Court+Cases+(2-6)

home Period 2 Amendment 6 (2)

Cases:
Public trial Estes vs. Texas public: This case was in 1965 that involved an accused swindler who received national news media attention. The case was moved to another jurisdiction to try to ensure that potential jurors had not been tainted by the media in home jurisdiction. After the trial was moved News cameras and reporters were all over the court room the judge then placed restrictions on reporters telling the were and were they can and can not be during and after the court cases because the defendant claimed his “right to a fair trial had been violated by the reporters and news cast”. But the press believed that there right to attend should be unrestricted due to the fact that trials must be open to the public. The judged ruled in the defendants favor saying that media coverage by its nature my taint potential jurors and damage a defendants ability to receive a fair trial.

Speedy trial Smith vs. Hooey In 1969 a defendant was sent to jail and charged with a Texas crime. And seven years later the defendant was still in prison but the thing is was that his case has not been prosecuted. The defendant claimed that his right to a speedy trial has been violated and that the charges must be dropped because the state has not even made an effort to try the case.

Right to Trial by Jury: Williams vs. Florida/ Ballew vs. Georgia These two cases go hand and hand because they both have to do with the required number of people on a jury. The Williams vs. Florida case occurred in 1970 and it was about a man who was tried for theft by a jury consisting of only six jurors. He was found guilty and claimed that his rights had been violated due to there not being twelve jurors. He lost that case as well and the Supreme Court ruled that there was no law about the number of jurors in the Constitution, it only required a jury. In this particular case, no minimum number of jurors allowed was set. Then, in 1978 the Ballew vs. Georgia case occurred. It set a minimum number of jurors at six, saying that five jurors did violate a person’s right to trial by jury and that five was not sufficient.

Arraignment Clause: Rosen vs. United States This case is about a man who felt his rights were violated in the fact that there was a warrant to seize a letter he wrote. However, the specific contents of what was supposed to be in the letter was not listed. It was stated that the letter was too graphic to be stated by gentlemen. The United States won this case and it was decided that no matter how general the warrant was, it still allows it to be searched.

Confrontation clause case: Maryland vs. Craig This case was a dispute over a witness who testified over a closed circuit television in a child abuse case. The witness was the child who was being abused and would not appear in person to court for fear of additional trauma. The court ruled in favor of the defendant whose 6th amendment right was not violated when the witness testified.

Compulsory process clause case: Roviaro vs. United States In this case a defendant was charged with knowingly possessing and transporting heroin. The government used an undercover informant in the process. The defense asked for the informants address and name. The government refused to give the information in attempt to keep the informants identity a secret. Supreme court said that a formal rule could not be made with an undercover informant. The informant needs to be identified for the court to make a ruling.