ED 134 503

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

PUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

EDRS .PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT.

DOCUMENT RESUME

SO 009 716

Clark, Todd, Ed.Supreme Court Highlights. Bill of Rights in Action,Vol. X, No. 3.Constitutional Rights Foundation, Los Angeles,Calif.Nov 7625p.Constitutional Rights Foundation, 6310 San VicenteBoulevard, Los Angeles, California 90048 ($1.00,class set of 35 for $10.00)

MF-$0.83 HC-$1.67 Plus Postage.American Government (Course); American Studies; CaseStudies; Citizenship Responsibility; Civics; *CivilRights; Class Activities; Discussion (TeachingTechnique); Instructional Materials; *LawInstruction; Laws; Learning Activities; LegalProblems; *Newsletters; Political Issues; PoliticalScience; Resource Guides; Secondary Education;*Supreme Court Litigation; *Teaching Techniques

The student-oriented newsletter provides learningactivities, background information, resources, teaching techniques,case studies, and other, sources to help high school teachers develop,plan, and implement a Course on the Supreme Court in a legaleducation program. The first chapter examines the role of the SupremeCourt in American life, selected cases decided by the Court in1975-76, and methods used by the justices in considering issues. Thesecond chapter discusses the death penalty as a legal concern andpresents arguments in favor of and against the death penalty. A deathsentencing simulation is presented in the third chapter, followed bydescription of fair trial procedures in the fourth chapter. Exercisesfor understanding the Right to Privacy as guaranteed.by the Bill ofRights are incorporated into chapter five. A self-incrimination gameis described in chapter six, followed by three case studies andbackground information on abortion in chapter seven. 'The last chapterdescribes cases related to libel and slander and gives instructionsfor setting up a moot court. A coupon for ordering back issues oflaw-related newsletters and student materials is included.(Author/DB)

***********************************************************************Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished

* materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort ** to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal ** reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality ** of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available ** via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not* responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions ** supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original.***********************************************************************

BILL OF RIGHTS11V ACTION

^

NOVEMBER 1976

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO-DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN-ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NDT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

'PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS COPY-: RIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

_

TO ERIC AND ORGANIZATIONS OPERATINGUNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE NATIONAL IN-STITUTE OF EDUCATION FURTHER REPRO-DUCTION OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM RE-OUIRES PERMISSION DF THE COPYRIGHTOWNER

Supreme Court Highlights2

The Supreme Court:What's Your Opinion?

The items which foilow are intended to stimulate yourthinking about politics anxi your role as a citizen. After every-one in your class has resp,onded to all of the statements, com-pare your answers in mall groups of four to six. After youhave done so, discuss, in general, what the results tend toshow about your group. Compare your group's position withthe rest of the class. Can you generalize about your attitudestoward the Court and the issues? Do you think the results aretypical of your age group, your community, the nation as awhole? If there are wide differences between members ofyour class, what explains them?

You might like to give the survey to your parents, neigh-bors, or other teachers to find out if they respond to the itemsin the same manner or differently than your group did. If youdo such a survey, be sure to keep the individual resultsanonymous to protect the privacy of each individual.

In front of each item place the letters that indicate theextent to which you agree or disagree with thestatement.SA Strongly Agree A Agree U Uncertain DDisagree SD -- Strongly Disagree

1. A person's background and personal habitsshould not influence the decisions of any courtregarding his/her individual rights.2. The Supreme Court should consider public opi-

nion as well as the law when it makes a decision.3. The death penalty can help to reduce crime and

should be considered fair treatment and constitu-tional for certain crimes.4. The press should have a right to print informa-

tion about any criminal act both before and during atrial. After all, the public has a right to know what'shappening.5 The government should not have the right to tape

record anyone's private conservation at any time forany reason. If they did, everyone would need to fearthe government.6 Personal business papers of all kinds are just as

private as a conversation and should not be used tocharge an individual with a crime.

7. If a minor becomes pregnant, she should only beable to have an abortion with the permissicn of herparents.8. If a wife becomes pregnant, she should only be

able to have an abortion if her husband agrees.9 Legal abortion is legalized murder and should

not be considered a constitutional right under anycircumstances.10 Information about individuals' arrest records orcourt appearances should be kept private to .avoiddamaging their reputation.

32

BILL OF RIGHTSIN ACTION

Nov. 1976Vol. X, No. 3

Constitutional Rights Foundation, 1976

Editor and Education DirectorTodd ClarkContributing Editors:Carlton MartzEric Jacobson

National and Editorial Office:Vivian Monroe, Executive Director6310 San Vicente Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90048(213) 930-1510Los Angeles Office:Nancy York, DirectorRichard Weintraub, Education DirectorMidwest Office/Chicago ProjectCarolyn Pereira, DirectorDe Paul University25 E. Jackson StreetChicago, Illinois 60604Eastern Office:Harriet Bickelman, Acting Regional DirectorTemple University Law CenterBroad and Montgomery StreetsPhiladelphia, PA 19122CRF Publications Committee:Jerome C. Byrne, Chairman ..Bayard F.'BermanPaul FreeseLloyd M. SmithPhotographyBarbara Perlman-RossDesign:Robert Shaw

Clore Warne Legal Intern Sponsored byPUPIL Ross, Warne, Bernhard & Sears

Io

Contents

4 The Supreme Courtand American Life

7 Death Penalty9 The Death Game

A Simulation11 Fair Trial .

14 The Right to Privacy17 The Self Incrimination Game18 'Abortion21 Reputation2 Back Issues and Subscriptions

Four issues of the Bill of Rights In Action will be publishedeach school year in September, November. February andApril. Subscription price. four issues, $4.00. Class sets of 35,$10.00 each issue.As a quarterly, this publication will be known as the Bill ofRights In Action.

A publication of the Constitutional Rights Foundationto explore the rights and responsibilities of citizens under the Bill of Rights.

4 3

aktibt.0

,tttttttttt

I

r'

........

ttttt 00ttttttttttttttttt

3

e

,tc.t

fts.

0.1-

;143013 204

1ji/1

:''2-

'#4'

0

............1

-41

The Supreme Courtand American Life

Many Americans are concerned because a large percen-tage of the population does not trust the government. Faith inthe President, Congress and politicians in general is very low.

It is no doubt true that a total loss of faith in the Americanpolitical system could lead to the destruction of the system, inan extreme case even to civil war and a violent change in ourform of government. On the other hand. the Founding Fathers,if they are watching our progress, might be relieved and hap-py to see that many Americans are suspicious of their leadersand the power of the government When the Constitution waswritten, one of :he greatest dangers feared in the new systemwas the power of the federal government. The elaboratechecks and balances between the power of the federalgovernment, its three branches and the stateswere estab-lished to reduce the danger that a tyrant. by controlling thecentral government, could use power to eliminate oppositionand destroy the Republic.

To further reduce the danger of tyranny by the stateagainst individual citizens or the destruction of basicfreedoms such as that of the press. the Bill of Rights was ad-ded to the Constitution. These ten amendments, augmentedover the years by many others, extend and support individualrights and guarantee fair treatment for the person in oursociety. Contained in the amendments are basic principlesnecessary to guarantee freedom from the power of the stateand the majority.

So far this all sounds abstract and dry. To take on mean-ing 'the peincipies must be apphed to people, individualswhose freedom may be threatened by the government. InAmerican society, when an individual believes his rightsAnder the Constitution have been violated, it is possible,z.lthough neither easy nor inexpensive, to challenge thealleged violation by appealing court decisions all the way tothe United States Supreme Court. At every step in the processthe courts consider the circumstances of these conflictswhich concern not only the rights of those involved but therights of us all.

Cases To DecideSuppose we examine the facts in several cases. Read theshort paragraphs which follow How do you believe theSupreme Court should decide each case?

1. David Harding is brought to trial and convicted formolesting several small children. After his lawyer with-draws from the case. Harding hires another to appeal theverdict by asking for a new trial. His new lawyer needs acomplete copy of the trial record which would costseveral hundred dollars. Since Harding.can't afford to

pay for the transcript, his lawyer asks the court for a freeone. The request is denied.

2. A theatre manager, known to be a homosexual, shows aforeign movie which is considered to be an art film.However, some people think it is obscene and complainto the authorities, who arrest and bring the theatre man-ager to court. He is found guilty, fined, and jailed forpossessing and exhibiting an obscene film.

3. Three men in a car are stopped by the police because ofa broken headlight. The police recognize the men asconstant troublemakers with police records, andtherefore decide to search the car. In the trunk the policefind some ducks that have been shot out of season. Themen are arrested and fined heavily for hunting out ofseason.

4. An ad in a newspaper severely criticizes the actions ofJames More, an office-holding politician with- a badreputation in the community. The ad contains some falsestatements about these actions. Moore sues the newspa-per for libel, saying that his reputation has been

. damaged. The jury agrees with Moore and orders thenewspaper to pay him damages.

5. A group of Communist Party leaders is arrested for con-spiring to advocate the violent overthrow of the govern-ment. Although the accused produce financial recordsshowing that they cannot raise the money, the judge setsbail at $50,000 each to prevent the Communists from"jumping bail" and leaving the country.

6. David Harding is brought to trial and convicted of robb-ery. After his lawyer withdraws from the case, Hardinghires another to appeal the verdict by asking for a newtrial. His new lawyer needs a complete copy of the trialrecord which would cost several hundred dollars. SinceHarding can't afford to pay for the transcript, his lawyerasks the court for a free one. The request is denied.

7. A threatre manager shows a foreign film which is con-sidered to be an art film. However, some people think it isobscene and complain to the authorities, who arrest andbring the manager to court. He is fined and jailed for poss-ing and exhibiting an obscene film.

8. Three men in a car are stopped by the police because ofa broken headlight. While the car is stopped, the policedecide to search the car. In the trunk the police find someducks that have been shot out of season. The men are ar-rested and fined heavily for hunting out of season.

9. An ad in a newspaper severely criticizes the actions ofJames Moore, a public official with a good reputation inthe community. The ad contains some false statemen',.

65

apout these actions. Moore sues the newspaper for libel,saying that his reputation has been damaged. The juryagrees with Moore and orders the newspaper to pay himdamages.

10 A group of executives in some large corporations are ar-rested for conspinng to fix the Prices and for providingfaulty equipment in some government contracts. Althoughthe accused produce financial recOrds showing that theycannot raise the money. the judge sets bail at $50,000each to prevent the businessmen from -jumping bail" andleaving the country.iVhat are the differences between the first and the sec-

ond five cases?. Did you decide any of the second fivedifferently than.the first hve? Why?

The ouestions ,':ere used as a part of a study by ReedCollege Sociologist John Pock. The purpose of the researchwas to determine the attitudes toward civil liberties held byseniors in a group of Oregon high schools. We have used onlya few of the questions. Pock discovered that the studentswere influenced by the personal and social attributes of thepeople described in the incidents. Were you? Did words suchas homosexual. Communist, troublemaker affect the way inwhich yOu responded to each case? Do you believe such fac-tors should influence the decision of a court?

The Pock Study and perhaps your reaction to the ques-tions illustrate a problem of continuing importance regardingliberties 'guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.Freque:itly. those who feel denied their rights and who taketheir sases to the United States Supreme Court often are notpeople who are from social or individual backgrounds that a.majority of Americans believe are desirable. BlackS, athiests,known criminals. Communists all are minorities or undesira-bles to many Americans. When decisions favoring suchgroups or individuals are handed down, many Americans ob-ject. Should person& background or group membership in-fluence our courts when they interpret the Bill of Rights? Theirdecisions can guarantee fair treatment for all citizens.

Supreme CourtWhen cases are appealed to the Supreme Court, how do

the justices consider the issue that is raised?Principles of law drawn from the Constitution and the Bill

of Rights are applied to cases which come before the court.Decisions in earlier cases are carefully studied and applied.New information based on social scientific research may be

presented. Changing values and behavior patterns in societymay be considered.

All of this data is examined by the nine justices. Theirc.pnclusions are influenced by personal, legal, social, politi-cal and econó-mic biases. All members of the court are law-yers, but before their appointment, some were politicians,other judges or law professors. still others attorneys with suc-cessful careers as advocates. Court appointments haveoften been based on the desire of the president in office to in-fluence the kinds of decisions handed down by the majority.Occasionally, presidents have been disappointed to discoverthat the previous record of an appointee does not always pre-dict the kinds of opinions that he will write. More often,justices are consistent and follow a liberal, moderate or con-servative course throughout their careers

As a result of the views of its members, the majority posi-tion of the Court changes over time. On the present Court. a

6

conservative group of justices, most appointed by PresidentNixon. are attempting to reduce the extent to which the Courttakes activist positions on many issues.

The law is not absolute in our system of government. It isimportant that Americans understand that a part of the geniusof -our system is its flexibility. If there were no room for in-terpretation and change in the application of our law, the pastmight well be a record of outbursts of violence caused bygroups denied fair treatment by an inflexible system. To besure, such contemporary issues as busing and abortion il-lustrate that there are groups whose outrage at court deci-sions viewed as too radical can also be disruptive and unset-tling to society.

The cases discussed in this issue are only a small.per-centage of the total decided during the 1975-76 term of theSupreme Court. They were selected because they deal withissues of importance to all Americans. The death penalty,pre-trial publicity, privacy, abortion and the right to protectone's reputation from unfair public abuse are discussedthrough cases decided by the Court. Both majority andminority opinions are examrned. Activities and discussionquestions are included to stimulate analysis-and debate oneach case. Through a consideration of these materials, it isour hope that you will better understand the process by whichthe Court works as well as the dynamic quality of the Ameri-can legal system.

-YOU MEAN THESE APPLY TO THERIFFRA FF TOO?"

7

From The Herblock Gallery, Simon &Schuster. 1968.1,.

DE A TH PEN AL T

-Capital punishment." more commonly referred to as thedeath penalty, involves the government execution of peoplewho are convicted of such crimes as murder or treason.Capital comes from a Latin word, capita, meaning head. Inancient times, capital punishment was often carried out bythe state executioner who beheaded the convicted person.Other methods of capital punishment include death by shoot-ing, hanging, electrocuting and gassing.

Capital punishment is an old custom. It has been used inancient and modern societies. Most western countries in theworld today, however, have stopped using capital punish-ment. Canada, France and the United States are the main ex-ceptions.

Within the United States the use of capital punishmentvaries from state to state. However, once a person has beensentenced to death, practices are usually quite similar. A per-son who is sentenced to die for committing a crime is usuallykept in a special section of a prison reserved for inmates whoare to be executed. This sedtion is known as "death row." Asof July, 1976, 602 men and women were living on Death Rowsacross the country awaiting their death.

Usually, the prisoners on death row have little contactwith other prisoners. Each occupies a small cell alone. Deathrow prisoners cannot see the other inmates and often taketheir meals and exercise alone. This life may continue formany months and even years as the person awaiting execu-tion appeals his or her case to the courts, or simply waits forthe sentence to be carried out.

The most common methods for executing people in theUnited States, who have been sentenced to death, arethrough electrocution and gassing. It is contended that theseare the most painless and humane methods, although someobservers dispute this claim.

In California the gas chamber is used. It is a large, steelcell with windows on three sides. The cell can be closed sothat it is aiKight. Once the convict is strapped into one of thetwo chairs in the cell a cyanide pellet is released ihto a mix-ture of sulfuric acid and water located under the chair. As thepellet dissolves, a deadly vapor of cyanide gas escapes andfills the cell. After breathing this gas for about twenty sec-onds, a person loses consciousness. It takes up to fifteenminutes for the person to die.

Use of the Death PenaltyIn earlier times, the death penalty was used to punish

people for committing many different offenses innluding pick-ing pockets or stealing a loaf of bread, as well as for commit-ting murder and treason. During the 1800's in England, for ex-ample, there were 270 capital offenses or crimes punishableby death. During this same time period, the United States alsohad a large number of crimes punishable by death. Grad-ually, however, public protest and demand for reformreduced the number of capital offenses in toth countries tono more than fifteen, with most of these offenses involving

some kind of first degree murder ... killing with malice and in-tent.

Historically, each state within the U.S. has had the powerto make its own laws regarding the use of capital punishment.In over ten states, capital punishment does not exist. Otherstates require the death penalty only for certain kinds of mur-ders.

States that have capital punishment as a penalty musthave a legally defined standard for deciding when capitalpunishment shall be administered. That is, they must clearlystate in the law under what conditions and in what situationsthe death penalty will be used. Usually, a sentence of deathcarries with it an automatic right to appeal.

Questions for Discussion1. Why do you think the death penalty was originated?2. Why do you think most western countries have

abolished it? Why has the United States kept it?3. What kind of crimes do you think deserve carrying a

penalty of death with them?

The Argument Reaches The Supreme CourtDuring its recent 1975-16 term, the U.S. Supreme Court

was asked to decide whether the methods several states usedfor deciding who would be sentenced to death were constitu-tional. More specifically, the Supreme Court had to decide ifthe death penalty laws of certain states violated the EighthAmendment's provision against "cruel and unusual" punish-ment, and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "dueprocess of Jaw." In addition, the justices heard argumentsabout Whether capital punishment itself was unconstitutional.

The cases which reached the Supreme Court in 1976 hadcome about as a result of the Court's 1972 decision in thecase of Furman vs. Georgia. In the Furman case, the Courtconsidered a method in which the death penalty was man-datory, was automatically given, in all first degree murderconvictions unless the jury recommended life imprisonment.The Court ruled that this method was unconstitutional sincethe jury had no rules to go by in making their decision. Thismade their decision arbitrary, said the Court, and thereforeunconstitutional. It violated both the Eighth and FourteenthAmendments. However, a majority of the Court did not rulethat capital punishment itself was unconstitutional,

Thirty-six states changed their lawS on capital punish-ment after the Furman decision. Each came up with a slightlydifferent method for determining which convicted defendantshould be executed. The series of cases which were pre-sented to the Supreme Court on March 31, 1976, containedtwo bas;; methods which affected approximately twenty fivestates.

In the first type of statute, every defendant who was con-victed of a capital offense was automa,tically sentenced todeath. The laws did not give the jurors any choice at all aboutthe penalty, even if they felt tie defendant deserved life im-

7

prisonment rather than the death penalty. The two caseswhich involved this type of statute came from Louisiana andfrom North Carolina

In the second type of statute, after finding a defendantguilty of first degree murder the jury was told to considereveryMing about me defendant and the crime. This includedboth the aggravating circumstances, or those things whichmade the crime horrible or vicious, such as a long priorrecord of the.defendant. a lack of sorrow on the part of thedefendant. or a particularly ugly type of crime, and . tiemitigating circumstances, or those which called for mercy onthe part of the jury. Mitigating circumstances were eitherlisted in the statute..., or left entirely to the jurors discretion,depending on the state. Examples of these circumstanceswhich seem to make the defendant or the crime less terribleLP more understandable, are the absence of any criminalrecord of the defendant, the fact that the defendant is young.

and extremely sorry he or she ever committed the crime, andthe fact that he or she may have been forced by someone arsome circumstances to commit the crime.

The juries in Georgia, Florida and Texas who were boundby this type of law, were told to balance the two types of cir-cumstances against each other, and to recommencrthe deathpenalty only if the aggravating circumstances outweighed the4-nitigating circumstances.

Questions for Understanding1. How do these statutes differ from the one overturnee.4I

the Furman case?2 Do you think either type of statutes prevents capital

punishment from being "cruel and unusual"?3. Do you think either type prevents an "arbitrary" deci-

sion?

Consider These ArgumentsWhen the Supreme Court listened to the arguments of

both sides, the justices found themselves in one of the mostcrucial and complicated legal battles of the century. Thechart below summarizes the arguments they heard. Readthem over and decide which you agree with.

Arguments in Favor of theDeath Penalty

1. The existence ofcapital punishment keepspeople from committingserious crimes. It is hard tosay how well this "deterrenteffect" works, but becauselegislatures in many stateshave studied the problemand decided that it doeswork; the Supreme Courtmust agree with them.

2. If a person takesanothers life, he should payfor the act by giving up his orher own life. "An eye for aneye and a tooth for a tooth."This is in accordance with

-the punishment purpose ofthe criminal justice system.

3. Capital punishment is:n accordance with "dueprocess of law. It isreserved for only the mostserious crimes. Jurors aretold to consider it verycarefully, and there aremany steps in the appealsprocess.

8

Arguments Against theDeath Penalty

1. Capital punishmenthas no -deterrent effect. Instates which have abolishedthe death penalty murderrates have declined or re-mained the same. Most peo-ple who commit crimes donot believe they will becaught, while many otherswant to be punished. Theiepeople win not be deterred.

2. Capital punishment isa wrongdoing on top of .awrongdoing. It does not helpthe victim of the originalcrime, causes loss tO 'thefamily of the accused, andembarrasses all civilizedpeople. Besides, locking acriminal up for the rest of-hisor her life is punishmentenough.

3. Capital punishmentinvolves so much chanceand arbitrary decision-mak-ing that it is like a lotteryrather than "due process oflaw." Chance is involved inthe prosecutor's choice ofwhich crime to charge theaccused with, and whetheror not to plea bargain. It

CoMes into play in a jury's

4. Some people are sobad that they cannot berehabilitated enough to livein society. Those who havecommitted serious crimesshould be executed to makesure they never harm any-one again.

view of the defendant andthe crime, in the choice of anappeals judge of whether ornot to review the case, andin a governor's decisionwhether or not to grant cle-mency. This is too muchchance when a person's lifeis at stake.

4. Life imprisonmentwithout chance of parolewould keep criminals whocould not be rehabilitatedoff the streets just as well asexecuting them would.Studies have shown thatmost murders are committedby people who are unlikelyever to do it again, so theseare not usually the mostdangerous people, but maybe the most easily rehabili-tated.

5. Capital punishment-isallowed by the Bill of Rightsitself. The Fifth Amendmentsays that no person shall bedeprived "of life, liberty, orproperty without due pro-cess of law." These statutesgive them "due process oflaw" prior to sentencingthem to death.

9

5. Although capitalpunishment may not bespecifically prohibited bythe Constitution, customsand conditions havechanged during the past 200years. It cannot be doubtedthat slavery is no longer ac-ceptable in the UnitedStates. but that was alsoprotected by the Bill ofRights and the Constitutionwhen they were adopted.Just as slavery is no longeracceptable, the deathpenalty is now. considered"cruel and unusual" punish-ment, and should be out-lawed.

The Death Game

Procedure:Step 1: Divide the class into four groups. Each will play

the role of the sentencing jury in the cases described below.Each jury will be asked to decide one of the cases first usingthe TYPE I capital punishment statute, which is like those inuse in North Carolina and Louisiana. Then using the TYPE IIstatute, as do juries in Georgia, Texas, Florida and abouttwenty other states.

2. The defendant in each case has already been con-victed of first degree murder. It is the job of each jury to deter-mine the pnealty for each defender.

3. Juries with TYPE I statues ,-TIL.r.st recommend the deathpenalty for those convicted of first-degree murder. They haveno choice to make.

4. UnderTYPE II statutes the only two choices availableare life imprisonment or death.

5. When jurors apply TYPE II statues they should firstmake a list of the mitigating circumstances that is those whichseem to call for mercy. Jurors should also make a list of all ofthe aggravating circumstances, or those which make thecrime violent or repulsive. Jurors should then weigh or bal-

ance the mitigating and the aggravating circumstancesagainst each other. If they feel the case calls for leniency theyshould recommend life imprisonment. On the otner hand, if, inthe opinion of the jurors, the case is barbarous or savage,they should recommend death.

6. When each jury is finished, one member of it shouldmake its recommendation of the proper penalty to the entireclass. The recommendation does not have to be unanimous.Each law in question requires only a majority of the jury toagree on the sentence for it to be recommended.

Statutes:TYPE I: Anyone convicted of first degree murder shall au-

tomatically be sentenced to death.TYPE II: After finding a defendant guilty of murder in the

first degree, the jury shall /ook .at the circumstances Of thecrime, and at the character of the individual defendant. I! itfinds the aggravating circumstances of the crime and the de-fendant outweigh the mitigating circumstances, it shall returna recommendation of the death penalty. Otherwise it shallrecommend life imprisonment.

CASENAME: LUBY WAXTONAGE: 24SEX: MALELuby has been in and out of jail

ever since he was a teenager. He wasconvicted of shoplifting, burgthrvandassault with a deadly weapon. Hereceived-night sentence for each.

On June 3, 1974, Waxton begandrinking early in the morning. He and afriend of his planned a robbery of alocal grocery store to get some money.That afternoon Waxton bought a smallhandgun.

He and three others drove to amarket. Waxton and his friend Tuckerentered the store, bought somecigarettes and then announced a hold-up.

Waxton went behind the counterand emptied the cash register. He puthis gun to the sales clerk's head andpulled the Wgger. The clerk, an oldwoman, died instantly.

Waxton was convicted of robberyand murder in the first degree. (Tuckerwas given a lighter sentence for testify-ing against Waxton and the other twoaccomplices.)

CASE 2NAME: JAMES WOODSONAGE: 18SEX: MALEWoodson has no prior record of

being arrested.Woodson was home from college

for the summer. He met Luby Waxton inthe early afternoon of June 3, 1974, andhe joined him in drinking.

Woodson, tried to go home butWaxton and his other friends pistolwhipped Woodson until he agreed toaccompany them on the robbery.

Woodson remained in the getawaycar when Waxton and Tucker enteredthe store. Woodson was carrying a rifle,but he did not shoot it during the hold-up. He watched as a man entered thestore, but did riot 1''y 16 $1.0p him. Theman was shot c,tce he was inside.Woodson drove tt A getaway car as therobbers escaped.

Woodson was convicted of robb-ery and first-degree murder as an ac-complice of Waxton.

10

CASE 3 .NAME: MARY DAVISAGE:SEX: FEMALEAlthough Mary has no prior crimi-

nal record, she has been in the care ofa psychologist for the past six years.Mary is the mother of six children rang-ing in age from 8 to 20.

Mary Davis and her husband Samwent to a party at the home of a friend.Both drank heavily for several hours.Around midnight Davis saw her hus-band talking with a beautiful youngwoman. Mary accused Sam of trying toseduce the young woman, and of hav-ing many other affairs with youngerwomen. Sam dragged Mary out of theparties fast as he could.

The Devises had a loud quarrelwhich was heard by their neighbors asthey walked home. Once inside thehouse the argument continued for overan hour.

Sam struck Mary several times.Mary ran into the kitchen and grabbeda butcher knife. She warned her hus-band that if she ever caught him withanother woman again that she wouldcut them both up.

9

The Death Game

CASE 3 continued

Sam had another drink of whiskey,and he threw the bottle at Mary. Marythen stabbed her husband nine times.She called the police and turned herselfin immediately afterwards.

Mary Davis was convicted of firstdegree murder.

CASE 4NAME: JOYCE WILLIAMSAGE: 23SEX: FEMALEJoyce has no prior record.On September 10, 1972, Joyce

called the police and reported that shehad been raped by a man namedGregg. She was taken down to a hospi-tal where a doctor examined her. Hesaid he could find no evidence of rape.

The police investigated her reportand told Joyce that they could, not ar-rest Gregg. It was dark, they said, andso Joyce could have been mistaken

about the identity of the attacker.Besides, they said, Gregg had a perfectalibi for the night in question.

Joyce decided to teach Gregg alesson. She waited around the cornerwhere he first attacked her. WhenGregg approached, she told him thatshe was looking for him, and was gladto see him. She suggested that they gosomewhere for a drink. They got intoher car, drove to a secluded spot, andshe shot him six times.

Joyce Williams was convicted offirst degree murder.

Debriefing1. Did each Jury recommend the same penalty under the

TYPE II statute? If not. why not?2. Which type of statute do you think gives a defendant

greater 'due process of law"? Why?3. Do you think either statute makes capital punishment

cruel and unusual" punishment? . . . an arbitrary decision?Which one(s)?

4. Which statute do you think is a better one? Why?5. One of the aims of the death penalty is to prevent

other people fram ever committing crimes due to the `ear ofbeing executed. That is the, so-called deterrent effect. Whichof the two statutes, if any, do you think has a greater deterrenteffect?

6. Which type of statute do you think your state shouldhave regarding capital punishment? Go to a library and lookup the type of death penalty law your state has, if it has one atall

7. Look over te arguments for and against capitalpunishment. Which do you ag;ee with? Which side do youthink has better arguments?

8. Do you -think capital punishment is "cruel andunusual- punishment?

9. Do you oppose capital 'punishment in all circums-tances?

10. What do you think the Supreme Court decided whenth.e justices were fac'ed with these same questions?

On July 2. 1976, the Supreme Court upheld the deathpenalty as a punishment for murder.

