-
Roth vs United States
A New York man named Roth operated a business that used by postal inspectors. The Court, in its first consideration of censorship of obscenity, created the “prevailing community standards” rule, which required a consideration of the work as a whole. In its decision, the Court defined as obscene that which offends “the average person, applying contemporary community standards.” -
Period: to
Dalton's Warren Court Legal Decisions (1957-1968)
-
Mapp vs Ohio
was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as federal courts -
Baker vs Carr
Mayor Baker of Nashville asked for federal court help. The federal district court refused to enter the “political thicket” of redistricting, and the case was appealed. "One Man, One Vote" -
Gideon vs Wainwright
Gideon was sentenced to 5 years in prison for breaking into a poolroom. The Court called for a new trial, arguing that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment applied to the 6th Amendment's guarantee of counsel for all poor persons facing a felony charge. -
Reynolds vs Sims
The United States was becoming more urban, and one-time rural majorities—now minorities—were holding on to political power at the state level by refusing to reapportion. A complaint was filed challenging the apportionment of the Alabama legislature. -
Escobedo vs Illinois
A murderer confessed to committing the crime but was not been provided with a lawyer while under interrogation. The Court's decision in the case extended the “exclusionary rule” to illegal confessions in state court. -
Engel vs Vitale
In 1960 in Illinois, Escobedo was arrested in connection with murder. During police interrogation Escobedo requested to see his lawyer, but was denied. He made a statement which was used against him at trial and he was convicted of murder. He ended up appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. -
Griswold vs Connecticut
By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy" -
Miranda vs Arizona
Statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police.