rights of accused whole

8/13/2019 Rights of Accused Whole

1/13

Rights of the Accused

(5th

, 6th

, and 8th

Amendments)

Lesson Plan Template

Name: Alex Infusino

Class/Subject: Modern American History, 12th

grade

Date: 10/30/13

Student Objectives/Student Outcomes:

- The Amendments addressing rights of the accused (5th, 6th, 8th)

- Court cases reinforcing these rights, how rulings have changed, and why?

- Student to realize human inequities that make these rights important to uphold

Content Standards:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.11-12.2Determine the central ideas or information of a

primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary that makes clear the

relationships among the key details and ideas.

Illinois Standard: 4.A.5Analyze ways in which federalism protects individual rights

and promotes the common good and how at times has made it possible for states to

protect and deny rights for certain groups.

Materials/Resources/Technology:

- Access to internet for Prezio http://prezi.com/8q4aevajt5rg/rights-of-the-accused/

- Access to internet for YouTube clip- Access to Smartboard to show both- Court Case summaries and facts- Worksheets to introduce amendments and summarize court cases

Teachers Goals:

- Introduce and prompt students on the relevance of amendment rights- Be sure to be show both sides in cases decisions as to remain unbiased- Get full completion of each the table and intro sheet
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RH/11-12/2/http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RH/11-12/2/http://prezi.com/8q4aevajt5rg/rights-of-the-accused/http://prezi.com/8q4aevajt5rg/rights-of-the-accused/http://prezi.com/8q4aevajt5rg/rights-of-the-accused/http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RH/11-12/2/


2/13

Time

Source: ACLU

5 minutes Start of Class:

- Ask class how their day has gone so far- Review recent topicsCivil Rights, arrests, actions, results,

amendments already covered

5 minutes Introduction of Lesson:

- Continuing with the theme of amendment rights, we will be coveringsome of the more relevant ones to Civil Rights and post civil rights Era.

The rights of the accused.

- Ask how accused, arrested, may have been treated unfairly duringCivil Rights era unit?

30 minutes Lesson Instruction:

- Through Prezi, introduce the rights of the accused.- Discuss with the students what the amendment means in a more

simplified language.

- Have them fill out introduction worksheet along the way. After thepicture is drawn, go over the example in the Prezi and how it applies.Then have them provide another to the class. After the example, give

them a minute to create a sentence or a scenario.

- After intro is done, move on to cases- Go over how the class will go about covering the case. They will be

divided into their rows to read in groups.

- The teacher will roam the class in order to provide support whereneededand make sure reading in groups is each person, not one

person

- Then the groups will present the information from the worksheet to theof the class. (Consensus on agreeing or disagreeing may vary)

Assessments/Checks for Understanding:- Assessments will be the two worksheets

5 minutes Closure/Wrap-Up/Review:

- Closure and wrap will be to refer back to the civil rights inequities and howthey may be seen in the court cases. Specifically inequity in representation,

changes in ones mental state, etc.

Self-Assessment:- Review student work to check for understanding- Journal on areas for improvement


3/13

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on apresentment or indictmentof a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or navalforces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of Waror public danger; nor shall any

person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardyof life or limb; nor shall becompelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprivedof life, liberty,

or property, without dueprocess of law; nor shall private property be taken for public usewithout just compensation.

EXAMPLES:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________

Sentence/Instance for Use:

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

______________________________

Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accusedshall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by animpartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; whichdistrict shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause

of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory processfor obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

EXAMPLES:

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________


________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

_____________________________

Eighth Amendment


4/13

Excessive bailshall not be required, nor excessive finesimposed, nor cruel and unusualpunishmentsinflicted.

EXAMPLES:

________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________


________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

______________________________


5/13

Rights of the Accused

(5th

, 6th

, and 8th

Amendments)

Atkins vs. Virginia

Gideon vs.

Wainwright

Case Name Players in Case Contention Decision, Why? Do you Agree?

Disagree?

Why?

Which

Amendment is

Applicable?


6/13

Case Name Players in Case Contention

(situation)

Decision, Why? Do you Agree?

Disagree?

Why?

Which

Amendment is

Applicable?

Brady vs. Maryland

Batson vs. Kentucky


7/13

BASTON vs. KENTUCKYSource: http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/***-

amendment/cases-opened-jury-box/facts-case-summaries.aspx

FACTS:When selecting a jury, both parties may remove potential jurors using an unlimitednumber of challenges for cause (e.g., stated reasons such as bias) and a limited number of

peremptory challenges (i.e., do not need to state a reason).

At the trial of James Kirkland Batson for burglary and receipt of stolen goods, the prosecutor

used his peremptory challenges to remove all four African Americans from the jury pool. Batsonchallenged the removal of these jurors as violating his rights to an impartial jury. The jury

convicted petitioner on both counts.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court agreed

to hear the case.

ISSUE: Whether the use of peremptory challenges to remove a potential juror from the jury poolbased on race violates law.

RULING: Yes

REASONING: (Powell, J.): In a 72 decision, the Court held that, while a defendant is notentitled to have a jury completely or partially composed of people of his own race, the state is not

permitted to use its peremptory challenges to automatically exclude potential members of the jury

because of their race. "The Equal Protection Clause guarantees the defendant that the state willnot exclude members of his race from the jury venire on account of race or on the falseassumption that members of his race as a group are not qualified to serve as jurors."

"The harm from discriminatory jury selection extends beyond that inflicted on the defendant and

the excluded juror to touch the entire community. Selection procedures that purposefully excludeblack persons from juries undermine public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice."

A defendant in a criminal case can make an Equal Protection claim based on the discriminatoryuse of peremptory challenges at a defendant's trial. Once the defendant makes a showing that race

was the reason potential jurors were excluded, the burden shifts to the state to come forward witha race-neutral explanation for the exclusion.

CONCURRENCE: (White, J.) Justice White wrote that although the Court's prior precedentshould have warned prosecutors that using peremptory challenges to exclude people based solely

on race violates the Equal Protection Clause, the widespread practice of discriminatoryelimination of jurors justifies the opportunity to inquire into the basis of the peremptory

challenge.

(Marshall, J.) Justice Thurgood Marshall agreed with the decision in the case, but asserted that the

Court should eliminate the use of peremptory challenges in all criminal proceedings so that theycould not be used as a front for impermissible racial considerations. Justice Marshall asserted that

under the current system, prosecutors are still free to discriminate so long as it is not blatant, andtrial courts face a difficult burden of assessing a prosecutor's motive.

(Stevens, J) Justice Stevens asserted that the Equal Protection claim was properly before theCourt even though the petitioner did not initially present it because the party defending the

judgment expressly relied on the issue as a basis for affirming the state court decision.


8/13

(O'Connor, J) Justice O'Connor wrote to agree that the rule announced does not applyretroactively.

DISSENT: (Burger, C.J.) Chief Justice Warren Burger noted that the Equal Protection Clauseissue should not have been decided because the petitioner did not properly raise that type ofchallenge. The Chief Justice also noted that reargument and further briefing on the issue should

have been ordered given the importance and tradition of peremptory challenges in the legalsystem. Peremptory challenges had a long history in both England and America before theRevolution, and the purpose of peremptory challenges was to allow elimination of a particular

juror without reason. The Chief Justice also noted that the Court did not apply the conventionalEqual Protection Clause framework to the claims before it because the state's interest in

preserving peremptory challenges might be so compelling as to allow the types of challenges that

happened in this case. In sum, the Chief Justice asserted "[a]n institution like the peremptorychallenge that is part of the fabric of our jury system should not be casually cast aside, especially

on a basis not raised or argued by the petitioner."

BRADY vs. MARYLAND


9/13

Source: http://www.4lawschool.com/case-briefs/brady-v-maryland

Relevant Facts: Petitioner Brady was convicted in a Maryland Court of murder in the firstdegree. At trial, he admitted his complicity in the planning and commission of the crime, but

denied having personally committed the killing that was instead perpetrated by hiscompanion. Defense counsel admitted his clients guilt at trial, explaining to the jury that theyshould find him guilty but not impose the death penalty due to his lesser culpability. Bradys

attorney, prior to trial, requested access to all of the accomplices statements to police, most ofwhich were provided. However, one statement was withheld. The substance of that statement

showed that the accomplice admitted to actually committing the murder. Defense Counsel, inpost-conviction proceedings, raised the issue and demanded a new trial. The Maryland Court ofAppeals agreed that the withholding of evidence violated due process, and remanded the case, but

ordered new proceedings as to sentence only and not as to guilt.

Issues: Does withholding of evidence favorable to a defendant violate that defendants dueprocess rights? Under the circumstances of this case, did limitations on new proceedings as topunishment only violate defendants due process rights?

Holding: Yes, withholding evidence favorable to the defendant as to either guilt or punishmentviolates a defendants due process rights irrespective of the intentions of prosecutors. No, the

defendants due process rights were not violated when his new trial was restricted to punishmentonly, as the evidence in question only pertained to his relative culpability and appropriate

punishment, not his underlying guilt.

Reasoning: The Court, in an opinion by Justice Douglas, discussed past cases concerningmisconduct sufficient to violate due process. In those cases, the Court held that offering perjuredtestimony or failure to correct inaccurate testimony deprived a defendant of due process. Here

the Court extended that line of reasoning, concluding that suppression of evidence alone issufficient to violate due process, where such evidence is material to either guilt or punishment,

without regard to the motivations behind the suppression. According to the Court, due processrequirements not only constrain the behavior of prosecutors, but also ensure that the process itselfis fair such that the result is just. Next, the Court considered the appropriateness of the remedy,to wit, the demand for a new trial but the limitation of that trial to the sentencing phasealone. Justice Douglas explained that in Maryland, juries serve not only as finders of fact but also

labor to judge the appropriate law. However, he found that distinction from other jurisdictionsdid not aide the petitioners claims here. Relying heavily on the decision of the Maryland Courtof Appeals, the Court accepted their determination that nothing in the suppressed statement couldhave lessened the defendants guilt or served to sufficiently alleviate him of respons ibility for anycrime other than that of murder in the first degree. While the evidence was relevant to

determining a fair punishment, the Court concluded that the jury would have had no basis to altertheir assessment of his guilt or the crime of which he was convicted. Accordingly, the Court

affirmed the order below, concluded that the remedy adopted was consistent with due process.

Dissent: Justice White filed a separate opinion, arguing that the Court should not have reached


10/13

the due process issue, as it was unclear whether the decision below rested on state or federalgrounds. He also suggested that the rule adopted here went too far, preferring instead to leave

crafting of criminal discovery rules to legislative bodies. Justice Harlan, joined by Justice Black,dissented, preferring to dispose of the case on equal protection grounds, and arguing that therelevant inquiry was whether the suppressed statement pertained to guilt. Justice Harlan arguedthat nothing in the record decisively suggested that the statement would not have been relevant

during the guilt phase of trial. Furthermore, he concluded that given the failure of the Court ofAppeals to adequately address the equal protection argument in this case, the Court should havedeclined to proceed and in any event should have avoided the sweeping due process rule adopted.

Conclusion: Suppression of evidence alone is sufficient to violate due process, but under the

circumstances of this particular case and the unusual nature of Maryland trials and the dutiesimposed upon their juries, a new trial was unnecessary here as to the guilt phase.

Gideon vs. Wainwright


11/13

Source: http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/***-

amendment/*****-*****/facts-case-summary-gideon.aspx

FACTS: Clarence Earl Gideon was an unlikely hero. He was a man with an eighth-grade

education who ran away from home when he was in middle school. He spent much of his earlyadult life as a drifter, spending time in and out of prisons for nonviolent crimes.

Gideon was charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, whichis a felony under Florida law. At trial, Gideon appeared in court without an attorney. In open

court, he asked the judge to appoint counsel for him because he could not afford an attorney. Thetrial judge denied Gideons request because Florida law only permitted appointment of counsel

for poor defendants charged with capital offenses.

At trial, Gideon represented himselfhe made an opening statement to the jury, cross-examined

the prosecutions witnesses, presented witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify himself,and made arguments emphasizing his innocence. Despite his efforts, the jury found Gideon

guilty and he was sentenced to five years imprisonment.

