 |
|
 |
|
|
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!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Simmons v. United States, No. 55,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 18, 1968, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The first petitioner alleged that a pretrial photographic identification was unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to misidentification, denying him due process of law. Petitioners argued that it was error to refuse requests for production under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 3500, of petitioners' photographs shown prior to trial. The second petitioner alleged that his constitutional rights were violated when testimony in support of a suppression motion was admitted against him at trial. The Court held that under the factual circumstances, the first petitioner's due process rights were not violated because the photos were not shown at a "critical stage" of prosecution. The Jencks Act was not violated, as the photographs were not incorporated in written statements of witnesses, as required by § 3500. When the second petitioner testified in support of his suppression motion on U.S. Const. amend. IV grounds, his testimony could not be admitted against him at trial on the issue of guilt unless he waived his U.S. Const. amend. V privilege against self-incrimination.
|
|||||
| Ginsberg v. New York, No. 47,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 22, 1968, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant store owner was found guilty of selling two "girlie" magazines to a 16 year old boy in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 484-h. The "girlie" magazines involved in the sales were not obscene for adults. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and appellant was denied leave to appeal to the court of appeals. Appellant contended that the constitutional freedom of expression secured to a citizen to read or see material concerned with sex could not be made to depend upon whether the citizen was an adult or a minor. The Court affirmed the judgments of the appellate court and the trial court, finding that the statute did not invade the area of freedom of expression constitutionally secured to minors and that it was rational for the legislature to find that the minors' exposure to such material might be harmful. The Court determined that the concept of obscenity might vary according to the group to whom the material was directed and that the state had an interest in preventing distribution to children of objectionable material recognized to be suitable for adults.
|
|||||
| St. Amant v. Thompson, No. 517,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 29, 1968, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The public official filed a defamation action in which he alleged that the candidate had broadcast comments charging him with criminal conduct. The trial court ruled in the public official's favor. An intermediate appellate court reversed the judgment. On appeal, the state supreme court reversed and affirmed the award of damages for the public official, finding that there was ample evidence that the candidate had recklessly disregarded whether the statements made were true or false. On certiorari, the Court reversed, holding that the state supreme court had misinterpreted and misapplied the New York Times malice standard for reckless publication. The record showed that the candidate had read a third party's statements about the public official during a televised speech, however, nothing referred to by the state courts indicated the candidate's awareness of the probable falsity of the statements. The candidate's failure to verify the information, inattention to the consequences for the public official, and mistaken belief that he had no responsibility because he was merely quoting a third party did not prove the requisite reckless disregard for the accuracy of the statements.
|
|||||
| Bruton v. United States, No. 705,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 20, 1968, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: At a joint trial of defendant and his alleged accomplice, the accomplice did not testify, but the government introduced the accomplice's oral confession, which stated that the accomplice and defendant had committed the robbery. Both defendant and the accomplice were convicted. The court of appeals set aside the accomplice's conviction on the ground that his oral confession should not have been received in evidence against him. However, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's conviction because the trial judge instructed the jury that although the accomplice's confession was competent evidence against the accomplice, it was inadmissible hearsay against defendant and had to be disregarded in determining defendant's guilt or innocence. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that despite the limiting instruction, the introduction of the accomplice's out of court confession at defendant's trial violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine witnesses against him.
|
|||||
| Duncan v. Louisiana, No. 410,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 20, 1968, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was charged with simple battery, a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of two years imprisonment and a $ 300 fine. Defendant sought trial by jury, but because the Louisiana Constitution grants jury trials only in cases in which capital punishment or imprisonment at hard labor may be imposed, the trial court denied the request. Defendant was convicted and sentenced to serve 60 days in the parish prison and pay a fine of $ 150. After the state supreme court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari, defendant sought review in the federal court. The Court held that a crime punishable by two years in prison was a serious crime and not a petty offense. Consequently, defendant was entitled to a jury trial and the trial court erred in denying it. In so ruling, the Court opined that the right to trial by jury guaranteed defendants in criminal cases in federal courts by the U.S. Const. art. III and by the Sixth Amendment was also guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to defendants tried in state courts.
|
|||||
| Garrison v. Patterson, No. 791, Misc.,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 27, 1968, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner was convicted of murder in state court and received the death penalty. He eventually sought a federal writ of habeas corpus on the grounds of inadequate representation and other claims. The trial court denied his petition, and denied the certificate of probable cause. The appellate court granted the certificate of probable cause but affirmed the denial of the writ without further proceedings. Petitioner sought additional review. The court vacated and remanded. It found that once the certificate of probable cause was issued, the appellate court was required to proceed to a disposition of the appeal in accord with its ordinary procedure. Because petitioner was not provided with an adequate opportunity to address the merits of his claim, further proceedings were required.
|
|||||
| United States v. O'Brien, No. 232,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 27, 1968, Decided **Together with No. 233, O'Brien v. United States, also on certiorari to the same court.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The 1965 amendment to the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948 prohibited the knowing destruction of Selective Service registration certificates. Defendant was convicted and sentenced after he publicly burned his registration certificate in an attempt to influence others to adopt his antiwar beliefs. Defendant argued that the amendment was unconstitutional in its application and as enacted because of Congress' alleged purpose to suppress freedom of speech. The Court held that a sufficient governmental interest justified the conviction because of the government's substantial interest in assuring the continuing availability of issued Selective Service certificates, because the amendment condemned only the independent noncommunicative impact of conduct within its reach, and because the noncommunicative impact of defendant's act frustrated the government's interest. Further, an otherwise constitutional statute would not have been struck down on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.
|
|||||
| Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., No. 510,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 3, 1968, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On appeal, the teacher argued that his writing of the letter was protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court reversed and remanded the case. In so doing, the Court held that: (1) it was free to make an independent review of the facts because the state courts had not done so; (2) in a case in which the fact of employment was only tangentially and insubstantially involved in the subject matter of the public communication made by the teacher, it was necessary to regard the teacher as the member of the general public he sought to be; (3) absent proof of false statements knowingly or recklessly made by him, a teacher's exercise of his right to speak on issues of public importance may not have furnished the basis for his dismissal from public employment; and (4) as no such showing had been made, the teacher's rights to freedom of speech were violated.
|
|||||
| Terry v. Ohio, No. 67,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 10, 1968, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner sought review of his conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, contending that the weapon seized from him was obtained through an illegal search, under, and that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress. On certiorari the court affirmed petitioner's conviction. The court ruled that despite the fact that the arresting police officer lacked probable cause to arrest petitioner at the time he made the "stop and frisk" warrantless intrusion upon petitioner that produced the weapon at issue, the search satisfied the conditions of: the officer had a reasonable suspicion, based upon his experience, that petitioner and his companions were about to commit a daytime robbery, and his belief that petitioner was presently armed, dangerous, and posed a threat to him and to others justified both the officer's "stop" of petitioner and the "frisk," or pat-down, of petitioner's overcoat. Furthermore, the court ruled that the search of the outer clothing of petitioner and his companions was properly limited in time and scope in order for him to determine the presence of weapons and to neutralize the danger posed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
