Did Brandenburg v. Ohio occur prior to Miranda v. Arizona?
29e2eee280ed5fb1592600459c4444da
Brandenburg v. Ohio Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, "Whitney v. California" (1927) was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on "Schenck v. United States" (1919), "Abrams v. United States" (1919), "Gitlow v. New York" (1925), and "Dennis v. United States" (1951).
0e44c63dcd3c616d385654c9c3a88dbd
Miranda v. Arizona Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) , was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court. In a 5–4 majority, the Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.
479125e002b5c565edc5d55615d2ce90
Waller v. Florida Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387 (1970), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects defendants from successive prosecutions by states and municipalities for offenses based on the same criminal conduct.
6afe625f67c8535df45001725585a2fc
Hurst v. Florida Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8-1 ruling, applied the rule of "Ring v. Arizona", 536 U.S. 584 (2002) , to the Florida capital sentencing scheme, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. In Florida, under a 2013 statute, the jury made "recommendations" but the judge decided the facts.
f58fd5ccb5f67f01f94afcdcb6955472
Stanley v. Georgia Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969) , was a United States Supreme Court decision that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law, in the form of mere possession of obscene materials.
a87b6dfa69f5e3e5e2eb0eea0cfd97ab
Brenner v. Scott In Brenner v. Scott and its companion case, Grimsley v. Scott, a U.S. district court found Florida's constitutional and statutory same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. On August 21, 2014, the court issued a preliminary injunction that prevents that state from enforcing its bans and then stayed its injunction until stays are lifted in the three same-sex marriage cases then petitioning for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court–"Bostic", "Bishop", and "Kitchen"–and for 91 days thereafter. When the district court's preliminary injunction took effect on January 6, 2015, enforcement of Florida's bans on same-sex marriage ended.
972d7dbd917f755a625be43dfd87e6ed
Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976), was a landmark Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court held unconstitutional prior restraints on media coverage during criminal trials.
3b2822acc9ac84fcda95809b4c627abe
Censorship in the United States In general, censorship in the United States, which involves the suppression of speech or public communication, raises issues of freedom of speech, which is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This freedom, though fundamental, has been accompanied with controversy since its enshrinement. For instance, restraints increased during periods of widespread anti-communist sentiment, as exemplified by the hearings of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. According to "Miller v. California" (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court found that the First Amendment's freedom of speech does not apply to obscenity, which can, therefore, legally be censored. While it is legal to express certain forms of hate speech so long as one does not engage in the acts being discussed, or urge others to commit illegal acts, more severe forms have led to people or groups (such as the Ku Klux Klan) being denied certain marching permits or the Westboro Baptist Church being sued, though the initially adverse ruling against the latter was later overturned on appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court.
4906cc9a34edbab00a6007b58bcfd648
In re Oliver In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of due process in state court proceedings. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that criminal prosecutions require the defendant "... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." In this case, a witness in a Michigan grand jury hearing was convicted and sentenced to jail without either notice or attorney assistance.
9c087df8db4c88b15a467cd03ec0ee42
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that making peremptory challenges based solely on a prospective juror's sex is unconstitutional. "J.E.B." extended the court's existing precedent in "Batson v. Kentucky" (1986), which found race-based peremptory challenges in criminal trials unconstitutional, and "Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company" (1991), which extended that principle to civil trials. As in "Batson", the court found that sex-based challenges violate the Equal Protection Clause.
ee0546b4550d8817e94d31d469cf2703
Arizona v. California Arizona v. California is a set of United States Supreme Court cases, all dealing with disputes over water distribution from the Colorado River between the states of Arizona and California. It also covers the amount of water that the State of Nevada receives from the river as well.
43eadd8d2fe0b9b897f797a307346658
Scott v. Illinois Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. In "Scott", the Court decided whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments required Illinois to provide Scott with trial counsel.
1dae21077e9015719c2ba598e0cb3f09
Florida v. Riley Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989) , was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace.
b40d81ba5021e9f92064e1fad0b6ed2f
Stewart v. United States (1961) Stewart v. United States, 366 U.S. 1 (1961) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that asking a criminal defendant whether he had testified in previous trials violated his Fifth Amendment rights.
69fcb9cc45dfac25af3c127b0a744d25
Martin v. Ohio Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (1987), is a criminal case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the presumption of innocence requiring prosecution to prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt only applies to elements of the offense, and does not extend to the defense of justification, whereby states could legislate a burden on the defense to prove justification. The decision was split 5-4. The decision does not preclude states from requiring such a burden on the prosecution in their laws.
209ed759ca272285144c8965cc46c239
McNabb-Mallory rule The McNabb-Mallory" rule (sometimes referred to as just the Mallory" rule) refers to the U.S. rule of evidence that a confession is inadmissible if obtained during an unreasonably long period of detention between arrest and initial court appearance. The rule was largely superseded by the broader protections provided for under the "Miranda" rules.
678b183a7d7e05f58cb01e6a2bca202e
LGBT rights in the United States Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in the United States vary on a basis. Since June 26, 2003, sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex as well as same-sex adolescents of a close age has been legal nationwide, pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in "Lawrence v. Texas". As of June 26, 2015, all states license and recognize marriage between same-sex couples on account of the Supreme Court decision in "Obergefell v. Hodges".
a57c88e0d7be07837c4798f424b52d38
Heath v. Alabama Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that, because of the doctrine of "dual sovereignty" (the concept that the United States and each state possess sovereignty – a consequence of federalism), the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not prohibit one state from prosecuting and punishing somebody for an act of which he had already been convicted of and sentenced for in another state.
ea6861e8ba56aaa757b0ca8125af8eef
Oregon v. Ice Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009), was a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not inhibit states from assigning to judges, rather than juries, the finding of facts necessary to the imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences for multiple offenses.
74237827709e26e8bfcfbba32e2559b0
Pointer v. Texas Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965) was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of to confront accusers in state court proceedings. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that, in criminal prosecutions, the defendant has a right "...to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor..." In this case, a person arrested in Texas for robbery was deprived of the ability to cross-examine a witness when the lower court allowed the introduction of a transcript of that witness's earlier testimony at a preliminary proceeding instead of compelling attendance by the witness at trial.
5b0377e5650a78f53c9cbf98bcff2aa3
Lockhart v. United States (2016) Lockhart v. United States, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) , is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the interpretation of a federal statute. 18 USC §2252(b)(2) states that a defendant convicted of possessing child pornography is subject to a mandatory 10 year minimum prison sentence if they have "a prior conviction...under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward." Avondale Lockhart, convicted of possession of child pornography, had a prior conviction for sexual abuse of his 53-year-old girlfriend under New York State law. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison under §2252(b)(2). He appealed claiming that the qualifier "involving a minor or ward" applies to the whole series, making his prior conviction not trigger the sentence enhancement. In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that the phrase only modifies the final item in the series, upholding the 10 year minimum sentence imposed on Lockhart.
e70fd780a6396063ae46bfb5514674ca
United States v. Ortiz United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (1975) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment prevented Border Patrol officers from conducting warrantless, suspicionless searches of private vehicles removed from the border or its functional equivalent.