Gideon sought relief from his conviction by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the

Florida Supreme Court. In his petition, Gideon challenged his conviction and sentence on theground that the trial judges refusal to appoint counsel violated Gideons constitutional

rights. The Florida Supreme Court denied Gideons petition.

Gideon next filed a handwritten petition in the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court

agreed to hear the case to resolve the question of whether particular rights apply to defendants instate court.

PROCEDURE:Lower Courts:Bay County Circuit Court, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida Lower Court

Ruling: The trial judge denied Gideons request for a court-appointed attorney because, underFlorida law, counsel could only be appointed for a poor defendant charged with a capital offense.

The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the trial court and denied all relief.

ISSUE: A prior decision of the Courts,Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), held that the refusalto appoint counsel for an indigent defendant charged with a felony in state court did notnecessarily violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court granted

Gideons petition for a writ of certiorari that is, agreed to hear Gideons case and review thedecision of the lower courtin order to determine whetherBettsshould be reconsidered.

RULING: Reversed and remanded. In its opinion, the Court unanimously overruledBetts v.Brady.

Argued: January 15, 1963

Decided:March 18, 1963

Unanimous Decision:Justice Black (who dissented inBetts) wrote the opinion of thecourt. Justices Douglas, Clark, and Harlan each wrote concurring opinions.


12/13

REASONING: The Court held the guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fairtrial and, as such, applies the states through the Due Process. In overturningBetts, Justice Black

stated that reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminaljustice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trialunless counsel is provided for him. He further wrote that the noble ideal of fair trials beforeimpartial tribunals in which ever defendant stands equal before the law . . . cannot be realized if

the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.


13/13

Atkins vs. VirginiaSource: http://www.4lawschool.com/case-briefs/atkins-v-virginia

Facts:Atkins was convicted of abduction, armed robbery and capital murder. During the penaltyphase of his trial, defense counsel relied on a forensic psychologist as the sole witness to testify

that Atkins was mentally retarded, albeit mildly rather than profoundly. Atkins was sentenced tocapital punishment, but the Virginia Supreme Court ordered a second sentencing hearing since

the trial court erred by using a misleading verdict form. During the second sentencing hearing,the same forensic psychologist was interviewed and testified, but the State decided to rebut theexperts testimony regarding Atkins intelligence. Atkins was once again sentenced to death. In

affirming the ruling, the Virginia Supreme Court relied on the reasoning presented in Penry v.Lynaugh, in rejecting Atkins contention that he could not be sentenced to death because per the

forensic psychologist, he is mentally retarded. Atkins appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Issue:The legal question presented was whether imposing a sentence of capital punishment onmentally retarded persons constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of human rights.

Holding:The Supreme Court held that imposing the death penalty on Atkins would constitute

cruel and unusual punishment because he was diagnosed as being mentally retarded.

Majority Opinion: The majority of the Court held that yes, executing mentally retardedcriminals constituted cruel and unusual punishments and was thus prohibited by an amendment.

The Court interestingly reasoned that the typical reasons for imposing the sentence, deterrenceand punishment, didnt really even work for the mentally retardedbecause they lacked theintellectual capacity to understand such punishment. It could therefore not be seen as

deterrence. The Court, specifically Justice Stevens, reasoned that, Construing and applying theamendment in the light of our evolving standards of decency, we therefore conclude that such

punishment is excessive and that the Constitution places a substantive restriction on the Statespower to take the life of a mentally retarded offender.

Dissenting Opinion:Chief Justice Rehnquist and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia dissentedand Associate Justice Clarence Thomas joined both. The justices argued that similar to the Roper

case, there had not been any clear cut moving away from executing mentally retarded individuals,but that states on a case-by-case basis had made their own judgments. Consequently, there wasno need or reason to bar states from making this decision on their own based upon the believed or

proven degree of mental retardation of convicts.

Conclusion:This case is essentially significant in the same manner as the Roper case, by which

the Supreme Court ruled that executing mentally retarded individuals was contradictory to thenations evolving standards of decency.

rights of accused whole

Documents