In  re Gault                                                  Juvenile Rights

http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=[Group%20387%20U.S.%201:]([Level%20Case%20Citation:]|[Group%20citemenu:])/doc/{@1}/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only?

Miller v. California                                      Obscenity

http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=%5BGroup+413+U.S.+15:%5D(%5BLevel+Case+Citation:%5D%7C%5BGroup+citemenu:%5D)/doc/%7B@1%7D/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only

SAMPLE FORMAT - not 100% correct, make sure you review and correct any errors.

ESCOBEDO v. ILLINOIS

FACTS

Petitioner, a 22-year-old of Mexican extraction, was arrested with his sister and taken to police headquarters for interrogation in connection with the fatal shooting, about 11 days before, of his brother-in-law. He had been arrested shortly after the shooting, but had made no statement, and was released after his lawyer obtained a writ of habeas corpus from a state court. Petitioner made several requests to see his lawyer, who, though present in the building, and despite persistent efforts, was refused access to his client. Petitioner was not advised by the police of his right to remain silent and, after persistent questioning by the police, made a damaging statement to an Assistant State's Attorney which was admitted at the trial. Convicted of murder, he appealed to the State Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction.

CONSTITUTION

6^th amendment,   right to an attorney

14^th amendment,  due process,  states

5th  amendment,   self incrimination

COURT RULING

Held: Under the circumstances of this case, where a police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect in police custody who has been refused an opportunity to consult with his counsel and who has not been warned of his constitutional right to keep silent, the accused has been denied the assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and no statement extracted by the police during the interrogation may be used against him at a trial. Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433, and Cicenia v. Lagay, 357 U.S. 504, distinguished, and, to the extent that they may be inconsistent with the instant case, they are not controlling. Pp. 479-492.

[p479]

Application - your words.

The 4th, 5th and 6th amendment topics constitute ONE PAPER.  Remember to include a discussion piece on the applicability of the U.S. Constitution as it relates to these topic areas.  This Paper is due:

MID TERM:   

BIOGRAPHY 25 points,

U.S. Constitution quiz 22 points,

ESSAY U.S. Constitution 50 points,

ESSAY Due Process / Exclusionary Rule 50 points,

PAPER 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments 135 points,

MID TERM EXAM 100 points

TOTAL POINTS       382 points

FINAL:    

PAPER - Regional crime lab  25 points

PAPER - court case analysis www.courttv.com - 100 points,

PAPER - scientific evidence analysis -  http://library.rcc.edu/eresources.htm#reference - forensic net base, 100 points,

FINAL EXAM  100 points

TOTAL POINTS:     707 points

EVIDENCE    Thursday

As part of this class, we make a field trip to the California Department of Justice Crime Laboratory.   This trip will give each student a reality check on the outline in Chapter 6 as well as the CSI effect.  This is a mandatory trip for enrolled students.  I will give ample notice for all ENROLLED students to attend.  Absences will be noted.  A 25 point paper resulting from the trip will be assigned.  No open toed shoes.  Paper due:

EVIDENCE    Thursday

Regional crime lab

EVIDENCE    Thursday

Regional crime lab