RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

Ex Parte Milligan (1866)

Facts of the Case: Lampben P. Milligan was sentenced to death by the military for acts of disloyalty and he seeked habeas corpus through federal courts.

Constitutional Question: Does a civil court have jurisdiction over a military tribunal?

Decision: The courts decision made by martial law cannot exist where the civil courts are operating.

Betts v. Brady (1942)

Facts of the Case: Betts was indited for robbery in the state of Maryland and could not afford a court counsel and requested that a court be appointed to him. The judge denied his request. Betts therefore decieded to deffend himself in the case and pled not guilty.

Constituitional Question: Was the 14th amendment being violated that guarantees every deffendent receive a court counsel.

Decision: The judge ruled that Maryland was not responsible to supply the deffendent with a court counsel.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

 Facts: After an admittedly illegal police search, Dollree Mapp was charged with possesing obscene materials. The search was for a fugitive and her appeal was based on freedom of expression.

Constitutional Question: Where the materials confiscated during the search protected by the First Ammendment and could they be admitted in a state criminal proceeding because the search was in violation of the Fourth Ammendment?

Decision: The court overlooked the First Ammendment, but declared that all confiscated materials were inadmissable in a state court. This case is both controversial and historical because Mapp was convicted based on illegally obtained eveidence.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Facts of the case: Gideon was charged with breaking and entering felony and had insufficient funds to hire a lawyer to represent him. When he asked the Florida state court to appoint him a lawyer, they refused. They claimed that they were only obligated to appoint a lawyer to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon represented himself and was convicted, and sentenced to serve a five years in a state prison.

Constitutional Question: By the court's failure to appoint Gideon a representative did they fail to respect Gideon's rights to a fair trial and due process given to him in the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Decision: It was an unanimous opinion that declared that Gideon did have the right to an attourney to represent him. This case overruled it's 1942 decision in Betts v. Brady. Also declared that the Sixth Ammendment of a guarantee counsel is a "necessity, not a luxury" and is essential to a fair trial.

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

 Facts of the Case: Escobedo was arrested and detained for several hours. He asked for a lawyer the entire time and never got one eventually after the interrogation he committed to murder. His right for an attorney as stated in the 6th amendment was broken.

Constitutional Question: Was Escobedo denied the right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment?

Decision: The court ruled in favor of Escobedo saying that he was denied counsel and not informed of his right to keep silent.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Facts of the Case: The court was asked to rule in several cases which included Vignera v. New York, California v. Stewart, and Westover v. United States. Each of these cases had to do with people who were questioned while in custody or "deprived of their freedom" in some other way.

Question: Is the act of the police interrogating someone without informing them of their rights to counsel or to remain silent in violation of the fifth amendment?

Decision: The court ruled in favor of Miranda saying the the prosecution may not use any statement made from an individual in interrogation unless they had taken the necessary steps "effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination."

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)

Facts of the Case: Osama bin Laden's former chauffer, Salim Ahmed Hmdan, was captured and imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. He filed for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court to challenge his imprisonment. Before the court ruled on this appeal he recieved a hearing from a military tribunal which designated him an enemy combatant.

Months later, the court granted his habeas petition ruling that he must be given a hearing to determine whether he is a prisoner of war before he could be tried by the military The Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the decision, however, finding that the Geneva Convention could not be enforced in federal court and that the establishment of military tribunals had been authorized by Congress and was therefore not unconstitutional.

Constitutional Question: Can the rights of the Geneva Convention be enforced in federal court through habeus corpus petitions? Was the military commission established to try war crimes in the War on Terror authorized by the Congress or inherent powers of the President?

Decision: Yes and No. The Court held that neither an act of Congress nor the Executive laid out in the Constitution express the authority of military commissions at issue. The commission had to comply with the ordinary laws of the U.S. and laws of war. The Geneva Convention could therefore be enforced by the Supreme Court along with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Hamdan's exclusion from parts of his trial deemed classified by the military commission violated both of these and the trial was therefore illegal.