By a 7 to 2 vote, the Court ruled that because the deathpenalty was accepted by such a large number of Americans itcould not be considered "cruel and unusual" punishment.Justice Potter Stewart, writing for the majority, said that itwas the only appropriate way to deal with those who commitespecially hideous crimes. Although there was no opinionupon which a majority of the justices could agree, the mostpopular one stated was that while capital punishment wasbasically acceptable, some of the ways states use to decidewho should be executed were unconstitutional.

Three justices said that anyone sentenced to die shouldhave had the punishment decided by a judge or jury who con-sidered all of the factors involved that might call for leniencyas well as those which called for the execution, "The fund--

10

mental respect for humanity underlying the Eighth Amend-ment . . . requi'es consideration of the character and recordof the individual offender and the circumstances of the partic-ular offense," wrote Justice Stewart for himself and JusticesStevens and Powell.

The justices said that statutes which explain the methodjurors use to decide who should die must allow them to takeinto account enough information to make a "rational life-and-death decision." This means that the jury must be told to con-sider both the aggravating circumstances which make thecrime savage, and the mitigating circumstances which call forleniency.

The seven justice majority decided that the TYPE IIstatute in use in Georgia, Texas and Florida guided the jurors'choices enough to be declared conAtutional. It said that theTYPE I mandatory death penalty laws pf Louisiana and NorthCarolina did not allow for enough discretion or choice, andso they were ruled invalid. This meant that those people con-victed and sentenced to death under TYPE I laws had theirsentences changed from death to life.irriprisonment,

Justices William Brennan, Jr and Thurgood Marshallvoted to hold the death penalty unconstitutional in all cir-cumstances.

Brennan said the court "should declare that the punish-ment of death, like punishment on the rack, the screw and thewheel, is no longer morally tolerable in our society." He wrotethat the death penalty treats members of the human race as"nonhumans, as objects to be toyed with and discarded"which is inconsistent with all the important foundations of theEighth Amendment.

Justice Marshall wrote that there was no evidence thedeath penalty was a deterrant. This, he wrote, was not evenargued by the majority. Marshall said that because thepenalty does not accomplish its intended resu:t, and is such aheavy penalty, it should be unconstitutional. Furthermore,wrote Marshall, it has been so long since anyone was ex-ecuted (the last execution was on June 2, 1967) that "theAmerican people know little about the death penalty" and arenot well-informed about it. Because of this, the idea thatCapital punishment could be upheld because it was acceptedby a large percentage of Americans was ridiculous, heargued.

Do you agree with the court majority or the dissen-ters?

11

12

In every court in the United Statesa defendant on trial for any offense ispresumed innocent until proven guilty.That is the cornerstone of our system ofjustice.

The Sixth Amendment to the Con-stitution guarantees several rights tothose accused of crimes whichstrengthen that principle. Among thoserights are the right to a speedy trial, to apublic trial, and to a trial before a jurymade up of the defendant's peers, orequals. The purpose of this amendmentis also to make sure that every defen-dant is given a fair trial before an im-partial judge or jury, regardless of whothe defendant is, rich or poor, andregardless of what the crime is, misde-meanor or sensational murder.

The members of the communitywho ultimately make up the jury in anycase must be impartial. They mustcome into the trial with an open mind.Jurors must be able to listen to thefacts and arguments presented at thetrial, weigh them, and decide fairly and,it is hoped, correctly on the verdict.Their verdict must be based on thefacts and evidence presented at thetrial, and not on their own personal pre-judices, outside rumors, or publicitywhich they may have seen or heard out-side the courtroom.

Pretrial Publicity and the GagOrderOne of the dangers of the jury

system is that the members of the com-munity might come into the trial alreadyhaving been influenced by the publicitygiven a crime by the newspapers, radio,or television. This danger is especiallypresent in a sensational crime. Newsstories about murders, bombings andthe like always provide interestingreading which the media is eager toprovide.

Many people fear that a great dealof publicity about a crime, the arrest ofa suspect, the statements made by thesuspect to the police, and the stories ofthe witnesses, will prejudice the entirecommunity. If this does happen, anytwelve people chosen to make up thejury would already think that the defen-dant was guilty of the crime. Theywould presume him guilty until proveninnocent.

Those concerned about too muchpublicity of criminal cases say thatcommunity prejudice can easily arise,especially in cases where the press re-

11

port that the defendant has confessedto the 'crime They say that even if theconfession is ruled inadmissible as evi-dence. at the trial, the jurors willremember the .f act that the press re-ported that the suspect confessed. It

therefore becomes almost impossiblefor jurors not to think about an inad-missible confession while discussingthe verdict.

One of the greatest continuing bat-tles in constitutional law takes placeover this issue. For while the defendantis guaranteed a fair trial and an impar-tial jury by the Sixth Amendment, themedia and the public are guaranteedfreedom of the press by the FirstAmendment.

The First Amendment's guaranteeof a free press is also a cornerstone ofour democracy. It is closely tied to thepriceless freedom of speech. Among itsmany purposes are to ensure that allAmericans have a free and accurateflow of ideas and information, to keepa watchful eye on any governmentalabuse of power, and to make certainthat no person is sublect to secret ar-rests and trials. In effect. the freedom ofthe press provision also guarantees afair trial to defendants because itguarantees a public trial in which thegovernment cannot abuse its powerwithout being criticized for it by thepress and ultimately by the public.

The conflict between the right of afair trial and freedom of the pressarises when the attorneys in a case.and the judge hearing it. believe thatwithout some form of prior restraints. orpress censorship, it may be impossiblefor the defendant to get a fair trialbefore an impartial jury.

Gag OrdersFor almost two hundred years this

conflict did not arise. In fact. Court or-dered restrictions on the press wereunheard of until 1966. In that year. theU.S Supreme Court reversed themurder conviction of Dr. Sam Sheppardon the ground that he had been deniedhis Sixth Amendment right to a trial byan impartial jury due to the conduct ofthe press. In that case, newspapers andradio stations carried stories demand-ing the defendant's arrest. labeling hima liar, reportino facts which were nevertestified to. and finally almost demand-ing Sheppard's conviction. All of thiswas read by the jury and, said theSupreme Court. was responsible forprejudicmg them.

12

Since that monumental decision,judges have become more and moreaware of pre-trial publicity. In the lastten years over 170 orders whichprohibit the press from printing certainfacts about particularly sensation alcases, known as "gag orders.- havebeen issued at the request of the par-ties to the cases.

The legality of these gag orders.however, had never been determineduntil the Nebraska Press Association(NPA) went before the Supreme Courtin April. 1976: The NPA argued that itsFirst Amendment right to freedom of thepress had been directly violated by asmall town judge's gag order placed onnewspapers covering a sensation alNebraska mass murder trial. The casearose out of the murder and rape of sixmembers of a family. The defendantconfessed to the crime to members ofhis family twice before being turnedover to authorities. The local judge feltthat it would be impossible for the ac-cused to get a fair trial in such a smallcommunity if the press was allowed toprint the full details of the crime, the in-vestigation. and the trial. To prevent thecommunity from becoming prejudiced.the judge imposed a gag order whichordered the press not to print anythingabout:

the identities of the victims;the nature of the crime:the background of the suspect;how the suspect was arrested;details of his confession;whether or not he had a priorcriminal record;testimony of the coroner given atthe open hearing.

The NPA argued that the judge waswrong in forbidding this. The judge andthe defendant argued that the restric-tions were both necessary andreasonable.

Questions for Discussion1. Do you think a gag order was

necessary in the Nebraska case?2. Do you think the judge was right

in including all of the items he did in hisorder?

3. Bring in 2 or 3 newspaper clip-pings which follow some crime in yourcity or state. Are they fair to the defen-dant? Do you think they influence you?Do you think they influence the publicso much that the defendant will not beable to receive a fair trial?

4. Think about the Patty Hearstcase. What effect do you think the

13

publicity had on her trial in San Fran- -cisco? Had you formed an opinion as toher guilt or innocence prior to hearingall of the evidence at her trial? Do youthink she received her Sixth Amend-ment right to an impartial jury in spite ofthe pre-trial publicity? Why do youthink the judge in the Patty Hearst casefailed to impose a gag order on the pro-ceedings? Was there anything else hecould do?

5. Do you think Richard Nixoncould have received a fair trial beforean impartial jury after he had regignedif he had been charged with oz. -',:actionof justice?

6. Do you think the Sixth Amend-ment's fair trial guarantee or the FirstAmendment's free press guarantee ismore important? Do you think they canboth exist without harming the other?

Gag Orders or Free Press:Read the arguments that follow.Check the ones you think are best.Select those that you think the U.S.

Supreme Court might have included intheir recent decision on this issue.

1. "Freedom of the press is a moreimportant right than that of the SixthAmenoment. It is more important tosafeguard democracy by ensuring freeflow of information than to guaranteeany individual a publicity:free trial.Thus, all gag orders are unconstitu-tional.

2. The Sixth Amendmentguarantee of a fair trial is more impor-tant than allowing prejudicial pre--trialpublicity to flow in an unchecked man-ner. Since a person's liberty, and evenhis life, may be involved when he or sheis on trial, some form of control over thepress is sometimes necessary. The trialcourt judge should have the right toprotect the defendant's right toreceive a trial before an impartial jury.Thus, when it is necessary a judgeshould be able to place reasonablerestricticns on the press."

3. 713re-trial publicity is a tool to beused by each side in a trial. The policealways use it when a suspect is ar-rested. The defense must therefore beallowed to use it to help the defendantby counteracting the bad impressionmade by the information released bythe police and prosecutor's office. Gagorders should be declared unconstitu-tional because they violate the defen-dant's Sixth Amendment right to a jurywhich has heard both sides before thetrial rather than just the prosecution's."

4. -Pre-trial publicity does not pre-vent a defendant from obtaining a fairtrial. In the first place people are notaffected by such publicity to any greatdegree. Secondly, each side can ques-tion the possible jurors closely beforethe trial to see if they are prejudiced,and dismiss them if that is the case.Thus, the First Amendment and theSixth Amendment can coexist withoutharming each other. Gag orders are,therefore, not needed to ensure a fairtrial and should be declared unlawful."

5. -There are times when pre-trialpublicity may influence the communityin a way that may prevent the defendantfrom getting a fair trial. In such cases,the judge should first try to use methodswhich do not violate the First Amend-ment. This could be done by moving thetrial to another locality, by delaying thetrial until the impact of the publicity haddied down, or by having the jurors se-questered during the trial. Sequesteringa jury means that the jurors are sepa-rated from the community during thetrial by requiring them to sleep in hotelrooms and ea: in restaurants underconstant guard, and by preventing themfrom hearing or reading anything aboutthe trial. Only after those methods havebeen used and have failed should thejudge order the press not to print cer-tain facts about the crime, defendant,or investigation. Even then, the judgeshould only prevent the press frompublicizing facts which point directly atthe guilt of the defendant or prejudicethe jurors against him or her, such as aconfession or prior criminal record."

Questions for Discussion1. Which position do you think is

the best one? Why?2. Do you think a defense lawyer's

choice might be different from a, re-porters? a judge's? a SupremeCourt Justice's?

3. Which do you think the in-dividuals listed in Number 2 abovewould have chosen? Why do you thinkthey might each choose different ones?

4. Write a statement which moreaccurately.reflects your own opinion of,gag orders.

Nebraska Press Association vs.Stuart 96 S.Ct.... (1976)The U.S. Supreme Court. in a

unanimous ruling, said that the gagorder placed on the press during andbefore a sensational mass murder trialin Nebraska was unconstitutional. The

majority in the case said that the orderwas unlawful because the trial judgeplaced the restrictions on the FirstAmendment freedom of the pressbefore he tried other less severe meanssuch as delaying the trial, or moving it,or sequestering the jury:

The Justices did not say whetherthey thought the First or the SixthAmendment was more important. Theyalso refused to say under what cir-cumstances a gag order would beallowed, or what types of censorshipwould be permitted. They limited theirruling to this case by saying the order

was too broad and too severe here,when other methods had not been triedfirst.

Three Justices, Marshall, Brennanand Stewart, went further and said thatthe Constitution barred any form ofprior restraint or press censorship.Justice Stevens said he basicallyagreed with this, although he thoughtthere might be extreme instances inwhich press misconduct might call forcourt restrictions.

Which position do youagree with?

eme exetac

Herbiock in The Washington Post

"We Were Told TheyWere 'Strict Constructionists' "

14 13

The Bin of Rights was designed tolimit the powers of the Federal Govern-ment. It was to do this by guaranteeingcertain rights to the individual citizenwhich the government could not takeaway. The authors of the Bin of Rightswere afraid that without these guaran-tees, the people of the United Stateswould live in fear of their own govern-ment, just as they had before the thir-teen colonies revolted against England.The authors were afraid that the civilrights of citizens would become subjectto the whims of the President or of Con-gress.

Exercise for UnderstandingLook over a copy of the first ten

Amendments to the Constitution. Makea list of every right guaranteed by them.Which do you think are the most impor-tant rights?

As you read the following cases,keep the concern of the authors of theBin of Rights in mind. Ask yourself ifthey were justified in having such con-cerns that these basic functions wouldbe ignored by the government or evenby a majority of the people who dislikedsor';,-7 minority group.

Ask yourself whe ;-.. opening tothe individual's rights one area

the right to privacy.

Right to PrivacyOne of the rights which was

guaranteed to individuals by the Bill ofRights was a right to privacy againstthe government's invasion into entirelypersonal matters. The authors of theBill of Rights were trying to prevent acountry where "Big Brother" could findout everything about the citizens.

Did you find this right specificallymentioned anywhere in the Bill ofRights? While the right to privacy is notspecifically spelled out, such a righthas been found to exist by the SupremeCourt in the words and guarantees ofseveral of the first Ten Amendments.Can you find them? How many parts ofthe Bill of Rights do you think guaranteea right to be free from governmental in-vasions of privacy? Make a list of them.

The Supreme Court has found theright to privacy to be mentioned orhinted at in the First. Third, Fourth, Fifthand Ninth Amendments. Do you agree?Did you find others?

The Fourth AmendmentThe Fourth Amendment says that

16

"The right of the people to be secure intheir persons, houses, papers, andeffects, against unreasonable searchesand seizures, shall not be violated...."

The Supreme Court says that theFourth Amendment guarantees in-dividuals a reasonable right to per-sonal privacy. Moreover, -this Amend-ment means that the government canviolate this privacy only when it isreasonable and only when the govern-ment has a search warrant. As you mayknow, a search warrant can only be ob-tained from a judge, and then only whenthe police officers can prove that theyhave a good reason, or probable cause.The problem comes when the Court. iscalled upon to decide how far thepolice or other government officialscan go in entering a person's zone ofprivacy.

Questions for Understanding andDiscussion1. How would you define the extent

of the right of privacy?2. What areas are too personal to

allow the government to search them?

The Supreme Court has said thatthe Fourth Amendment's protectiononly applies to a zone over which an in-dividual has a reasonable expectationof privacy. In other words, a person's"zone of privacy" is that area overwhich the person has. a well-foundedbelief that he or she is safe from beingoverheard or subject to other govern-mental interference.

For example, the Court has saidthat a person is not protected by theFourth Amendment from having his/herprivate conversations with otherstransmitted to the police by a hidden"bug" without his knowledge. Thecourts have ruled that in this type ofsituation persons do not have areasonable expectation of privacy. Thisis so because the other person in theconversation could go directly to thepolice and report it, and the speakercould not prevent it. Because of this,the police can use an electronictransmitter, or "bug," to listen in on theconversation, without getting a searchwarrant, as long as one of the partici-pants agrees to allow it.

On the other hand, because a per-son does have a reasonable expecta-tion of privacy in his conversations withhis attorney or priest, or when he goesto the bathroom, the police cannot

15

listen in or observe him in these ac-tivities without first getting a searchwarrant.

This past year the U.S. SupremeCourt was asked to decide whether ornot a person's bank account recordswere protected by the right of privacy.Do you think they should be? Or, do youbelieve that bank records are so publicthat the government should be able tolook them over without getting a searchwarrant or the permission of the personto whom they belong?

United States vs. Miller 96 S.Ct.1619 (1976)By a 7 to 2 decision. the Supreme

Court held that a bank depositor had noFourth Amendment rights protecting hisbank records. The Court said that therewas no legitimate expectation of pri-vacy in the contents of the originalchecks and deposit slips. These docu-ments, said the Court. were not confi-dential communications, but were usedlike money in public, commeicial tran-sactions. Since there was no reasona-ble expectation of privacy in these tran-sactions, there was no Fourth Amend-ment protection.

The Court ruled that the FourthAmendment does not prohibit thegovernment from obtaining informationwhich was revealed to a third party andsent by him to the government just as ina "bugged" conversation. JusticePowell. writing for the majority, saidthis is so even if the information isrevealed, originally only on theassurance that it will be used for alimited purpose and that the confidenceplaced in the third party will not bebetrayed.

Justices Brennan and Marshalldissented. They felt that the customerof the bank did have a reasonable ex-pectation of privacy in his or her bankaccount records. They wrote that thecustomer's right of privacy could not begiven away by the bank's voluntarydecision to allow the governmentagents to examine the customer'srecords. The dissenting opinion statedthat the bank could not give itscustomers' right to privacy away. "Forthe government to examine the records,wrote Brennan. "it would either have tohave a search warrant or get the per-sonal consent of the customer."

16

The Fifth AmendnientThe Fifth Amendment says that

"No person . . . shall be compelled inany criminal case to be a witnessaga st himself." This provision isknown as the privilege against self-in-crimination. It guarantees that no de-fendant need answer any question ifthe answer can be used to damage hisor her case, or put the blame on him orher. The privilege applies whenever thedefendant or suspect is asked such aquestion, whether it is by a police of-ficer, a grand jury, a prosecutor, or ajudge.

One of the reasons for the protec-tion against self-incrimination is that ofthe right to privacy. It was thought to bean intolerable act for the government toinvade the inner thoughts and privacyof the individual. To prevent this fromhappening, the privilege against self-in-crimination was written.

In a number of rulings, the SupremeCourt has limited the coverage of theFifth Amendment's self-incriminationprotection to those actions which havethree characteristics:

(1) The act must be compelled orforced upon the suspect by thegovernment through either physical

ca

7t1

a)

or psychological means. Beating asuspect, locking one up untilhe/she answers a question, andbrainwashinn are all types ofphysical or psychological compul-sion.(2) The act must be in the form oftestimony or communication. Inother words, the government mustcompel the accused to talk or writesomething which will reveal infor-mation. This is different from pro-viding the officers with "real orphysical evidence." This lattercategory includes acts such asbeing fingerprinted, being photo-graphed, appearing in court, andother activities wnere the accuseddoes nothing but give others theopportunity to observe and test hischaracteristics, and to use thoseobservations as a basis for othertests. All these acts do not violatethe protection against self-in-crimination.(3) The act or statement must beself-incriminating. It must point tothe accused in some way, or leadto other evidence which couldpoint in the same directions.

LLC

17

The Self-Incrimination Game

Below are a series of situations on which the SupremeCourt has been asked to rule in the recent past. For each onecheck off in the appropriate column whether you think theactions should be protected by the Fifth Amendment rightagainst self-incrimination. Remember, each must be corn-

1

pelled rather than voluntary, involve some sort of tWirnony,and be incriminating to be within the Fifth Amendment's pro-tection. All three must exist for the situation to be protectedby the Fifth Amendment jilt against self-incrimination.

2 3 4 5

Not protected by 5th Amendment 1 rProtected by 5th Amendment

Self-incriminating

Giving Testimony .

Compelled i1. The police interrogate a

suspect until he confesses.2. The police take blood samples

from someone they suspect ofdrunken driving.The police make a suspect ap-'pear in a lineup at police head-

quarters wearing the clothingworn by the person who com-mited a crime, and they allowthe victim to observe it.

4. The Internal Revenue Servicegets a subpoena ordering asuspect to turn over to them in-

criminating papers prepared byhis accountant.

5. The police get a search warrantallowing them to look through asuspect's personal businesspapers which contain in-criminating material.

Supreme Court RulingsThe U.S. Supreme Court has ruled

as follows.1. Oral confessions and testimony

which the police coerce from a suspectduring interrogation, are protected bythe Fifth Amendment's privilege againstself-incrimination. The Miranda deci-sion recognized that they were forcedtestimonial and incriminating and re-quired that each suspect be warnedthat his statements could be usedagainst him or her, and that he or shehad the right to remain silent.

2., 3. Neither of these come withinthe protection of the Fifth Amendment.The Court has said that even thoughthese actions may point to a suspect'sguilt, they are real or physical evidenceand not testimonial communications.The Court has said that one's voice,appearance or handwriting are justvoluntary means of communicating evi-dence, and that they cannot as such be

forced out of the suspect.4. The Supreme Court recently

decided that there was no Fifth Amend-ment privilege available that wouldallow an individual to withhold papersprepared by his accountant when theywere subpoened by the government.The Court said that the accused wasnot forced to make such papers. Theywere originally made voluntarily. All thedefendant was asked to do was to turnthem over to the government, and suchan action was not testimonial and thusnot protected.

In this case, Fisher vs. UnitedStates, 96 S.Ct. 1569 (1976), the Courtsaid that being forced to write , or say,something which was incriminatingcould be within the protection of theFifth Amendment's privilege.

5. In Andersen vs. Maryland,decided on June 29, 1976, the Courtruled 7 to 2 that police may seize a per-son's incriminating personal businesspapers and use them as evidence with-

out violating the constitutional rightagainst self-incrimination. The rulingwas based on the fact that the paperswere originally written voluntarily. Thedefendant was not coerced into writingthem as a confession, only into admit-ting they were his. Once again,because of this, they fell outside theprotection of the privilege agaimt self-incrimination.

Discussion1. Do you agree witb any of these

decisions?2. Why do you ti-( ,r.a Court has

limited the scope of the Fifth Amend-ment this much?

3. What types of acts are still pro-tected by the Fifth Amendment?

4. What is the basic difference bet-ween the protection of privacy provi-sions contained in the Fourth and FifthAmendments? Does the Fourth or FifthAmendment protect privacy moreeffectively? Why?

18 17

"

,.aara," a. a a.

ci

5, .

0

-

.

1"4.!

;.

. .7...Lt;,.1,;'

, s - 1-:_r.,,:,

1W:' ::: C'll-; -."'''' "a '-'''...2'27.

'f ''',7'N'.. -'' ''.. :.,.1 7.-.r

44: plxarQ-t'

In a historic decision in 1973, theU.S. Supreme Court held that womenhad a constitutional right to obtain anabortion. The Court said that this rightwas based on the woman's rights to pri-vacy and personal liberty. These rights.said the court, were not absolutebecause the state also had an interestin protecting the life and health of thepotential mother, and at some point .inprotecting the potential life of the un-born child.

For this reason, the Court ruledthat a state could not interfere with thewoman's right to have an abortion dur-ing the first three months of her preg-nancy. This was because the state's in-terest in protecting the life and health ofthe woman was not great enough dur-ing this period when the abortion was arelatively safe operation to overcomethe interest the woman has in getting anabortion.

During the second trimester, orsecond three-month period, the Courtsaid that a state's interests increasedenough to allow it to make reasonablelaws which would protect the health ofthe mother. This was because an abor-tion presented a greater danger to thewoman's health at this stage than dur-ing the first trimester. The type ofregulations which would be allowed atthis stage were such things as requiringa licensed doctor to perform the abor-tion, or requiring that it be performed ina licensed hospital.

It was only in the final three monthsof a woman's pregnancy that a statecould prevent the woman from ever ob-taMing an abortion, or that it couldplace criminal penalties on anyone whoperformed one. This was because theoperation became very dangerous forthe woman's health at this late stage,and also because the state's interest inthe life of the fetus became major. Dur-ing the last trimester, the fetus couldlive outside the mother's body.

In 1976 the Fiupreme Court waspresented with three cases related tothe ones which were settled in 1973.but which involved issues intentionallyleft unanswered by the Court at thattime.

In the first 1976 case the Court hadto consider a Missouri law which pre-vented a woman from getting an abor-tion during the first 12 weeks of herpregnancy unless she had the writtenconsent of her husband (unless theoperation was necessary to save thewoman's life). This case also involved

a section which required a minor to ob-tain the permission of her parentsbefore she could get an abortion duringthe first 12-week period.

In the second and third cases, theSupreme Court heard arguments on alaw which allowed a minor to obtain anabortion only with the consent of eitherher parents or that of a judge.

Read over the three cases belowwhich resemble the three heard by theSupreme Court. In discussing them, andthe questions which follow, it is impor-tant to cover both sides of the issue a-ndlisten to both sides of the arguments, inorder to more fully understand theproblems which the Court had to faceand resolve.

Case 1:Sally and. Bill Jones, a married

couple in their early twenties, dis-covered, much to Bill's happiness andSally's distress, that they were going tobe parents. Sally was approximatelynine weeks pregnant and in good physi-cal health. She had spent the first yearsof their marriage working at a job thatwa.c.,i the best she could get. It only paidenough for the two of them to live verymodestly, however, because Sally waspa;.ing for Bill's education at the sametime. Bill had one remaining year ofschool. Their small savings were goingto be used to put Sally through schoolas soon as Bill finished. She had longand eagerly anticipated going back toschool in order to get a better job, andbe a more complete person. The finan-cial burden and time commitment ofchildraising would have eliminated thepossibility of school for Sally. Shedecided she wanted an abortion. Bill,because )e had a strong religiousbelief that life should be preserved atan costs, decided he wanted the child.

Questions for Discussion1. What were Sally's interests in

not wanting to have the child? Do youbelieve they were sufficient to justifyhaving an abortion?

2. What were Bill's interests inwanting to have the child? Do youbelieve he should have been allowed toprevent Sally from getting an abortion?

3. What are the state's interests inforbidding Sally from obtaining anabortion? What did the two 1973 deci-sions of the Supreme Court say aboutthis?

4. The State of Missouri passed alaw which required the husband's con-sent before a married woman could ob-tain an elective abortion during her first

2 0

twelve weeks of pregnancy. The statelegislature based the law on their ideaof "marriage as an institution," and onthe idea that any major change infamily status was a decision to bemade jointly by both marriage partners.

When the Planned Parenthood As-sociation of Central Missouri (PPA)challenged this law, it argued that thesection was really designed to give thehusband the right to absolutely prevent.or veto, his wife's abortion. This wastrue, PPA argued, even if the husbandwas not the father of the fetus. This, thelaw;ers argued, violated the 1973 U.S.Supreme Court ruling which preventedthe state from interfering with thechoice of a woman and her doctor toend her pregnancy during the first tri-mester.

What are the two sides of thecase? Which argument do you thi-ik isstronger? Who do you think shot. d beinvolved deciding whether or not thewoman should have an aboc-tion?

Case 2:Susie is 16 years old, unmarried

and living with her parents. She dis-covers that she is about eight weekspregnant. Her parents' dislike for thefather of the child is far surpassed bytheir strong belief that abortion ismurder. Susie does not want 'o tell herparents she is pregnant, doeP lot wantto marry, and does not want to be anunwed mother. She wants an abortion.

Questions for Discussion1. Do you think Susie should be

able to have an abortion if she isserious about it? Are her reasonssound?

2. What are the state's interests innot allowing her to get an abortion? Innot allowing her to get an abortionwithout the consent of her parents?

3. What are the interests of Susie'sparents in making Susie have the child?

4. Should Susie be able to obtainan abortion without first having to getthe consent of her parents?

5. The State of Missouri felt thatthe decision of whether or not to havean abortion was outside the scope of aminor's ability to act in her own best in-terest, or in the interest of the public.The legislators felt it was similar to aminor buying firearms and liquor.Because of this, they passed a lawwhich prevented any minor from ob-taining an abortion unless she got theconsent of her parents or guardian.

Planned Parenthood Associations.

19

on the other hand, a(gued that this re-quirement was an unreasonable inter-ference on the part of the state in adecision which was that of the minorand her doctor alone. PPA said that itwas no different from a case where awoman got married before she became18 and wanted an abortion, or a casewhere a woman under the age of 18desired any other kind of medical ser-vice for pregnancy. venereal disease ordrug abuse. In those cases, arguedPPA. the State of Missouri did not re-quire parental permission prior to treat-ment. Furthermore, the lawyers argued,the state had no right to give theparents the ability to prevent an abor-tion when the Supreme Court said thatit could not do so itself. After the 1973Supreme Court decisions, a wOmanand her doctor were the only peoplewho could decide whether or not shecould terminate her pregnancy duringthe first trimester. The state could not.and its legislators could not, give thewoman's parents the right to do so.

Which side of the argument do you,agree with? Why?

Case 3:The same facts as in CASE 2. ex-

cept now Susie and her parents live inMassachusetts. That state has a lawwhich says that before, a minor can getan abortion she must have the consentof either her parents or, it they refuse, ofa judge. The judge, according to thelaw, should consider whether or not theminor is mature enough to fully under-stand her decision, and whether herreasons for making her decision aregood ones.

The intent of the Massachusettslaw, according to the state. was to en-courage the minor to discuss her deci-sion with her parents and get their con-sent prior to allowing the minor to getan abortion. At the same time, thestate's lawyers argued. the legislatorsmade sure that a mature minor capableof making an informed decision couldobtain an order permitting the abortionfrom a judge without unnecessaryhardships or delay. She did not have toconsult with her parents, or get theirconsent first. All she would have toshow a judge was that the abortion wasin her best interests.

The Massachusetts doctors whobrought the case to the Supreme Courtargued that this law gives the parents aveto power over the minor's desiredabortion. The law does not. they

20

argued, allow an abortion without theconsent of the parents even in the caseof a mature minor, or ip the case of aminor unable to give her mature con-sent where the parents are violently op-posed to the abortion, because thejudge will listen to the parents andagree with them in many, if not most,cases. This is unconstitutional, thedoctors argued, because it gives ajudge the power to listen to and agreewith the parents in a matter in whichneither should have any power. Theonly people who rightfully should beable to decide about the abortion, thedoctors argued, are the minor herselfand her doctor. Any law which givesothers the right to interfere with thisdecision during the first twelve weekswas, in their opinion, unconstitutional.

Questions for Discussion1. Do you think CASE No. 3 is

different from CASE No. 2? How so?2. Do you think the statute in CASE

No. 3. creates a "parental veto powerover the minor's decision?

3. Do you think the other pro-cedures set up in the statute in CASENo. 3 "unduly burden" the right of awoman to seek an abortion? In otherwords. do you think they place toomany barriers in the woman's path?

Planned Parenthood of CentralMissouri vs. Danforth 96 S.Ct.(1976)In this case the Supreme Court, in

an opinion by Justice Harry Blackmun,made two important rulings.

In the first, the Court said that "astate may not constitutionally requirethe consent of the spouse ... as a con-dition for abortion during the first 12weeks of pregnancy.- The reason forthis; wrote the justice, was that "thestate cannot 'delegate to a spouse aveto power which the state itself is ab-solutely and totally prohibited from ex-ercising during the first trimester ofpregnancy.' The justice said thatthe 1973 Supreme Court decisionprohibited the state from regulating orpreventing abortions during the firststage. Each decision on abortion dur-ing this period, said the Court, must beleft to the doctor and his patient. Theright of privacy, means that the govern-ment cannot intrude into matters sofundamentally affecting a person as thedecision whether to bear or have achild,

Secondly, the Court -said that theparental consent requirement made

21

necessary by the Missouri law was un-constitutional. The Court based this rul-ing on the fact that the state does nothave the power to give a third party, theparents, an absolute veto over the deci-sion of the doctor and his patient to endthe patient's pregnancy.

While the Court did recognize thatthe state might have a more importantinterest in a case where the patient wasa minor as opposed to an adult, it didnot think that the state's argumentswere strong enough to overcome theright of the patient to have the abortion.The Court said that providing a parentwith the absolute power to overrule adecision made by the doctor and hisminor patient to end the pregnancywould not strengthen the family unit:Similarly, a majority said it would notsafeguard parental authority since thevery existence of the pregnancy hadprobably already broken the familystructure. Since those were the aims ofthe state, and they were insufficient toovercome the right of the woman, thelaw was unconstitutional.

Bellotti vs. Baird 90 S.CT.(1976)On the same day the Missou-i case

was decided, the Supreme Court alsoruled on the Massachusetts case whichwas similar to CASE No. 3, The Courtdid not, however, make a final decisionon the statute in question. It only gavestrong hints that it felt the consent re-quirements were different enough fromthat of the Missouri case to make themconstitutional.

Justice Blackmun, again writing forthe majority, said that unlike the statutein the Missouri case, the one in theBellotti case did not create an absoluteveto power of the parents over the deci-sion of the minor woman and her doc-tor. Instead, the Court said, the Massa-chusetts statute could be looked at asmerely encouraging discussion be-tween family members. This wasbecause the minor could always usethe procedures set up by the statutewhich allowed her to easily and quicklygo before a judge, show she wasmature and had her own best interestsin mind, and get his or her permission.The legislators did not even requirethat the minor consult with her parentsbefore asking the jAge for his permis-sion, said the Court.

The Court sent the Massachusettscase back to the state courts for theiranswer because of other, proceduralcomplications.

P U T T I 0 N

A person's reputation is a most im-portant asset. It is what determines howone is thought of in his or her com-munity and profession. It also indicateswhether or not a person is successful athis or her job, and whether or nothe/she has many friends or enemies.Reputation can govern a person's en-tire life. When someone says or writessomething which is false, and whichdamages another's reputation in hiscommunity, it can lead to serious con-sequences.

The states have passed laws whichprotect a person's reputation frombeing damaged by false and bitter cri-ticism and accusations. rhe three mostcommon types of acts which have beenmade illegal by these laws are:

libel, or any statement made inwriting which injures the reputationof a person in the community;

slander, or any statement madeora//y which damages the reputa-tion of someone in the community;

defamation of character, or anystatement made orally or in writingwhich injures a person's reputationin the community.Libel and slander laws are

generally civil in nature. They allow aperson to sue for an amount of moneyequal to the damage supposedly doneto his/her reputation in the communityby the statements of the wrongdoer. It isthen up to a judge or jury to decide ifthe statements were actu ally false, ifthey injured the person's reputation,and if so to what degree.

The right to enjoy a good reputa-tion, which is protected by these laws.continues only so long as the persondoes not give it up by committing acrirne or some other immoral act. Thus,if someone makes a statement thatdamages another's reputation, but it isnot a false statement, no wrong hasbeen committed. The person who madethe statement is protected becausehis/her statement was truthful, andhe/she should not be Punished for that.

During its past term, the SupremeCourt dealt with two very interestingcases dealing with reputation. Thecases came about as a result of thepublication, and circulation of certain

statements which were not true, andwhich damaged the reputations of in-dividuals in their communities.

Read the facts of each case, anddiscuss whether or not you, as a juror,would award damages for the remarksmade. Put yourself in the shoes of theplaintiff, the person originating the law-suit, and ask yourself if your reputationhad been damaged.. Ask yourself if thistYpe of statement should be allowed tobe made, or if it was just an innocentremark.

The "Libel of the Parties"Case Time, Inc. vs. Firestone,96 S.Ct. 958 (1976)

In 1964, the wife of a descendant ofone of America's wealthier industrialfamilies sued her husband in a Floridacourt for a legal separation withalimony payments. Her husband coun-terclaimed, or sued her back, for adivorce. He claimed she was guilty ofextreme cruelty and adultery. After along trial, the court granted the divorcerequested by the husband.

Part of the court's final judgementread:

"According to certain testimony inbehalf of the defendant (husband),extramarital escapades of theplaintiff (wife) were bizarre and ofan amatory nature which wouldhave made Dr. Freud's hair curl.Other testimony, on plaintiffsbehalf, would indicate thatdefendant (her husband) was guiltyof bounding from one bed partnerto another with the erotic zest of asatyr. The Court is inclined todiscount much of this testimony asunreliable. Nevertheless, it is theconclusion and finding of the courtthat neither party is domesticated

. and so the marriage should bedissolved."

The judge granted the divorce andordered the husband to pay $3,000 permonth in alimony.

Time magazine, headquartered inNew York, heard about the decision. Itreceived reports on the judgement fromfour sources: a wire service report, anaccount in the New York Daily News, its

22

bureau chief in Miami, and a reporterworking on a special assignment inFlorida.

Based on these sources Timepublished an article which stated thatthe couple had been granted a divorce"on grounds of extreme cruelty andadultery. .... The 17-month intermittenttrial prbduced enough testimony of ex-tramarital adventures on both sides,said the judge, 'to make Dr. Freud's haircurl.' "

The wife sued Time, Incorporated,for libel. She claimed that her reputa-tion in her community was damagedbecause of false statements publishedby Time, and because the statementswere circulated throughout the country.She was awarded $100,000 by a jury.

Time brought the case before theU.S. Supreme Court, claiming that itsFirst Amendment right of freedom of thepress was violated by the judgement.

Questions for Understanding1. Compare the statement of the

court judge with the excerpt from theTime article. Can you see why a jurythought Time's article was false?

2. How much do you think a goodreputation is worth? Mrs. Firestone wasawarded $100,000 by the Florida court.

The "Reputation Rights" Case:Paul vs. Davis 96 S.Ct. 1155(1976).Charles Davis, III, was arrested in

Louisville, Kentucky, on a charge ofshoplifting. He pleaded not guilty, thecharge was filed away, and eventuallydismissed.

Prior to the dismissal of thecharges, but after his arrest, EdgarPaul, the Poiice Chief of Louisville, senta flyer to about 800 merchants in thearea. The flyer contained the namesand pictures of "active shoplifters." Onpage two of the flyer was the name andpicture of Charles Davis, Ill, the manwho had been arrested but not put ontrial for shoplifting.

Davis claimed that after thepublication of the flyer he could notenter a store to shop without beinghassled by the' owners. He claimed hewas almost fired from his job for the

21

same reason. Davis felt that his reputa-tion had been injured by the flyer, andso he sued Police Chief Paul. However.Davis did not sue Paul for libel ordefamation of character. Instead, hebrought the suit in a Federal Courtclaiming that his constitutional rightsof liberty and property, guaranteed bythe Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,had been taken away without due pro-cess of law by the police chief's ac-tions. He also claimed that His right toprivacy had been violated by thepublication of the flyer and its dis-closure of his arrest.

