Mackenzie, Isaac, Leon, Tristen

Argued: October 10, 1932 Decided: November 7, 1932 POWELL V ALABAMA (1932)

Nine "young, ignorant, and illiterate” black youths later known as the Scottsboro Boys were accused of raping two young women They had gotten into a fight on a train with other white boys and after were asked to leave the train. Following the incident two white girls accused them of raping them; however one of the girls later retracted her claim. Alabama officials sprinted through the legal proceedings. A total of three trials took place in one day and all nine were sentenced to death. Alabama law requited the appointment of counsel in capital cases, but the attorneys did not consult with their clients and had done little more than appear to represent them in trial. POWELL V ALABAMA (1932) BACKGROUND

Did the trials violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? POWELL V ALABAMA (1932)

What do you think and why? POWELL V ALABAMA(1932)

7-2 Decision The trial court denied defendants due process by failing to provide reasonable opportunity to secure counsel in their defense DECISION

Argued: December 6, 1966 Decided May 15, 1967 IN RE GAULT (1967)

Gerald Gault was a 15 year old male who prank called a neighbor; Gault claimed it was his friend Robert Lewis who had actually done the call. The arresting officer did not leave a notice for Gault’s family and they found out about his arrest from the family of Ronald Lewis. A hearing was held on June 9 th 1964 but Cook never showed for the trial so the case relied solely on her word. Gault was not given a lawyer, but the judge sentenced him to 7 years at the State Institutional School IN RE GAULT (1967) BACKGROUND

Were the procedures used to commit Gault Constitutionally legitimate under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? IN RE GAULT (1967)

What do you think and why? IN RE GAULT (1967)

8-1 Decision for Gault The proceedings of the juvenile court failed to comply with the Constitution. The Court held that the proceedings for juveniles had to comply with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. DECISION

Argued: July 8, 1974 Decided: July 24, 1964 US V NIXON (1974)

President Richard Nixon was running for reelection against Senator George McGovern Five months before the election, an alert security guard found burglars in Watergate, the Democratic Party headquarters. Reporters that were following the story connected the burglars to high-ranking officials in the White House. Nixon denied any connection to the break-in. In an independent Congressional investigation it revealed that there was audiotapes of the President discussing the break-in with it’s organizers. Nixon refused to hand over the tapes, claiming “executive privilege. ” US V NIXON (1974) BACKGROUND

Is the President’s right to safeguard certain information, using his “executive privilege” confidentially power, entirely immune from judicial review ? US V NIXON (1974)

What do you think and why? US V NIXON (1974)

Unanimous Decision in favor of US. The Court held neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute unqualified, presidential privilege. The president is not above the law and cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence in a criminal trial. DECISION

Argued: December 11, 2000 Decided: December 12, 2000 BUSH V GORE (2000)

2000 presidential election was so close that it would be decided from Florida’s voting results. The Florida Supreme Court ordered that the Circuit Court in Leon County tabulate by hand 9000 contested ballots from the Miami-Dade County. It also ordered that every county in Florida must immediately begin manually recounting all ballots which did not indicate a vote for President because there were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in doubt. BUSH V GORE (2000) BACKGROUND

Gov. George Bush and Richard Cheney filed a request for review in the US Supreme Court and sought an emergency petition for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision. The US Supreme Court granted a review and issued the stay on December 9. It heard oral argument two days later. BUSH V GORE (2000) BACKGROUND CONT.

Did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the U.S Constitution by making new election law? Do standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution? BUSH V GORE (2000)

The Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Bush noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devaluated by “later artery and disparate treatment”. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. DECISION