Q&A Hero

Q: Which of the following circumstances did the Supreme Court say violated the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment?A. A judge removed a disruptive and abusive defendant, and the trial proceeded without the accused present.B. A child witness testified behind a screen so the child would not have to see the defendant.C. A child witness testified on a closed-circuit television so the child would not have to see the defendant.D. All of the above.

Q: The Supreme Court held that any amount of bail exceeding that necessary to ensure a return to trial violated the Eighth Amendment in:a. Stack v. Boyleb. Gregg v. Georgiac. Solem v. Helmd. Ingraham v. Wright

Q: Which of the following statements about jury selection is not true?A. Attorneys have an unlimited number of "challenges for cause."B. Judges may conduct initial interviews and excuse certain classes of people, including felons and the mentally ill.C. In making a peremptory challenge, an attorney is required to state a reason for dismissing a juror.D. All of the above.

Q: Which amendment prohibits excessive bail?A. Fourth AmendmentB. Fifth AmendmentC. Sixth AmendmentD. Eighth Amendment

Q: At the end of 2010, all 36 states with the death penalty authorized _______as a method of execution. a. the gas chamber b. lethal injection c. the electric chair d. hanging

Q: The Supreme Court has never incorporated this segment of the Sixth Amendment to apply to the states, although it does fall within the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. a. Being informed of the accusation. b. Right to a jury trial. c. Right to compulsory process. d. Confrontation rights.

Q: How has the Court ruled on the right to state-funded counsel for indigent defendants during the appeals process?A. The right extends through the first obligatory appeal but not to discretionary appeals.B. The right extends through discretionary appeals, including appeals to the Supreme Court.C. The right extends to all discretionary appeals except to the U.S. Supreme Court.D. The right does not extend to any appeals.

Q: Gideon v. Wainwright overruled the Supreme Court's decision in what previous case?A. Powell v. AlabamaB. Argersinger v. HamlinC. Johnson v. ZerbstD. Betts v. Brady

Q: The Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to counsel during: a. civil proceedings. b. hostile contractual negotiations. c. criminal proceedings. d. any and all court proceedings

Q: The test used by courts when determining whether pretrial identification procedures were constitutional is the: a. harmless error test b. totality of the circumstances test c. preponderance of the evidence test d. undue influence test

Q: Which of the following statements best describes the Supreme Court's decision in Powell v. Alabama (the "Scottsboro boys" case)?A. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel for every defendant.B. Unusual circumstances (i.e., capital offenses) necessitate counsel to ensure fairness for the defendants.C. The Sixth Amendment does not guarantee defendants the right to counsel.D. The defendants in Powell v. Alabama received an adequate defense given the circumstances of the crime.

Q: Which is not one of the reasons the Sixth Amendment requires a speedy trial: a. uncertainty about the outcome causes undue stress. b. some defendants remain in jail because they cannot afford or have been denied bail. c. the government incurs additional expenses. d. cases generally improve with more time.

