Supreme Court and Criminal Law

In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through an unreasonable search or seizure cannot be used in a criminal trial. This decision extended the exclusionary rule, which had previously applied only to federal cases, to state courts as well.

In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that suspects must be informed of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney before being questioned by law enforcement officers. This decision was based on the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that indigent defendants have the right to appointed counsel in all criminal prosecutions, regardless of the severity of the offense. This decision was based on the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of the right to counsel.

In Furman v. Georgia (1972), the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional as a cruel and unusual punishment. This decision was based on the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment bars the execution of mentally retarded individuals. This decision was based on the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment bars the execution of juveniles. This decision was based on the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

In Rakas v. Illinois (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained by private individuals. This decision was based on the Fourth Amendment's requirement that searches and seizures be conducted by government officials.

In Wolf v. Colorado (1949), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained in violation of state law. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

In United States v. Leon (1984), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained through a good-faith reliance on a warrant. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule.

In Gilbert v. California (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to compelled handwriting exemplars. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.

In Schmerber v. California (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to compelled blood tests. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.

In United States v. Wade (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to compelled voice exemplars. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.

In Davis v. Mississippi (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to compelled fingerprints. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.

In Kirby v. Illinois (1972), the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel attaches at the first formal charging proceeding. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel.

In Massiah v. United States (1964), the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel attaches when a suspect is subjected to custodial interrogation. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel.