Did the court cases Miranda v. Arizona and Georgia v. Randolph happen 10 years apart?
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.
69cc47a968fb9702859bcd7aad7a72d0
Georgia v. Randolph Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that without a search warrant, police had no constitutional right to search a house where one resident consents to the search while another resident objects. The Court distinguished this case from the "co-occupant consent rule" established in "United States v. Matlock", 415 U.S. 164 (1974), which permitted one resident to consent in absence of the co-occupant.
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.
53878aa3b7fc599e6122c874d8ca5c54
Thompson v. Keohane Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (1995) , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) does not apply in custody rulings for Miranda.
609c5a3498322b0f0b51a13cd3cf3fd2
Stansbury v. California Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994) , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether a police officer's subjective and undisclosed opinion whether a person who had been questioned was a suspect was relevant in determining whether that person had been in custody and thus entitled to the Miranda warnings. In a 9-0 ruling, the Court reversed and remanded the case. In a "per curiam" decision, the Court held that "an officer's subjective and undisclosed view concerning whether the person being interrogated is a suspect is irrelevant to the assessment [of] whether the person is in custody."<ref name="http://supreme.justia.com"> </ref>
f04c6ddadfe31778b670a136891b9f54
North Carolina v. Alford North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that there are constitutional barriers in place to prevent a judge from accepting a guilty plea from a defendant who wants to plead guilty while still protesting his innocence under duress as a detainee status. This type of plea has become known as an Alford plea, differing slightly from the "nolo contendere" plea in which the defendant agrees to being sentenced for the crime, but does not admit guilt. Alford died in prison in 1975.
f5ebeccf7e0951dccd4e02fcf772be3f
Adderley v. Florida Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966) , was a United States Supreme Court case regarding whether arrests for protesting in front of a jail were constitutional.
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.
e96e68b5d272957aa4b191de1a66e151
Chavez v. Martinez Chavez v. Martinez was a decision of the United States Supreme Court, which held that a police officer does not deprive a suspect of constitutional rights by failing to issue a "Miranda" warning. However, the court held open the possibility that the right to substantive due process could be violated in certain egregious circumstances and remanded the case to the lower court to decide this issue on the case's facts.
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.
e32086236f2eff5bda0daff487c92dfb
Clark v. Arizona Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006) , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the insanity defense used by the State of Arizona. The ruling affirmed the murder conviction of a man with paranoid schizophrenia, for the killing of a police officer. The man had argued that his inability to understand the nature of his acts at the time they were committed should be a sufficient basis for showing he lacked the requisite mental state required as an element of the charged crime. The Court upheld Arizona's restriction of admissible mental health evidence only to the issue of insanity. Arizona does not allow mental health evidence to show that the defendant did not possess the required mental intent level necessary to satisfy an element of the crime. The evidence is only admissible if used to show that the defendant was insane at the time of the crime's commission. In this case, the defendant knew right from wrong so he could not qualify under Arizona's insanity defense.
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.
363ee1535aa948cfe69646cf283368c0
Wainwright v. Witt Wainwright vs. Witt, 470 U.S. 1039 (1985) , was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning a criminal defendant, Johnny Paul Witt, who argued that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was sentenced to death for first degree murder by the state of Florida. He argued that the trial court had unconstitutionally hand-picked a jury during the "voir dire" process. This was because certain people were excused from the jury because they admitted pre-trial, that their decision of guilty or not guilty toward capital punishment would be swayed due to personal or religious beliefs.
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.
173d12f85166621547c8289ebf25fb81
Estelle v. Smith Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, per "Miranda v. Arizona" (1966), the state may not force a defendant to submit to a psychiatric examination solely for the purposes of sentencing. Any such examination violates the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination as well as the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and is therefore inadmissible at sentencing.
8f7b9b08c337dcdb0de69e9158084bbe
Jackson v. Indiana Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972) , was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that determined a U.S. state violated due process by involuntarily committing a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against him.
689b42d9cc760dc64672ce0f7445ca70
Dickerson v. United States Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000) , upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects and struck down a federal statute that purported to overrule "Miranda v. Arizona" (1966).
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.
07c9bca4b657b8ba8a80a24e4ececf95
Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia Landmark Communications v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case that was argued on January 11, 1978 and decided on May 1, 1978.
41879b18c01cd85bf74c4c41a50bd125
Georgia v. McCollum Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal "defendant" cannot make peremptory challenges based solely on race. The court had previously held in "Batson v. Kentucky" (1986) that prosecutors cannot make peremptory challenges based on race, but didn't address whether defendants could use them. The court had already ruled in "Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company" (1991) that the "Batson" prohibition also applies to civil litigants because they are state actors during the jury selection process.
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.
41f3b794932106d61c1b9966a0bdca54
Maryland v. Pringle Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003), is a Supreme Court of the United States case regarding the reasonableness of the arrest of a passenger in an automobile.