Q: You are a Supreme Court justice assigned to write the majority opinion in the following case. How would you resolve it? What precedent would you cite to support your opinion? You should identify and "resolve" the complex legal issues present. The question brings up some factual situations and legal questions not directly addressed in the cases we have discussed. However, those cases should provide some guidance to you in deciding this case. This is not to suggest that there are "right" answers to these questions, but a strong argument will be well organized, logically argued, and supported through reference to Court decisions.Due to concerns about drug use and violence in schools, the Westminster Board of Education adopted a policy that allowed, but did not mandate, schools in their system to take steps necessary for the protection of students and to promote a positive learning environment. Jefferson High School introduced policies aimed at preventing exactly the type of behavior of concern to the board. One action was the installation of metal detectors at all school entrances. In addition, the school hired security guards and gave them the authority to conduct random "pat down" searches on students, including searches of bags and backpacks.The school also instituted a drug-testing system whereby students were randomly selected for tests. A teacher or administrator who suspected a student was under the influence of drugs or alcohol could send the student to the school nurse to be tested. The nurse could also select students for testing. The nurse had materials available for a variety of tests, including breath, blood, and urine tests. The samples taken from students were sent to an independent lab for analysis.The high school's principal, Brett Dilfer, received an anonymous letter informing him that Dorsey Dunn, a seventeen-year-old senior, kept marijuana in his locker, used it personally and sold it to other students at school. Based on this information, Principal Dilfer searched Dunn's locker and found several ounces of marijuana and a half-empty bottle of vodka. The security guards then searched Dunn and found rolling papers and a small amount of marijuana. The principal sent Dunn to the nurse for testing. Over his objections, the nurse obtained blood and urine samples and forced him to take a breath test.Dilfer called the local police and turned over the drugs and alcohol to them. Although they did not have a warrant, the police officers then went to the school parking lot and searched Dunn's 1968 Camaro. They found more marijuana in the glove compartment, a handgun under the driver's seat, and several car stereos in the trunk that appeared to have been stolen. When the police asked Dunn about the evidence, he said, "Yeah, the stuff's mine." He was placed under arrest, read his Miranda warnings, and taken to the police station. The police discovered that the stereos had recently been reported stolen from a local Best Buy store. They also determined that the car was not owned by Dunn, but was registered in his father's name.Based on the evidence given to them by the school, what they discovered in his car, and Dunn's statement, the police charged Dunn with drug possession, illegal possession of a firearm (he had no permit), and grand theft for the stereos found in his car. The results of Dunn's drug tests were positive, indicating that he had marijuana and alcohol in his system at the time of the tests. He was immediately expelled from school.The trial court judge threw out the statement Dunn made to police prior to being read his Miranda rights, but Dunn, a minor, was convicted of the charges filed against him. Because of new criminal guidelines in Westminster County that allowed juveniles to be tried as adults for certain crimesincluding drug possession and grand theftDunn was sentenced to twenty years at a state maximum security prison. He appealed to the intermediate court of appeals, where his conviction was upheld. He appealed to the state supreme court, which affirmed the judgment of the intermediate court. He then brought his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.As a Supreme Court justice, you are presented with several important legal questions in this case. Was the school justified in conducting random searches of students without probable cause? Were the intrusions made on students (searches, collection of blood and urine samples) unreasonable or unduly burdensome? Was the school exerting its proper authority in conducting the search of Dunn and his locker? Were the drug tests conducted on him reasonable? How do you deal with the involvement of the local police and their subsequent search of Dunn's car? Was the trial court judge correct in throwing out Dunn's statement to the police prior to being read his Miranda rights? Would you uphold his conviction? Justify your opinion.

Q: You are a Supreme Court justice assigned to write the majority opinion in the following case. How would you resolve it? What precedent would you cite to support your opinion? You should identify and "resolve" the complex legal issues present. The question brings up some factual situations and legal questions not directly addressed in the cases we have discussed. However, those cases should provide some guidance to you in making your decision. This is not to suggest that there are "right" answers to these questions, but a strong argument will be well organized, logically argued, and supported through reference to Court decisions.On the night of October 4, 1995, Brett Freeman was found stumbling along the side of the road in Sleepy Eye, Minnesota. A police officer, Paul Tagliabue, saw Freeman, stopped his patrol car, and offered to drive Freeman home. Later, Tagliabue was quoted as saying he believed that "Freeman was drunk and just needed to get home to sleep off his binge." Freeman accepted the ride, and Tagliabue drove him home. He had to assist Freeman out of the car and into his living room. As they were walking into the house, the officer asked Freeman where he had been drinking that night. To this Freeman replied, "At the Pig's Eye Bar on 3rd Street. I took my girlfriend's car there, but could not find my keys when I left. That is why I was walking home."Upon entering the house, specifically the living room, Tagliabue spotted a white residue, a pot pipe, and other drug paraphernalia lying on and around the coffee table. As a result, he asked Freeman if the paraphernalia was his. Freeman replied, "Yeah, some of it." During the entire conversation Tagliabue noted that Freeman slurred his words, could not stand without support, and seemed to be nodding off. However, he did say that he was able to answer both of the questions with little trouble. After Freeman fell asleep on the couch, Tagliabue called a backup squad and sat down to wait for them to arrive. Based on the drug paraphernalia in the living room, Tagliabue and the backup squad began to search the house.By this time Freeman's roommates, Raymont Sapp and Robert Alstott, arrived home. They were incensed that the police were searching the house and immediately called their attorney. In the time that it took for the lawyer to arrive, the police searched the living room where Freeman was sleeping, his bedroom, the kitchen, the basement, and the attic. They found several marijuana plants under a hot light in Freeman's bedroom and a load of marijuana leaves drying in the basement. Additionally, they found several other unidentified illicit drugs in the refrigerator, about $10,000 in a cookie jar, and three handguns taped under the kitchen table. The officers also searched the entire backyard. Beside the garbage cans, which were about seventy-five yards from the house, the investigating officers found empty bags lined with a white powdery residue.All three roommates were placed under arrest, and Sapp's and Alstott's bedrooms were searched. These searches turned up more marijuana plants. The three roommates were taken to the police station. Freeman was put in a holding cell to sleep off his night of drinking, and Sapp and Alstott were booked. During the booking each was told that he would have to submit to urine and blood tests administered by a local doctor. Additionally, the police had the doctor draw a vial of blood from Freeman while he slept in his cell.At the same time that the search of the house was going on, two other police officers were dispatched to the Pig's Eye to look for the car Freeman drove that night. They found the car unlocked, with the keys in the ignition. A thorough search of the car turned up more marijuana, another handgun, five boxes of ammunition for the gun, and another $10,000. The car was impounded and taken directly to the police station.Based on the evidence obtained in and behind the house, as well as the drug tests performed at the police station, Freeman, Sapp, and Alstott were arrested for drug possession with intent to sell, for illegally using illicit drugs, and for possessing handguns without permits. Freeman and his girlfriend, Jennifer Ryskoski, were separately charged with possession of drugs and illegally possessing an unregistered concealed handgun in the car.Ryskoski was acquitted because the prosecution could not prove that she knew the drugs or gun were in her car on the night in question. Freeman, Sapp, and Alstott were convicted of possessing drugs with the intent to sell, of using illegal substances, and of possessing handguns without proper permits.As a Supreme Court justice, how do you resolve the intricate legal questions in this case revolving around the Fourth Amendment? Was the officer justified in calling for backup and then searching the house without obtaining a warrant? Should the police have been able to search the house while Freeman was passed out based on the paraphernalia that was in the living room? Should the officers have searched Sapp's and Alstott's rooms after they were arrested? Was the backyard search justified? Should the police have been able to go and search the car that Freeman drove that night based on what they found at the house? Were the blood and urine tests in this case legitimate, or did they violate the suspects' Fourth Amendment rights? What, if any, of the evidence would you admit at trial? Should any of it be excluded, or is the evidence admissible? Justify your opinion.

Q: The case establishing that indigent defendants accused of a felony must be provided a lawyer was: a. Barker v. Wingo. b. Powell v. Alabama. c. Gideon v. Wainwright. d. Argensinger v. Hamlin.

Q: One Sixth Amendment guarantee is: a. the defendant's right to confront adverse witnesses. b. having all court proceedings on the record. c. having an independent investigation. d. indictment by a grand jury.

Q: On June 5, 1989, FBI agent Steve Moe received a tip from a well-known actor in Minneapolis, that Roger Sviggum, another well-known actor, was manufacturing illegal drugs (cocaine and heroin) in a laboratory located on his land "up north," and that he was growing marijuana on land surrounding this lakefront property. Acting on this information, Moe dispatched agents to the northern Minnesota property. Over the course of the next week, these agents observed numerous "strange" cars and other vehicles going in and out of the ranch.Based on the initial "tip" and these observations, Moe sought to obtain a warrant to search the Sviggum residence. He first approached Magistrate Hottinger and told him about the "tip" and the agents' observations. Hottinger, however, felt insufficient probable cause existed to issue the warrant. Rather than attempting to build a better case, Moe went to a second magistrate, Pawlenty, who issued a warrant to search only the Sviggum residence (i.e., the main building).a. Should Magistrate Pawlenty have issued the warrant? Why or why not?Moe, along with four other officers, sought to execute the warrant. They drove up to the Sviggum residence and, parked rather far from the house because a silver Mercedes-Benz was blocking the driveway. They knocked on the door to the house, and Sviggum's wife opened it. After she told them that Roger was not in the house (he was, according to her, practicing his lines for a new show), Moe explained that they had a warrant to search the home. She let them in, and the five officers began a full search of the house.The officers found nothing until they spotted a closed door at the side of the house. They asked Mrs. Sviggum about this, and she told them that they rented out that part of the home to a boarder, one Monica Hahn. Upon obtaining Mrs. Sviggum's permission, the agents entered the Hahn quarters. There they found not only Ms. Hahn, but also a sophisticated laboratory they suspected was used for the manufacturing of drugs.b. Was it reasonable for police to enter Hahn's quarters? Why or why not?As the agents moved toward Hahn, she began ingesting chemicals located on a table on which she was working. They immediately, but gently, seized her and placed her under arrest. Because she had swallowed some of the "evidence," however, two agents rushed her to a local hospital for stomach X-rays. At the hospital, Hahn refused to give her consent for the procedure. The doctor, acting under police orders, took the X-rays anyway and, the resultant pictures revealed the presence of substances used to manufacture heroin.c. Was the X-ray procedure a reasonable search and seizure? Why or why not?Meanwhile, finding nothing else in the Sviggum residence, agents decided to search the silver Mercedes in the driveway. They asked Mrs. Sviggum who owned the car. She replied that it was hers, but that she would not give them consent to search it. The agents went back into the house, found the car keys, and unlocked the car without permission. In a suitcase in the trunk, they found large quantities of heroin. They placed Mrs. Sviggum under arrest and called for back-up officers.d. Was the search of the car reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?OnAs soon as other officers arrived on the scene, two FBI agents decided to examine the rest of the property (the land surrounding the house) to see if they could locate Roger, and to determine if, in fact, the Sviggums were growing marijuana on the premises. They did not have to walk very far to find what they were looking for. Right beyond the fence enclosing the ranch, they spotted acres of marijuana plants. And, just a quarter mile farther away, they saw Roger, dressed in a business suit, talking to two teenage girls.As the agents rushed toward Roger, eventually arresting him, the girls started quickly walking away from the scene. One of the officers stopped them and identified himself as a police officer. Next, he "patted" them down." He found nothing on the first; on the second, Linda Lewinsky, he felt "something" bulky in her jacket pocket. The agent reached in and removed the mass, which turned out to be a huge wad of $100 bills and a negligible amount of heroin. He arrested Ms. Lewinsky.e. Was this "frisk" reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?f. Based on your answers to questions a"e, can you now reach conclusions about the admissibility of the evidence? Would you exclude any or all of the evidence gathered against the Sviggums, Hahn, and Lewinsky? Why or why not?g. Would your answers to questions a"f be different if the year were 1968 rather than 1989?

Q: The Supreme Court has held that before interrogating suspects who are in custody, police must warn them of their right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during questioning (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). Unless suspects have received these warnings, the statements they make cannot be used against them at trial. However, the Court has substantially refined this requirement so that it applies only in certain circumstances. Discuss the Court's interpretation of "custodial interrogation" and "coercive environments." What do these terms mean, and what effect has the Court recognized that these situations have on the admissibility of statements? As always, discussion of the cases covered will enhance your answers.

Q: Whether a trial is sufficiently speedy is determined by the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, ________________, and the harm caused.a. court review of the factsb. the prosecution's waiver of the rightc. the relevance of the delayd. the defendant's assertion of this right

Q: Ineffective assistance of counsel claims can be based on the: a. gravity of the offense charged. b. accessibility of witnesses for the defense. c. failure to take normal and routine steps before trial. d. counsel's inexperience compared to the complexity of the case.

Q: A waiver of one's Sixth Amendment right to counsel must be all of the following, except: a. in writing. b. knowing. c. voluntary. d. intelligent.

Q: The Court has held that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used to convict someone of a federal crime (Weeks v. United States). In what case did the Court first discuss this protection regarding evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure in relation to the states? In what case did the Court actually incorporate this protection to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment?

Q: The Supreme Court has recognized for some time that searches of individuals conducted incident to lawful arrest are permissible without a warrant (Weeks v. United States, 1914). However, the Court has often interpreted Weeks quite broadly, allowing the searches of homes, automobiles, and so on. Discuss the Court's pattern regarding allowable searches. Specifically, under what conditions are searches of individuals allowable without a warrant? How far does that right to search extend, and under what circumstances? How have the Court's decisions regarding the right to search automobiles, homes, and property changed over time?Do you feel that the evolution of the Court's search and seizure policy has been consistent? If not, identify instances where the Court has diverged significantly from its previous decisions and offer explanations for such changes.

Q: Mempa v. Rhay held that a convicted offender has the right to assistance of counsel at ___________in which the sentence has been deferred. a. inmate disciplinary hearings b. probation revocation hearings c. hearings before a parole board d. inmate grievance boards

Q: The Supreme Court has interpreted the Sixth Amendment to mean that an accused has the constitutional right to counsel at: a. every critical stage during a criminal proceeding. b. any critical stage, excluding post-trial appeals. c. every critical stage after arraignment. d. any stage in the criminal investigation.

Q: Describe three exceptions to the warrant requirement. What is the ultimate key to the Fourth Amendment, according to Chief Justice John Roberts?

Q: Explain the rationale the Court used to determine that the use of a GPS tracking device violated the Fourth Amendment in Jones.

Q: In Brewer v. Williams, the Christian Burial Speech case (involving the search for the body of a missing girl), the Supreme Court determined there was:a. an inevitable articulation exception to the Sixth Amendment.b. a deliberate elicitation of an incriminating statement.c. the functional equivalent of interrogation.d. intimidation resulting in an involuntary statement.

Q: A statement obtained in violation of a person's constitutional rights will only be permitted in court to: a. corroborate the defendant's protestations of innocence. b. impeach the defendant's perjured testimony at trial. c. impeach defense witnesses during cross-examination. d. provide aggravating factors in the sentencing phase.

Q: Why did the Court refuse to suppress the evidence used to convict Herring in Herring v. U.S.?

Q: Massiah v. United States (1964) held that a critical stage requiring a lawyer includes when a defendant is:a. made aware a crime has been committed.b. approached by the police. c. determined to be indigent. d. charged with a crime.

Q: What was the chief concern of Justice White in his Miranda dissent?

Q: Explain the good-faith exception that the Court created in United States v. Leon.

Q: The Star Chamber was: a. the old Supreme Court chamber located in the U.S. Capitol. b. an English court that tried people in secret with no regard to due process. c. a group of highly revered lawyers who drafted the Sixth Amendment. d. an 1880s theatrical group that taught the public the true meaning of "due process."

Q: According to the Supreme Court in Escobedo v. Illinois, when does the right to counsel begin?

Q: Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) held that: a. no Miranda warning is required during a stop and frisk. b. Miranda does not need to be given by private police. c. an individual being investigated by police may not be denied counsel. d. indigent defendants are entitled to a lawyer when seeking an appeal.

Q: The first prong of the two-pronged test to establish a claim of ineffective counsel requires the defendant to show: a. representation falling below an objective standard of reasonableness. b. representation whose incompetence "shocks the conscience." c. representation falling below community standards of excellence. d. representation that resulted in an unfavorable outcome.

Q: What is the exclusionary rule?

Q: What two criteria must be met for a consent search to be valid?

Q: Witness identification of a suspect is very important to investigations and is compelling evidence in a criminal trial. We have all seen the police lineups in movies, where individuals are led into a room to stand facing a two-way mirror allowing a victim or witness to pick out the individual they saw at the scene of the crime. The people in the lineup are selected to closely match the physical characteristics of the suspect and the procedure must not be done in such a way as to be unduly suggestive of who the suspect is. However, sometimes the police take a suspect to a victim's hospital room or simply bring a suspect to a crime scene and show him or her to witnesses. This show-up usually occurs immediately or shortly after a crime has occurred. This procedure is certainly more suggestive than a lineup, since there is only one person being brought before the witness. Why do you think the courts allow show-ups, but will review lineups to make sure they are not too suggestive? Is this really fair?

Q: Your best friend is facing a criminal trial for leaving the scene of an accident and DUI. She can't really afford to hire an attorney specializing in these offenses and wonders if she can defend herself in a trial. Can she? Why or why not? Should she?

Q: Explain the two limitations the Court has set on searches incident to a valid arrest.

Q: Public defenders are employed by the government to ensure everyone's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is met, particularly those who cannot afford their own lawyer. You have just graduated from law school and are a brand- new public defender. Your first client is charged with armed robbery and, during your first meeting with her, she says, "I thought I was entitled to the best attorney available?" Explain to client what she is entitled to in terms of effective assistance in her criminal trial.

