Case Law
Case Law
Crime Scene Forensics,LLC
Case Law - is a law based on a decision of a
higher level court, (either on the state or federal
level), in which a particular case was evaluated
against existing constitutional law, and further
defined to address future cases.
Higher court judges interpret existing law, apply
their interpretations to a particular standard, and
write that new standard, or "clarification" of the
existing law, to govern future cases.
higher level court, (either on the state or federal
level), in which a particular case was evaluated
against existing constitutional law, and further
defined to address future cases.
Higher court judges interpret existing law, apply
their interpretations to a particular standard, and
write that new standard, or "clarification" of the
existing law, to govern future cases.
Here are some of the more noteworthy case laws in the United States:
Miranda vs Arizona - Decided on June 13, 1966
Ernesto Miranda was a career criminal with an extensive, violent criminal record. In 1963, Miranda
was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for armed robbery, and for kidnapping and raping a slightly retarded
18-year-old woman. While in police custody he signed a written confession to the crime. After the
conviction, his lawyers appealed, on the grounds that Miranda did not know he was protected from
self-incrimination.
The case, Miranda vs Arizona, made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where the conviction was
overturned. In a landmark ruling issued in 1966, the court established that the accused have the right
to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police
custody unless the police have advised them of their rights, commonly called the Miranda Rights. The
case was later re-tried, Miranda was convicted on the basis of other evidence, and served 11 years.
He was paroled in 1972, and died in 1976 after being stabbed in a bar fight. A suspect was arrested
for Miranda's murder, but was later released when he exercised his "Miranda" right to remain silent.
For more information on Miranda VS, Arizona, click here
Read the Supreme Court Decision
Ernesto Miranda was a career criminal with an extensive, violent criminal record. In 1963, Miranda
was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for armed robbery, and for kidnapping and raping a slightly retarded
18-year-old woman. While in police custody he signed a written confession to the crime. After the
conviction, his lawyers appealed, on the grounds that Miranda did not know he was protected from
self-incrimination.
The case, Miranda vs Arizona, made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where the conviction was
overturned. In a landmark ruling issued in 1966, the court established that the accused have the right
to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police
custody unless the police have advised them of their rights, commonly called the Miranda Rights. The
case was later re-tried, Miranda was convicted on the basis of other evidence, and served 11 years.
He was paroled in 1972, and died in 1976 after being stabbed in a bar fight. A suspect was arrested
for Miranda's murder, but was later released when he exercised his "Miranda" right to remain silent.
For more information on Miranda VS, Arizona, click here
Read the Supreme Court Decision
Escobedo vs Illinois - Decided on June 22, 1964
Rights of the Accused: Right to Counsel
Argued on April 29, 1964
Decided on June 22, 1964
Facts of the Case:
Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken to a police station for
questioning. After several hours of being denied access to his
attorney, Escobedo confessed to murder. In this landmark decision,
The supreme court held that an accused person has an absolute
right to counsel before any questioning by the police.
For more information on Escobedo VS Illinois, click here
Read the Supreme Court Decision
Rights of the Accused: Right to Counsel
Argued on April 29, 1964
Decided on June 22, 1964
Facts of the Case:
Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken to a police station for
questioning. After several hours of being denied access to his
attorney, Escobedo confessed to murder. In this landmark decision,
The supreme court held that an accused person has an absolute
right to counsel before any questioning by the police.
For more information on Escobedo VS Illinois, click here
Read the Supreme Court Decision
Sample Miranda Warnings:
1. You have the right to remain silent
2. Anything you say can and will be
used against you in a court of law
3. You have the right to have an
attorney present with you during
any questioning
4. If you cannot afford an attorney,
one will be appointed to you, free
of charge
5. Do you understand each of these
rights?
1. You have the right to remain silent
2. Anything you say can and will be
used against you in a court of law
3. You have the right to have an
attorney present with you during
any questioning
4. If you cannot afford an attorney,
one will be appointed to you, free
of charge
5. Do you understand each of these
rights?
Gideon v. Wainright:
Rights of the Accused: Right to Court Appointed Counsel
Argued on January 15, 1963
Decided on March 18, 1963
Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for
breaking and entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a
lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to
appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was
only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in
capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was
convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a
state prison.
Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that all accused persons
have an absolute right to counsel, even in the event that the
accused cannot afford one. This case served as the beginning of
court appointed attorneys in the event of indigence.
Rights of the Accused: Right to Court Appointed Counsel
Argued on January 15, 1963
Decided on March 18, 1963
Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for
breaking and entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a
lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to
appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was
only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in
capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was
convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a
state prison.
Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that all accused persons
have an absolute right to counsel, even in the event that the
accused cannot afford one. This case served as the beginning of
court appointed attorneys in the event of indigence.
MARBURY VS MADISON
This case is regarded as perhaps the
single most important case law in the
history of our country, as it gave the U.S.
Supreme Court its power of Judicial
Review
This case is regarded as perhaps the
single most important case law in the
history of our country, as it gave the U.S.
Supreme Court its power of Judicial
Review
The fascinating
world of forensic
science...made
simple
world of forensic
science...made
simple
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |