick’s grandmother's home, searching for illegal drugs. Although the grandmother tried to deny the police access to her
home, they entered anyway and found illegal substances.
1.
Which amendment and specific rights are at issue? 4th amendment search and seizure – exclusionary rule
2.
Should the police be allowed to use the evidence they found against Rick?
YES – if the drugs were in plain sight or the police had something else to go on or a warrant
NO – Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the search was illegal because the police do not have probable cause to enter the house,
they do not have a warrant and they were refused entry so anything they found as a result would be ‘fruit of the
poisonous tree’
Scenario #12
Jim used a car bomb to blow up the federal court house in San Jose, killing 100 people, including several federal employees. He was arrested by the
FBI and put on trial in a federal court and convicted of committing acts of terrorism and murdering federal officials. He was sentenced to death. The
state of California then put Jim on trial for murder. Jim argued that California could not hold the trial since he had already been convicted by the
federal government.
1.
2.
Which amendment and specific rights are at issue? 6th amendment – double jeopardy
Should California be allowed to put Jim on trial?
YES – dual court system means trials in each court does not represent double jeopardy and Jim is being tried for
separate crimes as the federal court tried him for death of federal officials and terrorism while California is trying him
for murder of CA residents (this is based on OK City bombing and McVeigh