Criminal Justice America's Courts Landmark Cases

​A landmark case in which the defendant with an 8th-grade education defended himself in court after being denied counsel and appealed to the supreme court. The lower court ruling was overturned by the supreme court sighting the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The U.S. Constitution requires states to provide attorneys to criminal defendants who are unable to afford counsel.

​MIRANDA V ARIZONA	BROWN V MISSISSIPPI	PEOPLE V STAMP​	​WEEKS V US	​ESCOBEDO V ILLINIOS
​TERRY V OHIO	​GIDEON V WAINWRIGHT	​TENNESSE V GARNER	​CARROLL DOCTRINE	​WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

​A legal document (petition) filed in the Supreme Court or any circuit court showing by affidavits or other evidence that the petitioner is detained without lawful authority and in violation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights

​MIRANDA V ARIZONA	BROWN V MISSISSIPPI	PEOPLE V STAMP​	​WEEKS V US	​ESCOBEDO V ILLINIOS
​TERRY V OHIO	​GIDEON V WAINWRIGHT	​TENNESSE V GARNER	​CARROLL DOCTRINE	​WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

​Fleeing Felon Rule. The U.S. supreme court struck down a Tennessee statute that permitted police to use deadly force against a felon fleeing. The Supreme Court ruled that shooting an unarmed fleeing felon violated the 4 th amendments search and seizure clause. The court ruled that the seizure did not pose a threat to the police officers or the community.

​MIRANDA V ARIZONA	BROWN V MISSISSIPPI	PEOPLE V STAMP​	​WEEKS V US	​ESCOBEDO V ILLINIOS
​TERRY V OHIO	​GIDEON V WAINWRIGHT	​TENNESSE V GARNER	​CARROLL DOCTRINE	​WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

​The Court Unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment

​MIRANDA V ARIZONA	BROWN V MISSISSIPPI	PEOPLE V STAMP​	​WEEKS V US	​ESCOBEDO V ILLINIOS
​TERRY V OHIO	​GIDEON V WAINWRIGHT	​TENNESSE V GARNER	​CARROLL DOCTRINE	​WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

​A decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and arrest

​MIRANDA V ARIZONA	BROWN V MISSISSIPPI	PEOPLE V STAMP​	​WEEKS V US	​ESCOBEDO V ILLINIOS
​TERRY V OHIO	​GIDEON V WAINWRIGHT	​TENNESSE V GARNER	​CARROLL DOCTRINE	​WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

​Criminal Suspects have a right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment during police interrogations.

​MIRANDA V ARIZONA	BROWN V MISSISSIPPI	PEOPLE V STAMP​	​WEEKS V US	​ESCOBEDO V ILLINIOS
​TERRY V OHIO	​GIDEON V WAINWRIGHT	​TENNESSE V GARNER	​CARROLL DOCTRINE	​WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

​A decision by the United States Supreme Court that upheld the warrantless search of an automobile, which is known as the automobile exception. The case has also been used to increase the scope of warrantless searches

​MIRANDA V ARIZONA	BROWN V MISSISSIPPI	PEOPLE V STAMP​	​WEEKS V US	​ESCOBEDO V ILLINIOS
​TERRY V OHIO	​GIDEON V WAINWRIGHT	​TENNESSE V GARNER	​CARROLL DOCTRINE	​WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

​United States Supreme Court case that ruled that a defendant's involuntary confession that is extracted by police violence cannot be entered as evidence and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

​MIRANDA V ARIZONA	BROWN V MISSISSIPPI	PEOPLE V STAMP​	​WEEKS V US	​ESCOBEDO V ILLINIOS
​TERRY V OHIO	​GIDEON V WAINWRIGHT	​TENNESSE V GARNER	​CARROLL DOCTRINE	​WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

​Supreme Court held that criminal suspects must be informed of their right to consult with an attorney and of their right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police.

​MIRANDA V ARIZONA	BROWN V MISSISSIPPI	PEOPLE V STAMP​	​WEEKS V US	​ESCOBEDO V ILLINIOS
​TERRY V OHIO	​GIDEON V WAINWRIGHT	​TENNESSE V GARNER	​CARROLL DOCTRINE	​WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

​Under California law, a defendant can be liable for a death that occurs during the preparation or commission of a robbery. This is rule is applicable regardless if the killing was intentional or accidental and even if the killing is not a part of the robbery scheme. Malice aforethought is presumed during the commission of a felony such as armed robbery because robbery is a felony that is inherently dangerous in terms of human lives. The rule applies to any death that occurs during the felony and is not limited to deaths that are foreseeable or occur to execute the felony. All that is required is the death is a direct result of the felony.

​MIRANDA V ARIZONA	BROWN V MISSISSIPPI	PEOPLE V STAMP​	​WEEKS V US	​ESCOBEDO V ILLINIOS
​TERRY V OHIO	​GIDEON V WAINWRIGHT	​TENNESSE V GARNER	​CARROLL DOCTRINE	​WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS