Michael Polakowski Exam 2 NOTES OR DISCUSSION ARE BOTTOM OF PAGE PLEASE PUT GUEST LECTURE NOTES ON BOTTOM This

may be on the exam: Rule of 4: Four or more justices think the case is worth the Court's time, then the Supreme Court will issue a writ of certiorari- A decision by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a lower court. Someone who is dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court of Appeals can request the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.If the Court accepts the case, it grants a Writ of Certiorari. Know the Supreme Court Justices: John Roberts (Chief Justice), Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Ginsberg, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia Supreme Court Justice who oversaw the Marbury vs. Madison: Justice Marshall The Federal System Judicial Powers listed in Article 3 Judicial power of the US, shall be rested in the supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the congress may from time to time ordain and establish. Judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior (lifetime) Hierarchy Supreme Court (1) US Court of Appeals (13) US District Courts (94) All courts, other than the Supreme Court, are created by congress Jurisdiction Supreme Court has original jurisdiction Cases affecting Ambassadors Other Public Ministers and Consuls Those in which the US or a state shall be a party In all other cases The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction and one under regulation of congress. Appellate jurisdiction: the Supreme Court could pull up a case from a lower court/ to review decision/outcome Congress can regulate which cases the courts can hear Judicial Review The power of Judiciary to review legislation/government action and determine the constitutionality of these acts Marbury Vs. Madison (1803) Right of courts to interpret laws, although Judicial review is not in constitution. Power makes courts a prominent player in the policy making process. District Courts (Trial Courts) 220K cases a year Original jurisdiction over all federal cases/offenses Mandatory Dockett - have to hear cases no matter how unimportant they are.

Primary Judicial purpose is norm enforcement Very little policy making opportunities Make decisions based on precedent

Courts of Appeals 60K cases a year Review appeals from district courts Mandatory Docket - must hear all appeal cases from a guilty defendant Regional Actors Decisions are only binding in their geographic circuit boundary (nations divided into sections controlled by courts) Attorneys and judges argue technicalities of law No Jury Primary judicial purpose is error correction More opportunity for policy making Supreme Court 70-80 cases a year Review appeals from the courts of appeals Discretionary Docket - gets to review cases that it chooses Except in those cases arising under its original Jurisdiction Primary Judicial purpose is error correction Opportunity for public policy making Last resort to federal system As we move up the hierarchy the following increases: Public interests Media interests Interests group interests Presidential interest Policy - Making opportunities Given the regional nature, much more interest in regional cases/issues ex: Jared Loughner, SB 1070 Media attention more likely in case of national importance ex: obama care, same - sex marriage Supreme Court Vast majority of Americans are unaware of most court decisions and an even smaller portion is accurately informed about them At a simple level, only 17% could name 3 Justices and 11% could name the chief justice Media focuses on elite reaction and its ideological divisions on the court Opposed to the case itself and the legal ruling Media focuses on what issues or controversies they consider to be newsworthy Very small handful of the 70 or so cases the court decides Can get overshadowed by other salient news Covering the court is inherently uninteresting Court largely speaks to a narrow audience of legal professionals Unlike covering congress/president: media does not have sources no information is leaked reporters dont have casual contact with justices (justices rarely make themselves available for media interviews)

Courts Perspective In the institutions best interest to shy away from media attention Legitimacy and public support largely rests on the notion that it is an apolitical institution Decides legal matters by the application of neutral legal principles and precedent Courts legitimacy rests on the idea that its the legitimate source on interpreting the constitution Court does not have enforcement capabilities outside of congress/presidential aid Consistently has the highest public approval

Feb 21 Decisions appealing: Congress can pass law constitutional amendment to court - courts decision Supreme court itself can reserve any precedent it sets Summary from Tuesday: Americans are unaware of most decisions/reasons aware of local (most likely) something important to you How media is more likely to cover elite reaction and ideological decisions in court cases Media & Nominations: Most media attention the court receives nominations Reporter speculation Sources on who they may pick Focus is more candidate/ideological balance of court rather than focusing on the institution, itself Attention from both public/scholars Public struggle between the President and senate opposition over the composition of the court Appointments allow President to shape policy long after their terms in office In general, public has broaden interest Medias Perspective: Actual controversy and intrigue Expected to vet nominee Report Background Report qualifications ideology Bring to light any problems Presidents go public in support of their nominee i.e. fight between president, senate oppositions Changing Dynamics: Since failed Robert Bork nomination in 1987 Media coverage of nominations has increased 38% Elevated the importance of politician process Influenced how nominees are chosen and their confirmation hearings ideological extreme nominees are a thing of the past low profile on controversial issues Why?: Supreme court has a significant influence on policy in U.S. Decisions, ultimately are controlled by the ideological leanings of the Justices Highlights importance of nomination and who makes that pick 2 Perspectives: Social Science Perspective

Personal preference ideological values of the justices control their decisions on the court Life tenure, electrically unaccountable Legal perspectives Alive v.s. Dead approach Constitution Its hard to state there is a neutral application of law that controls the decisions of justices If so, we would always have agreement on the court concern decisions In controversial issues/case, the norm is split decisions rather than unanimity Highlights importance of who is on court for life Summary: Decision Making: Attitudes/ideology control most of the supreme court decisions of s.c. elevated in salient cases media attention more likely for issues of national importance think of which cases you heard about in the past five years Summary: Media: Media means more likely to cover the intriguing/interest news related to the court Nominations Ideological Divisions Elite reactions to more salient decisions Articles Article 1: Set up legislative power: will consist of House and Senate Qualifications and selection process Process for passing legislation Enumerated Powers (Article 1, section 8) Can regulate commerce among states, coin and regulate money, borrow, tax, raise an army, necessary & proper clause Article 2: Creates executive branch Selection and qualifications: electoral college Powers: commander-in-chief, power to pardon, treaties, appointments Article 3: Judicial powers in one Supreme Court Good behavior (life terms) Jurisdiction: authority to hear a case in the Supreme Court Original Jurisdiction: cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and disputes between states. Goes straight to the Supreme Court. Appellate Jurisdiction: all other cases. Article 4: Full Faith and Credit Clause: a clause in the U.S. Constitution which says that every state must recognize and respect the laws and judgments of other states Can admit new states Guarantee of republican form Article 5: Amending the constitution 2nd part process: proposing and ratifying Proposal: 2/3rds both House and Senate

 Constitutional convention called by 2/3rds of states Ratification: State legislators in 3/4ths of states Ratifying convention in 3/4ths of states But cant do anything about slavery until 1808 Article 6 & 7: Debts carry over Loyalty Oath & Supreme Law of the Land No religious tests Ratification Bill of Rights: First 10 Amendments 1. Protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government 2. Protects an individual's right to bear arms 3. Prohibits the forced quartering of soldiers during peacetime 4. Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause 5. Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy 6. Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury 7. Provides for the right to trial by jury in certain civil cases, according to common law 8. Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment 9. Enumeration of rights doesnt any other rights retained by people 10. Power not delegated to us or prohibited by states, are reserved to states 11. Deals with each states sovereign immunity (Chisholm v Georgia- Reference) 12. Revises presidential election procedures 13. Abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime 14. Right to be free from discrimination in states to have due process of law, to have equal protection of the law 15. Prohibits the denial of suffrage based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude 16. Allows the federal government to collect income tax 17. Establishes the direct election of United States Senators by popular vote 18. Establishes prohibition of alcohol (repealed by Twenty-first Amendment) 19. Establishes women's suffrage 20. Fixes the dates of term commencements for Congress (January 3) and the President (January 20); known as the "lame duck amendment" 21. Overturns amendment 18 of prohibition 22. President for 2 terms 23. No hall takes national offices 24. Prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of poll taxes 25. Deals with succession to the presidency and establishes procedures both for filling a vacancy in the office of the vice president, as well as responding to Presidential disabilities 26. Establishes the right to vote for those age 18 years or older. 27. Pay raise for congress, not until next term Creating federal/courts Revising Article 3

 Creates supreme court, gives congress power to vote interior carris Defines supreme court Jurisdiction Justices spend their time circuit riding First important decision, Chisolm vs. Georgia Overturned immediately with 11th amendment Power to determine meaning of U.S. constitution Some states receive this is state power Not explicit Election of 1800: Fed complete control 1789-1800 Anti-fed - win in November 1800 election Tie between Aaron & Thomas Jefferson Jefferson win in 1801 (Feb) House Election John Marshall Legal edu - read books, sat in on a class while on leave during revolutionary war key number of federal poly-proponent of poveral Federal government As influential as any American in history in shaping history Jefferson & Marshall = sworn enemies D.C. Justice of Peace Positions Nominee doesnt get position unless commission is actually delivered Secretary of state (still john Marshall) - responsible delivery 1801, Marbury sues Madison for commission writ of mandamus an order issued by a court commanding a public official to carry out action/duty Judicial act of 1789 gives supreme court the power to issue a writ of mandamus to federal officials But power of supreme court is extremely weak and anti-fed are impeaching federal justices Congress even cancels 1802 sc term and starts discussions for impeaching Marshall as punishment for agreeing to hear Marbury's case. Feb 1803 - SC finally heads oral arguments in Marbury vs. Madison Marbury = simple case, entitled to position, -sc has power to force Madison to deliver paper Legal Questions: 1. Right to commision All steps for position legal cmmin, appts, commissionals Commission compelled with seal 1. Remedy Must be a remedy absurd not to have a remedy if questioned 1. Can Supreme Court provide remedies? No Supreme Court is hereby unclear inguinal jurisdiction Marshall & Judicial Review Can an act repugnant to the constitution became law of land laws in conflict with constitution cannot stand Constitution doesnt explicitly give Supreme Court this power Point of constitution is to limit power If congress can validate and pass laws that violate the constitution then the constitution is useless Judicial power means court decides what the law is/means/const.

Warm voting was a battle over Supreme Court review of state court decisions were even more... Debatable that Marbury vs. Madison established judicial review Marbury signals that court has major role in U.S. system Plenty of debate about reasoning Marbury No other law declared unconstitutional until (Dred Scott) Judicial review raises: .... Courts role potentially most important if: Fundamental right at stake Discrete and insular minority group troubled? Question involves political process rights Will Supreme Court protect minority rights? Most likely reflect dominant evaluation Go against majority preferences, might lack constitutional tools to enforce it Limits on judicial power Case & Controversy Clause Case might be ripe Case cannot be moot Won't decide political questions Conclusion Constitution is flexible by decision Power of judicial review partially established in Marbury vs. Madison Court is important to U.S. system Why we very on court for this March 5 4th, 5th, 6th amendment important for law enforcement <chart> Marbury vs. Madison = Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government. set stage for activity to now 14th amendment no states in all abridge..privileges of citizen.. Hurtado vs. California congress was wrong that you could take first 10 amendments and apply them to states The case helped define rules regarding the use of grand juries in indictments. Does not apply to states until congress says so Judicial inclusion and exclusion... Exclusionary Rule Weeks vs. U.S. (1914) using U.S. mail for lottery purpose.. mail confiscated w/o warrant..converted..over turned and created E.R. Silverthorne vs. U.S.(1920) avoiding taxes, confiscate business...ER..police photocopy..convicted...overturned conviction...s.c..new fpt (fruit poisonous tree) Mapp vs. Ohio (1961) harboring fugitive...bookmaking...search without warrant, porn, convicted, overturned conviction applied ER to state..

Spinnelli vs. U.S. 1969 - Pc informant (3 prongs: veracity, reliability, basis of knowledge)

Illinois vs. Gates - dc informant..drug transportational..anonymous letter..convicted..affirmed..new toc Privacy and Other exceptions: Privacy concepts from what Supreme Court has ruled about it Katz vs U.S. (1967) - Privacy...electronic eavesdropping of phone booth U.S. vs. Billings (1988) - officer observed drugs taped to leg on adjoining bathroom stalls...sc what one exposes knowingly in public, even in our .. is not subject to 4th protections. Bags in airport Harris vs. U.S. (1968) - Plainview...officer searches impounded around found drugs 1. officer must lawfully be in viewing area 2. pc to believe evidence assn. crime AZ vs. Hicks (1987) - Held that the Fourth Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view. Warrantless Searches & S & F Terry vs. Ohio (1968) - 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 frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." Observes activity that causes suspicion (experience) Benefits as Police Officer Makes inquiry Nothing dispels fear, may pat down for protection only Kolander v Lawson (1983) - San Diego, mid 70s, stopped early hours, refused to identify self, He was detained or arrested approximately 15 times within 18 months, was prosecuted twice, and was convicted once (the second charge was dismissed). Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of laws that allow police to demand that loiterers and wanderers provide identification. Arrest and Questioning Miranda vs. AZ (1966) - Suspect of kidnap/rape Interrogated, placed lined up, I.Dd confession convicted and appealed based on 6th amendment Miranda warnings 1. Right to remain silent 2. anything used against you 3. Lawyer/lawyer present while being questioned 4. Lawyer before/during question 5. Answering without re can stop at anytime

A waiver of Miranda Rights can be done if such a waiver is voluntary, knowing and intelligent

Without the waiver, Miranda means nothing. Silence is not a waiver.