Criminal Trial Rights Tanner Powell and Eric Tate

Incorporation The first, fourth, fifth (except right to be indicted by a grand jury), and sixth amendments to the constitution are incorporated; protected from infringement at the state and local level.

Timeline 1932-Powell v. Alabama- Right to counsel in capital cases 1965-Pointer v. Texas- Right to confront witnesses 1966-Miranda v. Arizona- defendants must be informed of their rights 1966 – Parker V. Gladden – Right to an impartial jury 1967 – Washington V. Texas – Right to acquire witnesses 2006 – Georgia V. Randolph – all residents must consent to a search.

Powell v. Alabama 1932 Premise: Nine black men (including Ozzie Powell) were accused of rape, given a one day trial, little or no access to counsel, and a highly biased jury. Rights: The defendants’ sixth amendment right to impartial jury and legal counsel were denied. Outcome: The Court ruled that indigent members of society (in this case, the defendants), when charged with a capital crime, must be given competent counsel at the expense of the public. This ruling was incorporated against infringement by the states.

Pointer v. Texas 1965 Premise: Pointer was indicted for robbery. The witness who testified at the grand jury later moved to another state. The transcript from the grand jury hearing was then used in the criminal trial as evidence. This prevented Pointer from confronting or cross-examining the witness. Rights: Pointer’s sixth amendment rights to confront and subsequently cross-examine the witnesses against him were violated. Outcome: The court ruled that witnesses are compelled to confront and testify on behalf of or against the defendant. This ruling was incorporated against state infringement.

Miranda v. Arizona 1966 Premise: Ernesto Miranda was arrested on charges of robbery. Under police questioning Miranda confessed (without legal supervision) to an earlier rape. He was convicted for this rape. Rights: Because Miranda was not informed of his sixth amendment right to an attorney and fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, these rights were effectively denied. Outcome: Defendants are to be informed of their fifth and sixth amendment rights in order for their statements to be admissible in court. This ruling was incorporated against infringement at the state level. Rights

Public school does not recognize the right against self-incrimination.

Parker V. Gladden At a Trial for a second-degree murder case, the bailiff made comments to jurors about the accused. This Violated the 6 th amendment because the jury was no longer impartial. The court ruled in Parker's favor saying that the bailiff has no right to speak to the jury like that. This decision reinforced the 6 th amendment and also showed that the 6 th amendment applies to state courts as well as federal courts.

Washington V. Texas In a case where two men where charged with murder, they were tried separately. In Washington's trial, he wanted to use his co-participant's testimony in the trial. Because of Texas laws, he was not allowed to do this. The Supreme Court ruled that based on the 6 th amendment, Washington had the right to obtain witnesses in his favor no matter who they be. This once again strengthened the 6 th amendment and told Texas that the federal amendments apply to the states as well, so they'd have to follow by those rules.

Georgia v. Randolph In this case a husband rejected to a police search that his wife consented to. The cops found evidence of drugs in the husband's room. The court ruled that police do not have the right to search a residence without a warrant unless all residents consent to the search.