|
|
| |
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases —
for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case —
for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
|
| |
Federal Courts -
U. S. Supreme Court - January - June, 1963
|
| |
Wong Sun v. United States, No. 36,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 14, 1963, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Petitioners challenged an order that affirmed the judgments that convicted them of narcotics transportation and concealment after a bench trial. Petitioners argued that the evidence admitted at the trial was inadmissible as the fruits of unlawful arrests or searches. Petitioners were arrested after a suspect under surveillance was held with narcotics, and had led the federal agents to the first petitioner as his source. The challenged evidence included the heroin surrendered to the police and the statements made orally by the second petitioner in his bedroom at the time of his arrest, and a pretrial unsigned confessions of both petitioners. The appeals court held that the arrests were illegal for lack of probable cause, but that the challenged evidence was not fruit of the illegal arrests and therefore was admissible. Petitioners argued that even if their confessions were declarations against interest, they were not binding on the other petitioner. On appeal, the court held that an out-of-court declaration made after an arrest may not be used at the trial against one of the declarant's partners in a crime unless the statement was made in furtherance of the criminal undertaking.
|
|
| |
Gideon v. Wainwright, No. 155,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 18, 1963, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: The inmate's charged offense was a felony under Florida law. He appeared in state court without funds and without a lawyer and asked the court to appoint counsel for him. The state court refused because only a defendant in a capital offense was entitled to appointed counsel. The inmate was convicted. He challenged his conviction and sentence on the ground that the trial court's refusal to appoint counsel for him denied him rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The court held (1) the Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the right to the assistance of counsel in all criminal prosecutions, (2) the court had construed the Sixth Amendment to require federal courts to provide counsel for defendants unable to employ counsel unless the right was competently and intelligently waived, (3) the court looked to the fundamental nature of the Bill of Rights guarantees to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment made them obligatory on the states, (4) the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is one of the fundamental and essential rights made obligatory upon the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and (5) Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), was overruled.
|
|
| |
Brady v. Maryland, No. 490,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 13, 1963, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: A judgment granting petitioner a new murder trial that was restricted to the issue of punishment was affirmed. After petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, he learned that the State withheld a statement in which another individual admitted the actual homicide. The Court held that suppression of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violated the Due Process Clause, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, where the evidence was material to guilt or punishment, regardless of the State's good or bad faith. The suppression of evidence violated petitioner's due process rights and required a retrial on the sentence. The Court held, however, that it could not assume that if the suppressed evidence had been used at the first trial, the ruling that the statement was inadmissible as to guilt might have been disregarded by the jury. In Maryland, it was the trial court, not the jury, which ruled on the admissibility of evidence relating to guilt. The appeals court's statement that nothing in the suppressed confession could have reduced petitioner's offense below a first degree murder was a ruling on the admissibility of the confession as to the issue of innocence or guilt.
|
|
| |
Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, No. 142,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 17, 1963, Decided **Together with No. 119, Murray et al. v. Curlett et al., Constituting the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City, on certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, argued February 27, 1963.
View this case - free
|
Overview: Under Pennsylvania law, public schools were required to read from the bible at the opening of each school day. The school district sought to enjoin enforcement of the statute. The district court ruled that the statute violated the First Amendment, even after the statute had been amended to permit a student to excuse himself. On review, the Court held that such opening exercises were religious ceremonies. Given that finding, the exercises and the law requiring them were in violation of the Establishment Clause. Maryland petitioners were atheists who challenged a city rule that provided for opening exercises in the public schools that consisted primarily of reading a chapter from the bible and the Lord's Prayer. The state's highest court held the exercise did not violate the First Amendment. The religious character of the exercise was admitted by the state. The Court concluded that, in both cases, the laws required religious exercises and such exercises were being conducted in direct violation of the First Amendment.
|
|
| |
Sherbert v. Verner, No. 526,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 17, 1963, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Appellant claimant lost her job after she declined to work on Saturdays because her religion forbade it. Unable to find other work for the same reason, she applied for unemployment benefits. Appellee employment commission declined to extend benefits, finding that her religious restriction disqualified her. The courts below affirmed the findings, but the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The Court found that the disqualification of benefits imposed a burden on the free exercise of the claimant's religion because the ruling put pressure on her to forego her practice in order to accept work, or to forfeit benefits by following her religion. The condition effectively penalized the free exercise of her constitutional liberties. The Court also noted that a South Carolina statute exempted Sunday worshippers from having to make that same choice. The Court found no compelling state interest for enforcing the substantial infringement because there was no abuse or danger that justified the infringement, and a mere showing of a rational relationship to a colorable state interest was insufficient.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback