Assignment:
Explore the ideological tendencies of the majority and minority of the current U.S. Supreme Court. What is meant by "liberal" or "conservative" judges? Considering the process for selecting Supreme Court justices, is it possible for politics to not play a role in the process? Explain how these ideological/political tendencies shape U.S. Supreme Court opinions. It is recommended that your post contain approximately 400 words.
Required Resources
Text
Spohn, C., & Hemmens, C. (2012). Courts: A text/reader (2nd ed.). Sage.
Section V: Pretrial Proceedings
Website
United States Courts. (n.d.). Criminal cases
The article provides an outline of federal criminal procedure, from arraignment through sentencing.
Recommended Resources
Articles
Owens, R. J., & Wedeking, J. P. (2011). Justices and legal clarity: Analyzing the complexity of U.S. Supreme Court opinions.Law & Society, 45(4), 1027-1061.
The full-text version of this article is available in the ProQuest database in the University of Arizona Global Campus Library. This article provides an examination of the significance of clarity in legal decisions and explains the liabilities for a lack of legal clarity in U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
Smith, C. E., McCall, M., & McCall, M. (2006). Criminal justice and the 2004-2005 United States Supreme Court term.The University of Memphis Review, 36(4).
The full-text version of this article is available in the ProQuest database in the University of Arizona Global Campus Library. A detailed analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court and its transition from the "Rehnquist Court" to the "Roberts Court."
Multimedia
Ishmael, P. [Patrick Ishmael]. (2012, May 14). Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer debate the Constitution
This video clip of an interview with the two justices provides insights into their reasoning and rulings on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Legal Materials
Clark v. Arizona
This case highlights information about the insanity defense.
Davis v. United States
This case highlights information about the admissibility of an illegal search.
Davis v. Washington
This case highlights information about the admissibility of a 911 call at trial.
Florida v. Powell
This case highlights information about Miranda warnings.
Giles v. California
This case highlights information about the admissibility of a dead victim's statements in a trial.
Graham v. Florida
This case highlights information about whether a life sentence for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment.
Greenlaw v. United States
This case highlights information about whether a court can enhance sentences without a prosecutor request.
Herring v. United States
This case highlights information about erroneous search warrants requiring suppression of evidence.
Holmes v. South Carolina
This case highlights information about excluding defense evidence.
Hudson v. Michigan
This case highlights information about the Fourth Amendment and the "knock and announce" rule.
J.D.B. v. North Carolina
This case highlights information about whether age matters for Miranda warnings.
Kennedy v. Louisiana
This case highlights information about the death penalty for child rape.
Maryland v. King
This case highlights information about DNA collections for database upon mere arrest.
McDonald v. Chicago
This case highlights information about gun rights.
Missouri v. McNeely
This case highlights information about police drawing blood without a warrant for driving under the influence.
Oregon v. Guzek
This case highlights information about death sentence evidence.
Salinas v. Texas
This case highlights information about the Fifth Amendment's protection of silence before arrest or Miranda rights.
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez
This case highlights information about a defendant's right to have a chosen lawyer.
United States v. Jones
This case highlights information about whether a warrantless tracking of a car violates the Fourth Amendment.
United States v. Williams
This case highlights information about whether child pornography is protected by free speech.
Yeager v. United States (Links to an external site.), 557 U.S. 110 (2009).
This case highlights information about double jeopardy.