6171 V 2.103 Lawyerdude1989@yahoo.com Lawyerdude: 888 476 8954. Upgrade Dec 19, 2006. Dec 21, 2006. Jul 1, 2007
Click here to go to my helpful links at the bottom of this page before the index.
List of the 40 most liberating cases plus the 143/ 151 cases that define criminal constitutional and procedural protections. Analyzed by Lawyerdude.
This is one of my most powerful pages by virtue of the liberating power and language of 190 cases listed below.
This page is http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/weinreb.html www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/weinreb.html and and http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5095.html I combined two pages.
Related pages:
Two more lists: 106 PNJ cases http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8971.html Http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8896.html
Special rights won by Amish and Jehovah's witnesses:
Your rights as a pro se litigant are here at: www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5687.html
This page is mentioned on my "top ten" lists page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5459.html
This page is mentioned at latest revisions: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5673.html
The Franks remedy would have worked and saved me from disbarment: : http://www.lawyer.gq.nu/brosnan.html And http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/franks8.html
This case is mentioned on my list of his my best webpages: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5733.html
Lawyerdude's list of the most liberating cases of the Supreme Court: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5095.html
Scholarly Treatises cited herein:
L Ed 2d 100:1049 State Regulation of judicial proceedings as violating commerce clause (Art 1, section 8, clause 3) of Federal Constitution - Supreme Court Cases. 1
Table of Contents:
Lawyerdude's list of the top 40 most liberating opinions/ decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
List of the Top Ten most pertinent cases for State Bar and Free Speech of Lawyers:
See my brief 3789 at http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/3789.html These cases are discussed there.
Leading Cases Vindicating our self-evident right to associate and communicate
Amish and Jehovah's Witnesses cases:
Weinreb’s list of 150 cases that define the Constitutional Rights of Criminal Defendants.
Regarding Due Process, here are 5 cases:
Regarding the 4th Amendment, here are 54 cases, far more cases than in any other subject:
Regarding cars: Police cannot stop you without probable cause. No license checks permitted.
Regarding rummaging through your trash. Here is one state case with links to 20 other state cases.
Regarding full search of car pursuant to a speeding ticket. No can do. Several cases:
Wong Sun v U.S. http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/wongsun.html This is a great case!
Regarding Electronic Surveillance, Agents and Informers, and Entrapment here are 6 cases:
Jimmy Hoffa v U.S. 385 US 293 (1966) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/385/293.html Interesting case.
Regarding the Right to counsel, here are 12 cases:
Regarding the Privilege against Self Incrimination here are 21 cases:
Regarding Suppression Hearings and Lineups here are 4 cases:
Regarding the Preliminary Examination here are 3 cases
Regarding Bail here are 2 cases:
Regarding Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Regarding the right to a speedy trial here are 2 cases:
Regarding Plea Bargaining here are 3 cases
Regarding Trial by Jury here are 4 cases
Regarding Trial here are 11 cases:
Regarding Sentence here are 4 cases:
Regarding Transcripts here are 2 cases not mentioned in the book:
Lilburne enjoyed the benefit of appointed counsel in 1648 and got money for his damages.
Medley of cases defining your right to a free transcript if you can’t afford to pay
Link to Medley of 143 cases that define Criminal Procedure in the United States
Lawyerdude's list of the top 40 most liberating opinions/ decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Most of these cases are on my site. A few cases are from lower courts.
Weeks v U.S. (1914) www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/weeks.html 232 US 383, 58 L Ed 652, 34 S Ct 341. The exclusionary rule.
Dombrowski v Pfister. http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/dombrowski.html 14 Lawyer's Edition 2nd page 22, 380 U.S. 479, 85th Supreme Court page 1116. Permits you to enjoin criminal prosecution of your free speech rights.
Shuttlesworth v Birmingham (1965) http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5089.html Volume 15 Lawyer's Edition 2nd 176, 382 US 87, 86 S Ct 211. Overbreadth. It's a powerful concept. "A person may walk on the streets of Birmingham at the whim of any police officer."
NAACP v Button (1963) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/naacp3.html 9 L Ed 2d, 371 US 415, 83 S Ct 328. is right before Wong Sun in Lawyer's Edition. Both are from a fruitful era of the court when our rights were being vindicated. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund brought suit in federal court in the eastern district of Virginia in 1957. These suits sought an injunction against enforcement of 5 statutes. Lawyers at the meetings risked disbarment and laymen risked criminal prosecution under the challenged statute for merely advising Negroes that they could file a lawsuit. NAACP won. This is a boring but fairly thorough opinion. Justice Douglas, the court's strongest liberal called a spade a spade. He said that this statute was designed to combat the trend of the Negroes to integrate schools and vindicate their rights that the Supreme Court enunciated in 1954 in Brown v Board of Education.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/miranda.html 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 10 ALR 3rd 974 and 59 other ALR treatises . Your right to remain silent. Steve762 is an expert at this right. Here is his story about using that right. http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5587.pdf , Steve's program of multiple defense motions that won for him in court: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5695.html
Griswold v Connecticut. Vicarious standing. Www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/griswold.html
Griffin v Illinois. Right to due process at every stage and to a free transcript on appeal. Www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/griffin.html
Gideon v Wainwright (1963( 9 Lawyers Edition 2nd page 799, 372 US 335, 83 S Ct 792, 93 ALR 2nd 733, and 32 ALR and L Ed 2nd treatises up to 1992), www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/gideon.html Argersinger (Argersinger v Hamlin (1974) 32 L Ed 2d 530 Follow up to Gideon. Amplifies Gideon. Cited in Weinreb. Argersinger continues to lower the threshold at which constitutional protections accrue.) and that vein ending so far with Shelton v Alabama (Shelton v Alabama (2002) , 535 US ___; 122 S Ct 1764; 152 L Ed 2d 888 ).
MLB v SLJ . Www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/mlb.html Your right to a transcript even in a civil case!
Bell v Burson(1971) They must give you a hearing before taking your driver license. http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/Burson.html or http://laws.findlaw.com/us/402/535.html
In Re Ming. They cannot suspend your bar license without a hearing despite federal rule to the contrary. Even federal courts are obligated to due process. http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/ming.html
Standing Committee on Discipline v Yagman. http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/yagman.html
Ex Parte Garland. http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/garlandlong.html Right to practice law is from the constitution. Right to counsel recognizes that counsel is a class of people created by the constitution . It was not a class created by the legislature!
Olech v Village of Willowbrook. You can sue government employees who are out to get you. http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5126.html Or at Findlaw Olech is found at http://laws.findlaw.com/7th/982235.html
Kolender v Lawson (1983) http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/kolender.html 461 U.S. 352 (1983) 461 U.S. 352 This case says that you can walk around without presenting Identification to the police. Ed Lawson has his site on the internet. Google for Edward Lawson.
Indianapolis v Edmond (2000) http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/edmond.html 531 U.S. 32, 121 S. Ct. 447, 148 L Ed 2nd 333 This case says that narcotic roadblocks are illegal but remember that drunk driving roadblocks remain legal. They made a mistake with the drunk driving roadblock and they are doing damage control here - although they will say that drunk driving is on the road where the roadblock is. Hmm.
Cleveland Board of Education v La Fleur (1974) 414 US 632, 39 L Ed 2d 52, 94 S Ct 791. http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5877.html Irrebuttable Presumption violates Due Process clause. Significance. Plaintiffs contend that enforcement of VC 14602.6 by defendants utilizes the Irrebuttable presumption of valid constitutional license suspension without regard to constitutional invalidity al la Bell v Burson (discussed herein) upon receipt by police radio of information from DMV or other agency alleging a suspension of driver license. Driver has no opportunity to rebut prior to impoundment of his car and imposition of towing charges for which his car is held as security despite the car's exempt status pursuant tobankruptcy law or ccp 704.010 et seq in violation of the supremacy clause and, in the officer's case, in violation of the officer's oath to support the constitution which includes the supremacy clause and the due process clause. 7
Timothy Leary v US 23 L Ed 2d 57, 395 U.S. 623 - irrebuttable presumptions are unconstitutional. Companion case to Le Fleur. http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5930.html
Joan W. Strip search case is at www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5728.html 771 F.2d 1020 (7th Cir. 08/26/1985) U.S. court of appeals for the 7th circuit. Chicago
Williams v Illinois (1970) 399 U.S. 235 You can't be jailed for inability to pay a fine. They should advise you of that. This page is www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/williams.html See also Tate. www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/tate.html I cited these cases in brief 2871 for Melvin Looser. As a result the FBI made false allegations resulting in my false arrest and extradition. The story is at a bunch of links here: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/4055v31pt1.html
Tate v Short (1971) from Texas 401 U.S. 395 www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/tate.html You can't be jailed for inability to pay a fine. They should advise you of that. See also Williams v Illinois is www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/williams.html
List of the Top Ten most pertinent cases for State Bar and Free Speech of Lawyers:
See my brief 3789 at http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/3789.html These cases are discussed there.
U.S. v Gonzalez-Lopez from June 2006 says that mere local rules cannot prevent your chosen out of state counsel from appearing for you: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8345.html
Condon, Estate of (1998) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/condon.html 65 Cal Ap 4th 1198, 76 Cal Rptr 922. Not supervening.
Yagman v Standing Committee of Bar Examiners. Yagman criticized the judges in newspaper. . http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/yagman.html
Newman v Piggie Park (1968) www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/piggie.html Use of term "Private Attorney General"
Teamsters v Michigan Bar www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/teamster.html United Transportation Workers Union (Later named Teamsters) V State Bar of Michigan. Union gave legal advice. The Teamsters won! Yea! United Transportation Workers (Teamsters) v Michigan Bar and that line of reasoning holds that the bar may not interfere with people who are trying to vindicate the civil rights of their associates.
Schware v Board of Bar Examiners. (1957) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/schware.html 353 U.S. 232, 239, 77 S.Ct. 752, 756, 1 L.Ed.2d 796
Bates v Arizona. www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/bates.html Legal Clinic Advertised. This case talks about the bar and the Sherman antitrust act. Monopolies.
Goldbarb v Virginia State Bar (1975). http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/goldfarb.html Minimum Fee Schedule Unconstitutional. 421 U.S. 773.
Craig V Boren (1976). http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/craigvboren.html Overbreadth. One defendant vicariously asserted rights of another.
Gentile v State Bar of Nevada (1991) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/gentile.html Lawyer gave press conference about clients case.
Tinker v Des Moines School district (1969) http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/tinker.html upholding kids right to wear armbands to school.
Cohen v California - the "Fuck the Draft" case http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/fuckthedraft.html - upholding Cohen's right to wear a jacket saying "fuck the draft".
Leading Cases Vindicating our self-evident right to associate and communicate
The state bar always wins in their home court; they always lose at the U.S. Supreme Court: http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/6380.html
U.S. v Gonzalez-Lopez from June 2006 says that mere local rules cannot prevent your chosen out of state counsel from appearing for you: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8345.html
NAACP v Alabama (1958) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/naacp2.html 2 L Ed 1488, 357 US 449, 78 S Ct 1163. The attorney general of Alabama sought to enjoin the NAACP from riling up those pesky Negroes. The Negroes won. Notice that in this old case they even wanted the membership lists - like in the communist cases.
NAACP v Button (1963) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/naacp3.html 9 L Ed 2d, 371 US 415, 83 S Ct 328. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund brought suit in federal court in the eastern district of Virginia in 1957. These suits sought an injunction against enforcement of 5 statutes. Lawyers at the meetings risked disbarment and laymen risked criminal prosecution under the challenged statute for merely advising Negroes that they could file a lawsuit. NAACP won. This is a boring but fairly thorough opinion. Justice Douglas, the court's strongest liberal called a spade a spade. He said that this statute was designed to combat the trend of the Negroes to integrate schools and vindicate their rights that the Supreme Court enunciated in 1954 in Brown v Board of Education.
Wong Sun http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/wongsun.html is the case that I cited in my LSD brief - but my appointed lawyers dropped the ball. It is about testimony of a co-conspirator, absence of consent, coercion, and defending against police abuse in drug cases.
Primus, In Re (1978) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/primus.html 56 L Ed 2d 417, 436 US 412, 98 S Ct 1893. Subject of annotation at Lawyer's Edition 2nd 56:841 entitled Licensing and Regulation of Attorney as restricted by rights of free speech, expression, and association which is the closest treatise on point regarding free speech rights of lawyers. Her Supreme Court brief is at 56 L Ed 2d 838. Edna Primus was a lawyer in private practice who volunteered her time to the ACLU. South Carolina stupidly argued that solicitation, like advertising, invades the privacy of other's - as though Primus's client was not desperately in need of a free lawyer. In the summer of 1973, welfare mothers were sterilized or threatened with sterilization as a condition of continued Medicaid relief. Mary Williams had been sterilized by the authorities via Dr. Clovis Pierce. Primus informed Mary Williams by letter that the ACLU would take her case and sue Dr. Pierce. This letter was the smoking gun - sorta like Palaschak's brief telling Melvin Looser that the court could not send him to jail for being poor. In October 1974 the secretary of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of South Carolina filed a formal complaint that Edna Primus had engaged in solicitation in violation of the Canons of Ethics. (Back in 1973 Black's Law Dictionary published the ABA Canons of Ethics and many of us thought that the ABA ethics were the last word. Since then each state has carved out its own niche of oppression. Edna Primus replied that the 1st amendment and 14th amendment gave her immunity for her letter. After a hearing on 9 Jan 1976 the full board approved a private reprimand. On March 17, 1977 the Supreme Court of South Carolina put its rubber stamp on the deal - likely without any input from Primus. On July 9, 1977 Primus brought action in the U.S. Supreme court. Her action is based primarily on a 1963 case NAACP v Button http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/naacp3.html - and in view of the clarity of the right to association spelled out by the court in 1963 I wonder why South Carolina would bring this disciplinary action but for their bureaucratic macromegalomaniac personality. (See Palaschak's theory on macro-psychology - which says that bureaucracies have their own personalties which are bad from the perpetual life of the bureau and the exaggerated sense of useful purpose and wisdom. Their mistake is the bureaucracies have no wisdom or insight.) Observe that all the lawyers being disciplined in these cases were representing people who were typical of groups of people gaining their rights. Examples Primus represented a welfare mom; in NAACP v Button http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/naacp3.html it was Negroes who were gaining their rights; in the union cases it was unions against the monopolies; in Palaschak's case it is poor victims of traffic court and the very lawyers like Primus who, in California, are subjected now to a barrage of trivial, merit less attacks by the bar (representing the moneyed interests) sometimes for acts having no nexus to the practice of law. Example: Palaschak's traffic tickets and having eaten LSD. Rehnquist dissented in this opinion. The companion case is Ohralik v Ohio state bar 56 L Rf 2d 444, 436 US 447, 98 S Ct 1912. Ohralik was an ambulance chaser entitled to the same first amendment rights but he lost on appeal while Primus won because she took no money. Does your right to speech end if you are paid for it? No. Related inadequate treatise: L Ed 2d 100:1049 State Regulation of judicial proceedings as violating commerce clause (Art 1, section 8, clause 3) of Federal Constitution - Supreme Court Cases.
Primus's brief (1978) cites 8 cases, namely:
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v Virginia (1964) www.lawyerdude.s5.com/railroad.html
United Mine Workers V Illinois State Bar (1967) http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/umwvbar.html 389 U.S. 217
United Transportation Union (teamsters) v State Bar of Michigan 1971 www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/teamster.html
NAACP v Alabama (1958) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/naacp2.html
US v Cook (1872) 21 L Ed 538,
Hamling v US 41 L Ed 2d 590,
Thompson v Louisville 4 L Ed 2d 654.
Notice that in most of the cases the bar organization is on the losing side, on the side of oppression. The bar is controlled by the money interests. Money is against labor. That is why we see the Teamsters, Mine Workers, and other unions against the bar. The Unions represent the workers. The bar always loses: http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/6380.html
Ohralik v Ohio state bar (1978) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/ohralik.html 56 L Ed 2d 444, 436 US 447, 98 S Ct 1912. Ohralik in his brief at 56 L Ed 876 cited
Louisville Bar v Hubbard 282 Ky 734, 739, 139 Sw2d 773, 775,
Bates v State Bar of Arizona 53 L Ed 2d 810 www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/bates.html
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v Virginia Citizens Consumer council (1976) 48 L Ed 2d 346 http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/virpharm.html This is a blockbuster case.
NAACP v Button http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/naacp3.html 9 L Ed2d 405, State v Rubon (1930) 201 Wes 30,32, 229 NW 36, 37,
Cole v Arkansas 92 L Ed 644, US v O'Brien 20 L Ed 2d 672.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v Virginia ex.rel. Virginia State Bar (1964) www.lawyerdude.s5.com/railroad.html 12 L Ed 2d 89, 377 US 1, 84 S Ct 1113. Court struck down an injunction barring union from directing its members to certain favored lawyers.
United Transportation Union (Teamsters) v State Bar of Michigan (1971) www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/teamster.html 28 L Ed 2d 339, 401 US 576, 91S Ct 1076 These were the teamsters. The court vindicated the rights of the Teamsters to associate and refer members to its own chosen lawyers.
Alien and Sedition cases and communist sympathizer cases - Reagan was a snitch.
Escobedo (1964) 378 US 478 The defendant Escobedo won. Escobedo: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/378/478.html Petitioner Escobedo made several requests to see his lawyer, who, though present in the building, and despite persistent efforts, was refused access to his client. Petitioner was not advised by the police of his right to remain silent and, after persistent questioning by the police, made a damaging statement to an Assistant State's Attorney which was admitted at the trial. Was the refusal by the police to honor petitioner's request to consult with his lawyer during the course of an interrogation constitutes a denial of "the Assistance of Counsel"? The Supreme Court ruled for the defendant. See also Rios: www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/rios.html
41. Mapp v Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 642 http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/mappohio.html
42. Wong Sun v U.S. http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/wongsun.html This is a great case! I used it in my LSD brief here: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/Lsdbrief.html For details about my LSD case go here: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/
43. US v Wong Quong Wong (DC D. Vermont 1899) (Cited in Silverthorne) (Cites US v Boyd (1886) Wrongfully seized papers could not be used in deportation proceeding.
44. Silverthorne (1920) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/silver.html 251 US 385@392, 64 L Ed 319, 40 S Ct 182 subject of annotation at 24 ALR 1426. -
45. Gouled v US (1920) 65 L Ed 647 http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/gouled.html
46. Lemon v Kurtzman (1971) www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/lemon.html
47. Fuentes v Shevin (1972) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/fuentes.html
Drug Cases
48. People v. Woody (1964) 61 Cal.2d 716 , 35 Cal Reporter 708 Indians may eat Peyote. http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5965.html
Amish and Jehovah's Witnesses cases:
Amish and Jehovah Witnesses won many rights for us: See this page: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5731.html
49. http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/amish.html Wisconsin v Yoder (1972) 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
Some other search and seizure cases:
Camara v Muni. Ct. (1967) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/camara.html 18 L.Ed.2d. 930, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727. Even the housing inspector needs a warrant.
Weinreb’s list of 150 cases that define the Constitutional Rights of Criminal Defendants.
Professor Weinreb’s book is/was used by many law schools for their course misnamed "Criminal Procedure". The course is more aptly named "Constitutional Rights of Criminal Defendants. My dear brother Jerry brought my Weinreb paperback lawbook to me in May 1999 in jail in Illinois where they have only one lawbook and no library. I was fortunate to have this book and 7 other paperback lawbooks in jail. When they took me from Illinois, the cruel Ventura deputy made me leave my personal library behind. This great book was tossed in with the paper novels and fed to the inmates who used books only as something to cushion their hands against the floor as they did pushups. Lloyd Weinreb has compiled the text from the 200 or so cases that define criminal procedure in America. Weinreb's 1100 page book contains the pertinent parts from the 142 cases that define the law of criminal procedural and substantive rights. Weinreb's book is published by Foundation Press and used at many of not most law schools. Here is the list of those 143 or so cases plus some cases that I added to the list:
Within each section, the cases are in chronological order - sorta:
Regarding the constitution. I have supplemented the book with Marbury, Norton. Weinreb quotes the sections that pertain to due process, equal protection, and the bill of rights.
Californians have been attacked by the police/ prison lobby by the enactment of section 24 of our state constitution as follows: Section 24 was intended to erase our california rights. The police/ prison lobby in California amended our Constitution to shackle our state courts and curtail the rights of citizens as follows: "California Constitution amended. Article 1. Declaration of Rights. Section 24. [Curtailment of our Bill of Rights] Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution. [This is a blatant patent lie; the rights are indeed dependent on the federal constitution. They can be no greater than the federal constitution!] In criminal cases the rights of a defendant to equal protection of the laws, to due process of law, to the assistance of counsel, to be personally present with counsel, to a speedy and public trial, to compel the attendance of witnesses, to confront the witnesses against him or her, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to privacy, to not be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself, to not be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense, and to not suffer the imposition of cruel or unusual punishment, shall be construed by the courts of this State in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States. This Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States, nor shall it be construed to afford greater rights to minors in juvenile proceedings on criminal causes than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States." This permits police to rummage through our garbage here in California but not in Indiana or 21 other states. - This page is http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8218.html See the Litchfield case for the Indiana law: Http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/litch.html
50. Marbury v Madison (1803) 5 U.S. 137 (Cranch). http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/marbury.html
51. Norton v Shelby (1886) 118 U.S. 425 http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/norton.html Blockbuster case. "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Regarding Due Process, here are 5 cases:
52. Palko v Connecticut (1937) 302 U.S. 319 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/302/319.html Here we learn why the prosecution cannot appeal a case that they won! This is Pearlis's case square on all 4's, sorta.
53. Adamson v California (1947) 332 U.S. 46 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/332/46.html I am thinking that this case has been overruled. This case says that the 5th amendment is applicable only against the United States! How ludicrous! This case shows you how far we have come in the latter half of the 20th century. What happened in this case is that the prosecutor commented on the defendant's failure to testify and the judge went along with it.
54. Rochin v California (1952) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/342/165.html 342 U.S. 165, 96 L Ed. 183. Made him vomit to get the pills. Defendant won.
The court said: . . .do more than offend some fastidious squeamishness or private sentimentalism about combatting crime too energetically. This is conduct that shocks the conscience. Illegally breaking into the privacy of the petitioner, the struggle to open his mouth and remove what was there, the forcible extraction of his stomach's contents - this course of proceeding by agents of government to obtain evidence is bound to offend even hardened sensibilities. They are methods too close to the rack and the screw to permit of constitutional differentiation. . . .Due process of law, as a historic and generative principle, precludes defining, and thereby confining, these standards of conduct more precisely than to say that convictions cannot be brought about by methods that offend "a sense of justice".
55. Griswold v Connecticut (1965) http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/griswold.html http://laws.findlaw.com/us/381/479.html 381 US 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 519. This is a major case! 1. Appellants have standing to assert the constitutional rights of the married people. Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44 , distinguished. P. 481. 2. The Connecticut statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Pp. 481-486.
56. Duncan v Louisiana (1968) 391 U.S. 145. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/391/145.html Defendant won. He was sentenced to 60 days in prison and a fine of $150. He had requested a jury trial which was denied because the Louisiana Constitution grants jury trials only in cases where capital punishment or imprisonment at hard labor may be imposed. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Regarding the 4th Amendment, here are 54 cases, far more cases than in any other subject:
The authority for 4th amendment law is Mr. Bell. He writes Bell's Compendium on Search and Seizure. It may be at the reference desk at your law library.
Regarding remedy for lies in the affidavit for the search warrant. I wish I had known about this Franks remedy back during my LSD case and Raid at the Good Nite Inn.
57. Franks v Delaware (1978) 438 US 154. http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/franks8.html Regarding remedy for lies in the affidavit for the search warrant. I wish I had known about this remedy back during my LSD case and Raid at the Good Nite Inn. The police used lies: http://www.lawyer.gq.nu/brosnan.html See also http://www.fu.gq.nu/franks.html From Mark Henning.
Regarding cars: Police cannot stop you without probable cause. No license checks permitted.
58. Delaware v Proust (1979) 440 U.S. 648. http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/prouse.html Kinda goes without saying: Police cannot stop you without probable cause.
Regarding rummaging through your trash. Here is one state case with links to 20 other state cases. Varies from state to state: See "Independent State Grounds" Indiana says that they must have "articulable suspicion" which is something less that probable cause. Probable cause is 51%. Articulable suspicion is 10% but it is more than a "mere hunch" which is usually merely a hunch because the cop is inarticulate.
59. Litchfield v Indiana (A state case) 2005 http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/litch.html Police cannot rummage through your garbage without articulable suspicion as in Terry in the list below. Compare to California v Greenwood at #85 in this list 486 US 35 (1988) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/486/35.html Rummaging through your trash. Acting on information indicating that respondent Greenwood might be engaged in narcotics trafficking, police twice obtained from his regular trash collector garbage bags left on the curb in front of his house. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home. Drug guy lost this case.
60. Draper v U.S. (1959) 358 US 307, 311 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/358/307.html Defendant lost. The agent met the train, easily recognized petitioner from the informer's description, and, without a warrant, arrested him, searched him and seized narcotics and a hypodermic syringe found in his possession.
61. U.S. v Watson (1976) 423 US 411, 424 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/423/411.html Defendant lost. A consented search of his nearby car (after respondent had been cautioned that the results could be used against him) revealed two additional cards in the names of other persons.
62. Whren v U.S. (1996) 517 US 806 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/517/806.html Defendant's lost. the truck then turned suddenly, without signalling, and sped off at an "unreasonable" speed. The officers stopped the vehicle, assertedly to warn the driver about traffic violations, and upon approaching the truck observed plastic bags of crack cocaine in petitioner Whren's hands.
63. Ornelas v U.S. (1996) 517 US 690 (1996) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/517/690.html The police took out the panels of the Mexican's car because he was in Milkwaukee. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Mexicans saying: We vacate the judgments and remand the case to the Court of Appeals to review de novo the District Court's determinations that the officer had reasonable suspicion and probable cause in this case.
64. California v Hodari D (1991) 499 US 621. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/499/621.html the cocaine abandoned while he was running was not the fruit of a seizure
65. Payton v N Y (1980) 445 US 573. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/445/573.html The criminals won! The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest.
66. Illinois v Gates (1983) 462 US 213, 244 n.13 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/462/213.html Defendants won at Illinois Supreme Court and lost at U.S. Supreme Court. Police received an anonymous letter which included statements that respondents, husband and wife, were engaged in selling drugs; that the wife would drive their car to Florida on May 3 to be loaded with drugs, and the husband would fly down in a few days to drive the car back; that the car's trunk would be loaded with drugs; and that respondents presently had over $100,000 worth of drugs in their basement
67. Wilson v Arkansas 514 US 927 (1995) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/514/927.html Police reasonably believed that a prior announcement would have placed them in peril and would have produced an unreasonable risk that petitioner would destroy easily disposable narcotics evidence. Therefore "knock and announce" was abrogated. Sent back down for redetermination.
68. Chimel v California 395 US 752 (1969) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/395/752.html Defendant won this one. In any event, we cannot join in characterizing the invasion [395 U.S. 752, 767] of privacy that results from a top-to-bottom search of a man's house as "minor." And we can see no reason why, simply because some interference with an individual's privacy and freedom of movement has lawfully taken place, further intrusions should automatically be allowed despite the absence of a warrant that the Fourth Amendment would otherwise require.
69. Maryland v Buie 494 US 325 (1990). http://laws.findlaw.com/us/494/325.html "Sweep" of house to check for other people resulted in evidence. Bad opinion in my opinion. They should have got a warrant and that is what the Maryland Supreme Court said. This is just more erosion of our rights. This is stealthy encroachment.
70. Chambers v Maroney (1970) 399 US 42 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/399/42.html auto in which they were riding was stopped by police shortly after an armed robbery of a service station. Defendants lost.
71. S. Dakota v Opperman 428 US 364 (1976) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/428/364.html following standard procedures, inventoried the contents of the car. In doing so they discovered marihuana in the glove compartment. Defendants lost.
72. U.S. V Robinson 414 US 218 (1973) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/414/218.html a police officer made a full-custody arrest of respondent for such offense. In accordance with prescribed procedures, the officer made a search of respondent's person, in the course of which he found in a coat pocket a cigarette package containing heroin. Defendant lost.
Regarding full search of car pursuant to a speeding ticket. No can do. Several cases:
73. Knowles v Iowa. The driver won. 525 US 113 (1998) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/525/113.html An Iowa policeman stopped petitioner Knowles for speeding and issued him a citation rather than arresting him. The officer then conducted a full search of the car, without either Knowles' consent or probable cause, found marijuana and a "pot pipe," and arrested Knowles. The driver won.
74. Reversed in Acevedo but distinguisable. U.S. v Chadwick. Footlocker full of marijuana. Chadwick won. I used this case in Illinois to free a fellow prisoner whose $10,000 lawyer did not have a clue (1977) 433 US 1 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/433/1.html A double-locked footlocker, which respondents had transported on the train and which the agents had probable cause to believe contained narcotics, had been loaded in the trunk of the automobile. Respondents, together with the automobile and footlocker, which was admittedly under the agents' exclusive control, were then taken to the Federal Building in Boston. An hour and a half after the arrests the agents opened the footlocker without respondents' consent or a search warrant and found large amounts of marihuana in it.
75. California v Acevedo (1991) 500 US 565. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/500/565.html Notice: Appeal from California court of appeal to U.S. Supreme Court bypassing California court of appeal. Hmm. Police observed respondent Acevedo leave an apartment, known to contain marijuana, with a brown paper bag the size of marijuana packages they had seen earlier. He placed the bag in his car's trunk, and, as he drove away, they stopped the car, opened the trunk and the bag, and found marijuana. The driver lost this case.
76. U.S. v Edwards 415 US 800 (1974) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/415/800.html When it became apparent that the articles of clothing were evidence of the crime for which Edwards was being held, the police were entitled to take, examine, and preserve them for use as evidence, just as they are normally permitted to seize evidence of crime when it is lawfully encountered. Strong dissent says to get a warrant. The defendant lost here.