Q: What guarantees are afforded to the criminally accused in the two clauses of the Fourth Amendment?

Q: Which one of the following statements best describes the Court's decision in Brewer v. Williams?A. The legal definition of interrogation is confined to question and answer periods at a police station.B. Police do not have to read Miranda warnings before interrogating a suspects at the suspects' homes.C. Any attempt to obtain incriminating statements from a suspect in custody requires Miranda warnings.D. Miranda warnings are required even if a suspect voluntarily shows up at a police station.

Q: Assume that you were a member of a prosecution team that successfully convicted a man of premeditated murder 10 years ago. A new defense attorney for the convicted individual uncovers a witness statement in a case file that suggests that someone else, other than his client, might have committed the killings. The statement was accidentally filed in another case file with a felon with the same last name. An angry member of the victim's family just barged into your office after hearing about the new statement. What would you say?

Q: Identification procedures are not critical stages of criminal proceedings if they are ______, so there is no Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. a. post arraignmentb. accomplished in the presence of a judge c. preindictmentd. done at a police station

Q: Which of the following statements is not true?A. Statements made without Miranda warnings may be used for counteracting perjury.B. Miranda warnings are required even when a suspect is unaware that he or she is speaking to a law enforcement official.C. When there is danger to public safety, the police may question to remove the danger prior to reading Miranda warnings.D. Even if police enter a home illegally to make an arrest, they can still obtain a valid confession if a suspect is read his or /her Miranda rights.

Q: This occurs when the victim or witness is shown several people, including the suspect. a. a showupb. a blind lineupc. a stop and frisk d. a lineup

Q: Which of the following statements best describes the incorporation of the exclusionary rule into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?A. The exclusionary rule has not been incorporated.B. The exclusionary rule was incorporated in the Weeks v. United States ruling.C. The exclusionary rule was incorporated in the United States v. Leon ruling.D. The exclusionary rule was incorporated in the Mapp v. Ohio ruling.

Q: Unlike Miranda, the _________case applies whether the suspect is in or out of custody. a. Gideon b. Merryman c. Rutledge d. Massiah

Q: Which Court is known for expanding the rights of the criminally accused?A. The Burger CourtB. The Warren CourtC. The Rehnquist CourtD. The Hughes Court

Q: In which case did the Supreme Court create the exclusionary rule?A. Weeks v. United StatesB. Wolf v. ColoradoC. Mapp v. OhioD. Terry v. Ohio

Q: When the police use purposeful yet covert methods to secure incriminating statements, they are engaged in a. deliberate elicitation.b. jury selection.c. inevitable discovery.d. fruit of the poisonous tree efforts.

Q: Which of the following statements is not true?A. Cars have less protection against searches than homes.B. An officer making a traffic stop can order the driver and passengers out of the car.C. A routine traffic stop where a citation is issued is sufficient to justify a full search of an automobile.D. If probable cause justifies a search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle.

Q: After a defendant has been _____ and obtained an attorney, that attorney must be present during any subsequent questioning.a. seen at a crime scene b. charged with a crimec. named as a person of interest d. concerned about arrest

Q: Which of the following is not an exception to the warrant requirement?A. a search to ensure evidence is not lost.B. a search conducted once a suspect has been put in jail.C. a search done in "hot pursuit."D. a search incident to a valid arrest.

Q: Any step during a criminal investigation in which the accused's rights may be affected by the absence of legal representation is known as a __________.

Q: Since the late 1980s, policy makers have debated the question of how society should deal with the problem of women's substance abuse during pregnancy. No state had criminalized drug use during pregnancy until Westphalia (in the western United States) passed H.R. 2490, which specifically made alcohol or drug use during pregnancy, including the use of prescribed narcotics, a criminal offense. The law specifically equated ingestion of any controlled substances (legal or illegal) with child abuse.Wilma Rubble was a Gulf War Veteran who was awarded the Purple Heart after being injured in combat. She recovered but had been on Percocet since 2005 for ongoing pain from her combat injury. When she found out she was pregnant her doctor informed her that H.R. 2490 prohibited him from refilling any more Percocet prescriptions for her. She then found a new primary care doctor who was willing to treat her pain with another narcotic that was known to have fewer side effects. However, she and the doctor were turned in to the police by a lab tech who had analyzed blood drawn from Rubble during Rubble's eighteenth week of her pregnancy. The tech found evidence of narcotic use during the blood analysis. Rubble was charged under the state criminal statute and was convicted of child abuse, which carried a maximum sentence of twenty-six months in jail. She appealed to the state Supreme Court, arguing that her right to privacy specifically allows her to take any medication legal under state law. The high court disagreed and upheld her conviction. The majority argued that the state has an interest in protecting the life of a fetus.Rubble has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. She argues that life does not begin until birth and that her right to privacy outweighs the state's interest in protecting the unborn fetus. As a justice on the Court, how would you decide this case? Use the privacy cases you have read in class to justify your answer.

Q: Gideon v. Wainwright established that ______ defendants are to be provided lawyers when faced with a deprivation of liberty.

Q: Reproductive law is one of the most controversial issues addressed by the Court. First, explain the significance of Roe v Wade. Next, explain how the doctrine set out in this case allowed the Court until the early 1980s to rule that most standards regulating abortion were unconstitutional. Then discuss how and why the Court changed its views on abortion in the 1980s. Finally, explicate how the decision in Casey affected what standards were acceptable regulations and which were not. Within this answer you should draw distinctions between the different standards proposed to deal with abortion rights. Also, explain the significance of O"Connor's dissent in Akron.

Q: If the state does not provide a specific attorney to assist a defendant in a capital case until the day of trial, the defendant is being denied __________.

Q: The right to privacy does not explicitly exist in the Constitution, but a majority of the justices have concluded that a fundamental privacy right exists. Trace the early foundations on which some members of the Court were willing to protect individuals from government intrusion into their personal lives. How did Harlan transform these ideas in Poe v. Ullman? Next, discuss the different justices' views on the right to privacy found in Griswold. Explain Douglas's discussion of penumbras and why they are so important to his justification for a right to privacy. How did the other justices defend a right to privacy? What justification did the dissenters in the case offer against a right to privacy? What has been the interpretation of privacy issues since Griswold? To what areas has the Court been willing to extend the privacy right, and what have been its justifications?

Q: A ____ requires an individual to appear in court to testify, or bring documents or other physical evidence to the court.

Q: An out-of-court statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted is known as_______.

Q: Why might it be do argued that Carhart v. Gonzalez may not be reason for concern that Roe may eventually be overturned?

Q: The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of an accused to face witnesses in court so the defendant can confront them. Why does the Sixth Amendment require this? Courts have also held that a victim's statement to the police about who had killed him can be admitted at trial, even if the victim dies of his wounds before trial. If the right to confront witnesses is so important, why would the courts allow the statement of a deceased victim to be admitted at trial? Do you agree with allowing such testimony to be admitted? Why or why not?

Q: What rationale did Harlan provide to support the right to privacy in his Ullman dissent? Why do some scholars consider this dissent so important?

Q: What rationale did Brandeis provide to support the right to privacy in his Olmstead dissent?

Q: A defendant always has the right to a trial by jury. a. Trueb. False

Q: Describe two new issues that recent technology has brought to the debate over privacy.

Q: Jury nullification is when a jury acquits a defendant even though the jurors believe that the person is guilty. a. Trueb. False

Q: Detail two of the arguments Chief Justice Rehnquist made in his majority opinion in favor of Missouri in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health.

Q: Contrast the different readings of Stanley v. Georgia in the majority and dissenting opinions of Bowers v. Hardwick.

Q: A person might waive their right to a jury trial and select having the case heard before only a judge without a jury. a. Trueb. False

Q: A jury panel is called a venire. a. Trueb. False

Q: Compare and contrast the "strict scrutiny" approach to restrictive abortion laws outlined in Blackmun's opinion in Roe and the "undue burden" approach O"Connor adopted in later cases.

Q: Describe the trimester framework that Blackmun outlined in his majority opinion in Roe v. Wade (noting when, if ever, it allowed states to regulate abortion).

Q: A potential jury is known as a voir dire. a. Trueb. False

Q: Explain what factors are considered when a defendant waives the right to counsel.