Questions tor Understandingand Discussion:in considering whether or not Davis

should win his case, think about thefollowing arguments he made beforethe Court:

Davis charged that the actionsof the defendant, the police chief,violated his constitutional right to"liberty" and to "property." Davisclaimed that without due processof law:

His "liberty" to enter a store toshop had been taken away fromhim. Davis said that after receivingthe flyer with his name and pictureon it, store owners automaticallyrecognized him and thought hewas an "active shoplif ter."

Davis also argued that his "pro-perty right" to a good reputationhad been damaged due to thepublication of the flyer. He said hemight not be able to get jobs in thefuturd because of it. Moreover, hepointed out that he was limited inthe places he could go, and thethings he could do.

While this may seem to be a typi-cal case of libel, Davis chargedthat since the defendant was an of-ficial of the state government, hisactions served to deprive him ofconstitutional rights, a much moreserious offense.1. Can you think of any constitu-

tional right which had been violated bythe flyer? Should a person have a con-stitutional right not to be accused of acrime he has not been convicted of?

2. Do you agree that Davis'liberty to act in a constitutionally pro-.tected manner was violated by thepolice chief?

3. Do you agree that a person has aright to own a good reputation in the

22

same way he has a right to own a pieceof property, without unnecessary inter-ference from others, including state of-ficials?

4. Was Davis's right to privacy vio-lated? Was this any different from anewspaper story telling all the detailsof his arrest? From the police chief ran-domly picking names out of thetelephone book and including them inhis flyer? Explain.

How to Organize a MootCourt

The two cases described aboveprovide an excellent opportunity for thepresentation of a classroom mootcourt. Different from a mock trial whichcan be used to role play and simulatean actual trial on the facts of the case,a moot court deals only with the in-terpretation of the law.

Organizing the Class1. Divide the class into three, ap-

proximately equal-sized groups.2. Select one of the groups to

serve as the Supreme Court.3. Divide the students in each re-

maining group into two teams.4. Assign each group one of the

two cases.5. One team in each group repre-

sents:Mrs. FirestoneCharles Davis III

6. The second team in eachgroup represents Time, Inc., EdgarPaul.7. Give the teams, either as a

homework assignment or as classwork, time to develop the bestarguments they can think of to sup-port their position in each of thetwo cases.8. Seat the Superior Court mem-

bers in the front of the room, ap-point one of them the Chief Justice,9. The Chief Justice asks each

team to present its oral argumentsin the following order:

Mrs. FirestoneTime, Inc.Charles Davis illPolice Chief Paul

10. During or after each team'sarguments, the members of thecourt can and should question theattorneys closely in an effort toclarify their arguments.11. After all arguments have beenpresented, the justices organize

2 3

into a circle. The attorneys may sitaround the circle and listen, butthey cannot talk or interrupt thedeliberation of the Court.12. In the circle the justices dis-cuss each set of arguments andmake their decision on the twocases by a majority vote.13. After the justices have madetheir decision the attorneys canengage in further discussion.14. The entire class concludes themoot court by reading the actualdecisions and comparing the argu-ments of the justices with theirown.

DecisionsTime, Inc. vs. Firestone,96 S.Ct. 958 (1976)The Supreme Court held that Time

would have to pay the judgement. Thefact that Mrs. Firestone went into acourt to get a divorce, said the majority,did not give Time, Inc., the right toprint false information about her with-out properly checking it for accuracy.She was a private person, said theCourt, and entitled to enjoy a goodreputation.

Since she was a private person,Mrs. Firestone did not have to provethat Time had acted with actual malice,or that it purposely tried to makedamaging false statements. This mustbe proven only in cases involving a per-son who "occupies a role of especialprominence in the affairs of society,"according to the Court.

The Court majority wrote that thepublic person-actual malice test whichgives the press some form of protectionfrom lawsuits, does not automaticallyapply to reports of all court trials. In-stead, the Court said, it only extendedto public figures or to those who were inthe "forefront of particular controver-sies." Once a person becomes involvedin a court case,-wrote Justice Rehn-quist, that individual should not auto-matically "expose (himself) to in-creased risk of injury from defamatoryfalsehood."

Paul vs. Davis 96 S.Ct. 1155(1976)By a 5 to 3 vote (Justice Stevens

did not take. part in the decisionbecause he was appointed to the Courtby President Ford after the case wasargued) the U.S. Supreme Court heldagainst Davis.

The Court, in an opinion by JusticeWilliam Rehnquist, said that althdughDavis had claimed enough to win a nor-mal libel or defamation action in a statecourt, none of his federal constitu-tional rights had been violated.

The Court first said that a personhad no constitutional right to enjoy agood reputation which had beenchanged by his own actions. JusticeRehnquist wrote that an injury to thisimage does not violate the individual'sright to "liberty" or -property" pro-tected by the Fifth and FourteenthAmendments.

The Court said that the only typesof interest which were included withinthe protection of the Constitutionalrights of "liberty" and -property" werethose things that were first created bystate laws and then protected by them,such as driver's licenses and teachingcredentials. The Court did not thinkthat reputation was such a right. It saida right of reputation was not generallycreated by state laws. It was only pro-tected by state laws.

Secondly, the Court said Davis hadno right to privacy from the disclosureof the fact that he had been arrested for

shoplifting. Justice Rehnquist said thathe and the other members of the ma-jority did not want to include reputationalong with marriage, reproduction,contraception, family relationships,and child rearing and education, in thezone of privacy protected by the Con-stitution. The right to a good reputation,said the majority, was not as important,or fundamental, as were these otherareas protected by the right to privacy.

Thus, Davis could not claim thathis right to privacy was violated by theflyer unless there was a law whichspecifically prohibited this. Since therewas none, Davis would have to go tostate cdurt to sue Police Chief Paul forlibel in order to obtain any moneydamages.

The three dissenting justiceswrote that there was a need for someform of constitutional protectionagainst allowing police officials, actingin their official capacities. to "constitu-tionally condemn innocent individualsas criminals and thereby brand themwith one of the most stigmatizing anddebilitating labels in our society."

These three felt that there was no

difference between this case and onewhere police officials broke into thehome of a citizen. manacled andthreatened the owner, and searched hishome during the course of a narcoticsinvestigation. In both cases, accordingto the dissenters, state officials wereacting in their official role, and in bothcases the innocent citizens' right to pri-vacy and due process had been viol-ated.

It was the dissenters opinion that aperson's reputation, being "one of themost cherished of rights enjoyed by afree people," was protected by the"liberty" provisions of the FiiLh andFourteenth Amendments. The dissen-ters felt that by branding Davis a crimi-nal and by imposing some form ofpunishment without ever prov.ing himguilty of an offense, Police Chief Paulhad deprived Davis of his constitutionalrights. The logic of the majority's opi-nion, said these justices, would allow apolice official to randomly pick namesfrom the telephone book and includethem in the flyer as -active shoplifters."In the opinion of the dissenting justices,that would be intolerable.

How to Use a Law Library

An excellent, step-by-step article on the use oflaw libraries is available by writing theConstitutional Rights Foundation. Singlecopies, 50c, including postage. Sets of 10 ormore, 25c each, plus postage,

2 423

Bill of Rights In ActionThe Bill of Rights In Action is published fourtimes per school year, in September,November, February and April. Each 24-page

issue will he developed around a single theme.Annual subscription rate will be $4.00. Classsets of 35 will sell for $10.00. Four issues insets of 15 or more, $1.10 per student.

February and April Topics

February Youth and the Po/iceThe problems of law enforcement and therelationship between youth and the police willbe dealt with. The issues will includeclassroom simulation and other activities.

April Moral Education and Law StudiesThe relationship between the work ofLawrence Kohlberg, James Rest and lawstudies will be explored. Classroom activitiesdesigned to stimulate moral developmentthrough law education will be included.

Newsletter Back IssuesYouth, the Police and Society. Fall, 1971. 16 pp.Youth and the Right to Vote. Spring, 1972. 16 pp.Sex and Equality. Fall, 1972. 16 pp.Crime, Violence and American Youth. Spring, 1973. 24. pp.Power of a Free Press. Fall, 1973. 32 pp.Justice in America: Fact or Fiction? Spring, 1974. 32 pp.Rights ofChildren. Fall, 1974. 32 pp.Crime, Confinement and Corrections. Spring, 1975. 32 pp:American Schools in Crisis. Fall. 1975. 32 pp.Challenge of American Ideals. Spring. 1976. 32 pp.Politics U.S.A. Fall, 1976. 24 pp.

Sets of 35, $5.00 (16 pp. issues); $10.00 (all others) fromSocial Studies School Services, 10.000 Culver Blvd., CulverCity, California 90230.

Return Coupon with 64.00 for subscription tofour issues of Newsletter:Constitutional Rights Foundation6310 San Vicente Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90048

Name

Home Address

City Zip

13 Subscription 0 Information

5

Student MaterialsPolice PatrolRole-playing simulation on the role of police is available as akit from Simile II for $12.50. 1150 Silverado, La Jolla,California 92037.

Jury GameA role-play simulation on the jury selection process isavailable as a kit from Social Studies School Service for$15.00; estended kit, $22.00. 10,000 Culver Boulevard, P.O.Box 802, Culver City, California 90230.

Kids In CrisisA role-playing simulation on the juvenile justice systemavailable for $32.50 from: Social Studies School Service,10,000 Culver Boulevard, P.O. Box 802, Culver City.California 90230.

Non-Profit Org.U. S. Postage

PAIDLos Angeles. Calif.

Permit =25777