77. Illinois v Lafayette (1983) 462 US 640 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/462/640.html Shoulder bag. it is reasonable for police to search the personal effects of a person under lawful arrest as part of the routine administrative procedure at a police station incident to booking and jailing the suspect.
78. Cupp v Murphy 24. Cupp v Murphy 412 US 291 (1973) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/412/291.html Over respondent's protest and without a warrant, police in the course of station-house questioning in connection with a murder took samples from the respondent's fingernails and discovered evidence used to convict him. Defendant lost.
79. Warden v Hayden (1967) 387 US 294 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/387/294.html The related premise of Gouled http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/gouled.html that government may not seize evidence for the purpose of proving crime has also been discredited. This is a decision that led us down the path to police abuse.
80. Stoner v California 376 US 483 (1964) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/376/483.html robbery which ultimately led them to a hotel where, without a warrant, they searched petitioner's room in his absence, having been given access thereto by a hotel clerk. There they found articles like those associated with the crime by an eyewitness. Petitioner was arrested two days later in another State and following a trial in which the articles were used as evidence was convicted. Held: 1. A search without a warrant can be justified as incident to arrest only if substantially contemporaneous and confined to the immediate vicinity of arrest. Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20 , followed. Pp. 484-487. 2. A hotel guest is entitled to the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The hotel clerk had no authority to permit the room search and the police had no basis to believe that petitioner had authorized the clerk to permit the search
81. Bumper v North Carolina 391 US 543 (1968) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/391/543.html Because the rifle, which was erroneously admitted into evidence, was plainly damaging against petitioner, its admission was not harmless error. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 . P. 550. NAACP filed a brief. F. Lee Bailey filed an Amicus brief pro se. This Negro won. Norman B. Smith argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner, pro hac vice
82. Schneckloth v Bustamonte (1973) 412 US 218 (1973). http://laws.findlaw.com/us/412/218.html search of a car that had been stopped by officers for traffic violations, evidence was discovered that was used to convict respondent of unlawfully possessing a check. The defendant lost this case. This is a case about voluntariness that I used in my LSD brief here: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com
83. Florida v Bostick 1991 501 US 429, 437 (1991) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/501/429.html Another bad opinion by O'Connor. Permitted police to question bus passenger in seat and to through his luggage to find drugs. Even the Florida Supreme court outlawed this search.
84. U.S. V Matlock (1974) 415 US 164 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/415/164.html The arresting officers, who did not ask him which room he occupied or whether he would consent to a search, were then admitted to the house by Mrs. Graff and, with her consent but without a warrant, searched the house, including a bedroom, which Mrs. Graff told them was jointly occupied by respondent and herself, and in a closet of which the officers found and seized money. One person gives consent to search room occupied by 2 persons. The defendant lost.
85. Illinois v Rodriguez (1990) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/497/177.html The officers did not have an arrest or search warrant, but gained entry to the apartment with the assistance of Gail Fischer, who represented that the apartment was "ours" and that she had clothes and furniture there, unlocked the door with her key, and gave the officers permission to enter. She had no right. She had move out. The criminals won. Scalia wrote the opinion.
86. Arizona v Hicks 480 US 321 (1987) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/480/321.html Scalia wrote this opinion in which the criminal won. a warrantless search must be "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation," the Court of Appeals held that the policeman's obtaining the serial numbers violated the Fourth Amendment because it was unrelated to the shooting, the exigent circumstance that justified the initial entry and search.
87. Horton v California (1990) Revisits Coolidge issues. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/496/128.html 496 US 128, 110 L. Ed. 2d 112, 110 S. Ct. 2301
88. California v Greenwood 486 US 35 (1988) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/486/35.html Rummaging through your trash. Acting on information indicating that respondent Greenwood might be engaged in narcotics trafficking, police twice obtained from his regular trash collector garbage bags left on the curb in front of his house. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home. Drug guy lost this case.
89. Oliver v U.S. 466 US 170 (1984) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/466/170.html The open fields doctrine should be applied in both cases to determine whether the discovery or seizure of the marihuana in question was valid. The fact that the government's intrusion upon an open field is a trespass at common law does not make it a "search" in the constitutional sense. Cops won.
90. New Jersey v TLO 469 US 325 (1985) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/469/325.html Principal smelled smoke. Searched purse. Found dope. The student lost this case.
91. Skinner v Railway Labor executive's association (1989) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/489/602.html Train guys gotta take drug tests. 489 US 602
92. Camara v Municipal court of San Francisco (1967) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/camara.html 387 US 523, 534-35 Http://laws.findlaw.com/us/387/523.html Housing inspector may not inspect your house without a warrant.
93. New York v Burger 482 US 691 (1987) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/482/691.html Warrantless raid on a junkyard. Bad opinion. Junkyard owner won in New York but lost at Supreme Court. Searches made pursuant to the New York statute fall within the exception to the warrant requirement for administrative inspections of "closely regulated" businesses
94. Wolf v Colorado 338 US 25 (1949) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/338/25.html
95. Mapp v Ohio (1961) 367 US 643 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/367/643.html Convicted of knowingly having had in her possession and under her control certain lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photographs. She thrust the fake warrant into her bossom from which officers forcibly removed it. She won. There was no warrant.
96. U.S. v Leon (1984) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/468/897.html 468 US 897 Good faith mistake. This is a prosecution case.
97. Nix v U.S. 42. Nix v U.S. 189 US 199 (1903)
98. Rakas v Illinois 43. Rakas v Illinois 439 US 128 (1978)
99. Minnesota v Olson 44. Minnesota v Olson 495 US 91 (1990),
100. Minnesota v Carter 45. Minnesota v Carter 525 US 83 (1998)
101. Wong Sun v U.S. http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/wongsun.html This is a great case! I used it in my LSD brief here: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/Lsdbrief.html For details about my LSD case go here: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/
102. Frisbie v Collins 47. Frisbie v Collins 342 US 519 (1952)
103. Terry v Ohio 48. Terry v Ohio 392 US 1 (1968).
104. Adams v Williams 49. Adams v Williams 407 US 143, 144 and 147-148 (1972)
105. U.S. v Hensley 50. U.S. v Hensley 469 US 221 (1985)
106. Minnesota v Dickerson 51. Minnesota v Dickerson 508 US 366 (1993)
107. U.S. v Sharpe 52. U.S. v Sharpe 470 US 675 (1985)
108. Brown v Texas 53. Brown v Texas 443 US 47 (1979). This case is suspect and has largely been overruled by
109. Kolender v Lawson (1983) http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/kolender.html 461 US 352, 361
110. Michigan dept of state police v Sitz 55. 496 US 444 (1990).
111. Hayes v Florida 470 US 811 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/470/811.html Defendant won! Arriving at the home, the police spoke to petitioner on his front porch, and when he expressed reluctance to accompany them to the station house, one officer said that they would arrest him. Petitioner replied that he would rather go to the station than be arrested. He was then taken to the station and fingerprinted
112. Dunaway v New York 57. Dunaway v New York 442 US 200, 212 (1979),
113. New York v Harris 58. New York v Harris 495 US 14 (1990)
114. U.S. v Dionisio 59. U.S. v Dionisio 410 US 1 (1973)
115. Not in book: Coolidge v New Hampshire. (1971) 403 U.S. 443 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/403/443.html Archibald Cox, by appointment of the Court, 400 U.S. 814 , argued the cause for petitioner. Wow, that is a tremendous break - and he won! This is a murder case. The stupid prosecutor signed his own search warrant. Big mistake. I wonder what happened when the case went back to the trial court after reversal of conviction?
Regarding Electronic Surveillance, Agents and Informers, and Entrapment here are 6 cases:
116. Olmstead v U.S. 277 US 438 (1928)
117. Lewis v U.S. 445 US 55 (1980)
Jimmy Hoffa v U.S. 385 US 293 (1966) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/385/293.html Interesting case.
119. Katz v U.S. 389 US 347 (1967)
120. U.S. v white 322 US 694 (1944).
121. U.S. v Russell 411 US 423, 435 (1973)
Regarding the Right to counsel, here are 12 cases:
122. U.S. v Gonzalez-Lopez from June 2006 says that mere local rules cannot prevent your chosen out of state counsel from appearing for you: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8345.html
123. Powell v Alabama, the Scottsboro boys: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/scottsbo.html
125. Gideon v Wainwright http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/gideon.html
126. Douglas v California (1963) 372 U.S. 353 http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8650.html Certiorari to the district court of appeal of California, second Appellate district. No. 34.You have a right to a free lawyer on appeal. Also, if your name is the same as a justice of the Supreme Court, they may take your case. Here, the defendant/ appellant was named "William Douglas" same as the judge on the Supreme Court who wrote the opinion. Humans like coincidence. This is the essence of poker.
127. Argersinger v Hamlin http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/argersin.html
128. Ross v Moffitt
129. U.S. v Cronic http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/cronic.html Weak standard for effectiveness
130. Strickland v Washington http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5699.html Weak standard for effectiveness
132. Faretta v California http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/faretta.html Right to speak for yourself without a lawyer.
133. Not in book: Alabama v Shelton http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/shelton.html Right to a lawyer wherever jail is a option.
Regarding the Privilege against Self Incrimination here are 21 cases:
134. Brown v Mississippi (1936) 297 US 278, 287 (1936) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/297/278.html The question in this case is whether convictions, which rest solely upon confessions shown to have been extorted by officers of the state by brutality and violence, are consistent with the due process of law required by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
135. Spano v New York. (1959) 360 US 315 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/360/315.html "you would have to see my attorney. I tell you nothing but my name." . . . He was then subjected to persistent and continuous questioning by an assistant prosecutor and numerous police officers for virtually eight hours until he confessed, after he had repeatedly requested, and had been denied, an opportunity to consult his counsel.
136. Colorado v Connelly (1986) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/479/157.html 479 US 157, 168-69, 107 S. Ct. 515, 93 Lawyer's Edition 2nd page 473. Voice of God case. Respondent was following the "voice of God" in confessing to the murder. On the basis of the psychiatrist's testimony that respondent suffered from a psychosis that interfered with his ability to make free and rational choices and, although not preventing him from understanding his rights, motivated his confession, the trial court suppressed respondent's initial statements and custodial confession because they were "involuntary," notwithstanding the fact that the police had done nothing wrong or coercive in securing the confession. The court also found that respondent's mental state vitiated his attempted waiver of the right to counsel and the privilege against self-incrimination. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Federal Constitution requires a court to suppress a confession when the defendant's mental state, at the time he confessed, interfered with his "rational intellect" and his "free will," the very admission of the evidence in a court of law being sufficient state action to implicate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court further held that respondent's mental condition precluded his ability to make a valid waiver of his Miranda rights and that the State had not met its burden of proving a waiver by "clear and convincing evidence."
137. Massiah v U.S. (1964) 377 US 201 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/377/201.html
138. Brewer v Williams ("good Christian burial" case) 1977) 430 US 387 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/430/387.html
139. Escobedo v Illinois (1964) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/Escobedo.html 378 US 478 The defendant won. Petitioner made several requests to see his lawyer, who, though present in the building, and despite persistent efforts, was refused access to his client. Petitioner was not advised by the police of his right to remain silent and, after persistent questioning by the police, made a damaging statement to an Assistant State's Attorney which was admitted at the trial. Was the refusal by the police to honor petitioner's request to consult with his lawyer during the course of an interrogation constitutes a denial of "the Assistance of Counsel"? The Supreme Court ruled for the defendant.
140. Miranda v Arizona 384 US 436 (1966) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/miranda.html
141. Moran v Burbine (1986) 475 US 412 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/475/412.html Defendant lost this case. Miranda issues. Boring case of no importance.
142. Rhode Island v Innis (1980) 446 US 291, 304 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/446/291.html
143. Illinois v Perkins (1990) 496 US 292 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/496/292.html
144. Oregon v Mathiason (1977) 429 US 492 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/429/492.html Where respondent in response to a police officer's request voluntarily came to a police station for questioning about a burglary and was immediately informed that he was not under arrest, and at the close of a half-hour interview left the station without hindrance, respondent was not in custody "or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way," Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 , so as to require that his confession to the burglary obtained during such interview be suppressed at his state criminal trial because he was not given Miranda warnings prior to being questioned.
145. Harris v New York (1971) 401 US 222 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/401/222.html Statement inadmissible against a defendant in the prosecution's case in chief because of lack of the procedural safeguards required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , may, if its trustworthiness satisfies legal standards, be used for impeachment purposes to attack the credibility of defendant's trial testimony.
146. Doyle v Ohio 426 US 610 (1976) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/426/610.html
147. Oregon v Elstad (1985) 470 US 298 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/470/298.html
148. Schmerber v California (1966) 384 U.S. 757, 16 L ed 2nd 908. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/384/757.html They can take blood from a drunk driver.
149. Pennsylvania v Muniz (1990) 496 US 582 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/496/582.html
150. Winston v Lee (1985) 470 US 753 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/470/753.html
151. Andresen v Maryland (1976) 427 US 463 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/427/463.html
152. Garrity v New Jersey 385 US 493 (1967) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/385/493.html
153. Gardner v Broderick 392 US 273 (1968) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/392/273.html
154. Kastigar v U.S. (1972) 406 US 441, 445-46 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/406/441.html The United States can compel testimony from an unwilling witness who invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by conferring immunity, as provided by 18 U.S.C. 6002, from use of the compelled testimony and evidence derived therefrom in subsequent criminal proceedings, as such immunity from use and derivative use is coextensive with the scope of the privilege and is sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege. Transactional immunity would afford broader protection than the Fifth Amendment privilege, and is not constitutionally required. In a subsequent criminal prosecution, the prosecution has the burden of proving affirmatively that evidence proposed to be used is derived from a legitimate source wholly independent of the compelled testimony.
Regarding Suppression Hearings and Lineups here are 4 cases:
155. Franks v Delaware (1978) http://www.fu.gq.nu/franks.html Added by Lawyerdude. You have a right to
156. U.S. v Wade (1967) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/218.html You have a right to counsel at your lineup!
157. Kirby v Illinois (1972) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/406/682.html The victim came to the police station and immediately identified the defendant. Conviction upheld.
158. Simmons v U.S. (1968) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/simmons.html 390 US 377 You don't have to give up one right to utilize another right. Testimony at your suppression hearing cannot be used against you at trial.
159. Neil v Biggers (1972) 409 US 188, 196-201 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/409/188.html Station house show up identification was held to be okay even though it was not a lineup.
Regarding the Preliminary Examination here are 3 cases
160. Coleman v Alabama (1964) 377 US 129 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/377/129.html the petitioner is now entitled to have his day in court on his allegations of systematic exclusion of Negroes from the grand and petit juries sitting in his case. The judgment is therefore reversed and the case remanded to the Supreme Court of Alabama for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
161. Gerstein v Pugh (1975) 420 US 103, 110 n. 11 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/420/103.html The Fourth Amendment requires a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty following arrest. Accordingly, the Florida procedures challenged here whereby a person arrested without a warrant and charged by information may be jailed or subjected to other restraints pending trial without any opportunity for a probable cause determination are unconstitutional.
162. County of Riverside v McLaughlin (1991) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/500/44.html
Regarding Bail here are 2 cases:
163. Stack v Boyle (1951) 342 US 1. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/342/1.html
164. U.S. v Salerno (1987) 481 US 739, 750 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/481/739.html pretrial detention on the ground of future dangerousness is facially unconstitutional as violative of the Fifth Amendment's substantive due process guarantee.
Regarding Prosecutorial Misconduct.
165. U.S. v Armstrong (1996) 517 US 456 (1996) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/517/456.html Government indicated it would not comply with the discovery order, the court dismissed the case. Reversed. Crack users lost.
Regarding Indictment
166. U.S. v Williams (1992) 504 U.S. 36 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/504/36.html District Court ordered the indictment dismissed without prejudice because the Government had failed to fulfill its obligation under Circuit precedent to present "substantial exculpatory evidence" to the grand jury. Supreme Court reversed.
167. Not in book: Hurtado: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/Hurtado.html This old California case must be overturned. Takes away your right to a grand jury. The PNJ always misspell this case.
Regarding the right to a speedy trial here are 2 cases:
168. U.S. v Marion (1971) 404 US 307, 313, 320, 322 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/404/307.html Government waited 3 years to prosecute. Makes no difference. 3 years was okay.
169. Barker v Wingo (1972) 407 US 514, 519 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/407/514.html not brought to trial for murder until more than five years after he had been arrested. That's okay.
Regarding Plea Bargaining here are 3 cases
170. Brady v U.S. (1970) 397 US 742, 748. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/397/742.html New Mexico kidnap death penalty case. Defendants lost.
171. North Carolina v Alford (1970) US 25, 91 SC 160, 27 L Ed 2nd 162. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/400/25.html Fourth Circuit was in error to find Alford's plea of guilty invalid because it was made to avoid the possibility of the death penalty.
172. Bordenkircher v Hayes (1978) 434 US 357 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/434/357.html The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated when a state prosecutor carries out a threat made during plea negotiations to have the accused reindicted on more serious charges on which he is plainly subject to prosecution if he does not plead guilty to the offense with which he was originally charged.
Regarding Trial by Jury here are 4 cases
173. Batson v Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/476/79.html The prosecutor then used his peremptory challenges to strike all four black persons on the venire, and a jury composed only of white persons was selected. Supreme ruled for the black defendant.
174. JEB v Alabama ex rel TB (1994) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/511/127.html
175. Georgia v McCollum (1992 ) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/42.html See page 59 in the case.
176. Sullivan v Louisiana (1993) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/508/275.html
Regarding Trial here are 11 cases:
177. Illinois v Allen 397 US 337 (1970) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/397/337.html whether an accused can claim the benefit of this constitutional right to remain in the courtroom while at the same time he engages in speech and conduct which is so noisy, disorderly, and disruptive that it is exceedingly difficult or wholly impossible to carry on the trial.
178. Estelle v Williams 425 US 501 (1976) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/425/501.html civilian clothes to wear at trial. Houston case.
179. Sheppard v Maxwell (1966) 384 US 333 (1966) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/384/333.html Three months before trial he was examined for more than five hours without counsel in a televised three-day inquest conducted before an audience of several hundred spectators in a gymnasium. Over three weeks before trial the newspapers published the names and addresses of prospective jurors causing them to receive letters and telephone calls about the case.
180. Richmond Newspapers v Virginia (1980) 448 US 555, 564-73 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/448/555.html ordered the trial to continue "with the press and public excluded."
181. Pointer v Texas (1965) 380 U.S. 400, 413 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/380/400.html use of the transcript to convict petitioner denied him a constitutional right, and that his conviction must be reversed.
183. U.S. v Scheffer. (1998) 523 US 303 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/523/303.html Once again, polygraph refused.
184. Taylor v Illinois. (1988) 484 US 400. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/484/400.html A bad opinion. Because this defendant failed to list a witness for his defense, he was not permitted to call this witness. This case is about weighing. The witness was not probative.
185. U.S. v Agurs (1976) 427 US 97 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/427/97.html Failure of prosecution to disclose criminal record. Conviction affirmed.
186. Arizona v Youngblood (1988) 488 US 51. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/488/51.html the police's failure to refrigerate the victim's clothing and to perform tests on the semen samples can at worst be described as negligent. Conviction upheld.
187. Victor v Nebraska (1994) 511 US 1 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/511/1.html The court upheld this standard jury instruction: `Reasonable doubt' is such a doubt as would cause a reasonable and prudent person, in one of the graver and more important transactions of life, to pause and hesitate before taking the represented facts as true and relying and acting thereon. It is such a doubt as will not permit you, after full, fair, and impartial consideration of all the evidence, to have an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the guilt of the accused. At the same time, absolute or mathematical certainty is not required. You may be convinced of the truth of a fact beyond a reasonable doubt and yet be fully aware that possibly you may be mistaken. You may find an accused guilty upon the strong probabilities of the case, provided such probabilities are strong enough to exclude any doubt of his guilt that is reasonable. A reasonable doubt is an actual and substantial doubt arising from the evidence, from the facts or circumstances shown by the evidence, or from the lack of evidence on the part of the state, as distinguished from a doubt arising from mere possibility, from bare imagination, or from fanciful conjecture.
Regarding Double Jeopardy here are 4 cases:
188. Ashe v Swenson (1970) 25 L Ed 2nd, 397 US 436 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/397/436.html This is the case where the guy killed 6 poker players. They did 6 trials - one for each poker player. Can't do that.
189. U.S. v Wilson (1975) 420 US 332 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/420/332.html
190. Illinois v Somervile (1973) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/458.html Prosecution wins. Jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn. Double jeopardy outweighed by bare need for justice. Rehnquist uses the legal fiction of "manifest necessity" and the "ends of public justice," and the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth did not bar respondent's retrial. This is a bad opinion. Rehnquist calls it white but we all see it as black.
191. Witte v U.S. (1995) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/515/389.html Bad ruling. Prosecution wins. Sandra O'Connor wrote the stupid opinion.
Regarding Sentence here are 4 cases:
192. U.S. v Grayson(1978) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/438/41.html The judge can add to your punishment if you lie.
193. Solem, Warden of South Dakota Penitentiary v Helms (1983) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/463/277.html
194. Koon v U.S. (1996) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/518/81.html http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/u20014.html From the Rodney King episode. Koon was the cop.
195. Gregg v Georgia (1976) 428 U.S. 153 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/428/153.html http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case26.htm Excess punishment is cruel and unusual per se.
Regarding Transcripts here are 2 cases not mentioned in the book:
196. Griffin v Illinois: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/griffin.html Your right to a free transcript.
197. MLB v SLJ Your right to a free transcript in some civil cases. http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/mlb.html
Regarding Collateral Attack here are 2 cases:
Jan 3, 2004. Revised Feb 7, 2004. Tuesday, January 24, 2006.
Telephone Lawyerdude: 888 476 8954 toll free. Email: Dlawyerdude@Gmail.com Lawyerdude1989@yahoo.com
This subdocument is http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5734.html Click it to get the latest version.
Please join my newest Yahoo group for discussion or legal self help litigation. Here is the link to the link: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/6346.html
Do you have questions? Join our Discussion group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_lawyerdude
6415 Version 1.001 888-476-8954 is Lawyerdude Lawyerdude1989@yahoo.com Upgraded 12/14/07. 12/21/07.
Lawyerdude’s Lessons and Self-Empowerment pages.
This page is http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/6415.html and http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6415.html
Related pages:
Here, take a peak at first 13 pages of my book: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8457.html You can use your credit or debit card to buy it at this link: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8458.html Over 156 jam packed 8.5 x 11 pages and growing. Sent by priority mail.
http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/medley.html Very similar to 6415 but contains more pertaining to bar licensure.
Twenty basic litigation lessons:
1. Overview of the LD method: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8786.html
2. Chronology 101: How to get started working with Lawyerdude: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/7434.html
3. Motions 101: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6025.html
4. Control the Pace of Your Case! The litigation work Cycle: http://www.fu.gq.nu/6641.html
5. How to debrief: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/7775.html
6. Checklist on your way to court: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8953.html
7. How to file, serve, and argue your motion: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8952.html
8. What to say in court. How to talk to the judge: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5537.html
9. What to do next: http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/6673.html
10. Email 101: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8688.html
11. How to Inquire about your case and ask for a status report: Http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/7953.html
12. How to write a partial chronology: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8854.html
13. How to make Lawyerdude work well for you: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/contract.html
14. Strunk and White: The Elements of Style: Free online. Used in the better colleges and law schools: http://www.bartleby.com/141/
15. Read how Charlie saved his case when the judge denied his demurrer: Transcript: http://ronfox.250free.com/6709.htm
16. How to Win: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/7260.html
17. Briefs 101: http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/6435memo.html
18. Lawyerdude’s links: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5734.html
19. Flowchart: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/7930.html
20. What has been posted lately: It is way out of date. Don’t bother. http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5673.html
Empowerment pages re: Criminal Defense:
1 Your rights as an imprisoned pro se litigant: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5687.html
2 The top ten criminal motions in California and the Universe. http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/motions.html
3 Motions 101: How to write a motion: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6025.html
4 How to speak up in court. http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5537.html
5 Page of 40 motions. This page is listed on the Steve762 page: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5695.html
6 Lawyerdude's demurrer page: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5736.html
7 Lawyerdude's former main traffic page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5259.html
8 Lawyerdudes new standard for public defenders: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5635.html
9 Lawyerdude’s recommended additions to the bill of rights: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5677.html
10 The leading 143 cases that define criminal procedure: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/weinreb.html
11 How to work well with lawyerdude: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/contract.html
12 Here is a format to store all the data for your case: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/summary.html
11 Go on the offense: Actual section 1983 complaints. Sue em! http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6008.html
12 Were you strip searched? Sue em! http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5728.html Do they do a strip search anus check every time you go to the law library?
13 Our class projects: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/projects.html
21. Medley of cases defining your 6th amendment right to effective assistance of counsel - appointed if necessary.
Lilburne enjoyed the benefit of appointed counsel in 1648 and got money for his damages.
http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/lilburne.html
The Scottsboro Boys (1932): http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/scottsbo.html
More of that story here: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/scottsboro/scottsb.htm
Griffin v Illinois (1956) : http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/griffin.html
Gideon v Wainwright (1963) http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/gideon.html
Argersinger (1972) www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/argersin.html
Alabama v Shelton (2002) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/shelton/html by putting Pearl in jail one hour they violated established law:
This Shelton case at Findlaw is: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/00-1214.html
Pearl's Motion in North Dakota court: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6147.htm l
22. Medley of cases regarding your Faretta right to speak for yourself and the standards for performance of the public defender.
Faretta http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/faretta.html
Here is what to demand from public defenders: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5635.html
23. Medley of cases defining your right to a free transcript if you can’t afford to pay:
Griffin et. al. v Illinois (1956) 100 L Ed 891, 351 US 12, 79 S Ct 585, 55 ALR2d 1055. You have a right to a lawyer and transcript free for your first appeal. http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/griffin.html
M. L. B. v. S. L. J., individually and as next friend of the minor children, S. L. (1996) 519 US 102; 117 S Ct 555; 136 L Ed2d 473 http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/mlb.html You have a right to free transcript in important civil case.
24. Medley of traffic and motions.
These 50 actual motions are linked to the Steve762 page: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5695.html
25. Link to Medley of 143 cases that define Criminal Procedure in the United States:
http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/weinreb.html
Version 1.014 Crass Promotional Links: Upgraded Friday, June 23, 2006 Upgraded October 4, 2006. 5/18/07. 8/10/07. 12/14/07
Watch me on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nesDVOx7lac
This subdocument is http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5734.html Click it to get the latest version.
Do you have questions? Join our Discussion group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_lawyerdude
Links for your Empowerment! Self help Litigation forms, instructions, cases, and samples.
26. Here, take a peak at first 13 pages of my $39 book: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8457.html You can use your credit or debit card to buy it at this link: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/8458.html Over 156 jam packed 8.5 x 11 pages and growing. Sent by priority mail.
27. My Flow Chart including links to a dozen proven winning motions: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/7930.html
28. How to Win! Getting started: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/7260.html
29. Motions 101. How to write and file and serve a motion: http://www.fu.gq.nu/6025.html
30. Over 100 actual winning motions from 22 winning pro se litigators ! http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/traffic.html
31. What has been newly posted by Lawyerdude: www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5673.html
32. My Demurrer page: Perfect record so far: http://lawyerdude.8k.com/5736.html
33. Briefs 101. How to write a Memorandum of Law: http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/6435memo.html
34. Lawyerdude’s Empowerment page: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/medley.html
35. What performance you should expect from your criminal defense counsel: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5635.html
36. Your litigation rights page. Learn your litigation rights! http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5687.html
37. Charlie’s Transcripts. Learn how to charm the judge and win your case: http://ronfox.250free.com/charlie.html
38. Learn the law ! Links to the 143 cases that define criminal procedure: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/weinreb.html
39. Eighteen actual Section 1983 federal complaints: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6008.html
40. List of the 30 most important criminal court motions. They are listed in Lawyerdude’s Bill of Rights for Criminal Defendants in jail. This is my New Standard by which to measure effectiveness of counsel. Make your appointed lawyer toe the line: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5635.html
41. Courtroom assertiveness 101: How to be assertive in court. Scripts for the Pro Se litigant:
http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5537.html
42. Were you strip searched? Sue em! http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5728.html Do they do a strip search anus check every time you go to the law library? Did your jail not have a law library?
43. List of the most quotable cases and the most useful web pages for the pro se Litigator: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/medley.html
44. Your case summary and trial notebook form: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/summary.html
All about Lawyerdude Palaschak
45. List of my 200 most popular web pages according to Google. http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5733.html
46. My winning argument regarding the 1st amendment where I argued the Law to the jury without interruption: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5918.html
47. Raid at the Good Nite Inn based on mistake of law by District Attorney: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/brosnan.html
48. My ongoing battle with the mistaken, oppressive, and political state bar: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com
49. Lawyerdudes’s biographical page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/mystory.html
50. My LSD story and brief: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5431.html
51. How to work well with Lawyerdude: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/contract.html
52. My most important page. My top 10 lists: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5459.html
53. My ideas. My 10 proposed amendments to the bill of rights: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5123.html
54. My home page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com Or my mirror site: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com
My biggest fattest briefs:
55. My “state bar acts are unconstitutional!” brief: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/3789.html
56. My 100 page LSD brief: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/1170.html Use this for your drug case!
57. My collection of “right to drive” briefs: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/right2drive.html
58. Lawyerdude's briefs: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com
More Lawyerdude links and Recommended Reading list
59. Lawyerdude’s traffic page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5259.html
60. Lawyerdude's library. A prioritized reading list. A list of books that farm folk and an enlightened populace should read. Some of these books justify weekly or monthly review - like your Bible - for your own defense. http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/library.html
61. List of links to the Latest uploads from Lawyerdude: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5673.html
62. Lawyerdude's Contemporary Constitutional Issues: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5693.html
63. Lawyerdude's links page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/links.html
64. Lawyer’s Manifesto: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5753.html
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen
Committee on Discipline v Yagman
http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/3789.html
1 2
Olech v Village of Willowbrook
privilege against self incrimination
Schware v Board of Bar Examiners
search of car pursuant to a speeding ticket
Standing Committee of Bar Examiners
Standing Committee on Discipline
United Mine Workers v Illinois