1. The Warren Court and judicial activism “The biggest damn fool mistake I ever made”, Dwight D. Eisenhower on Earl Warren, quoted in 1977 Chief Justice, 1953-69 Gideon v Wainwright (1963) Miranda v Arizona (1966) Baker v Carr (1962)

2. The Warren Court Warren led the Court to landmark decisions throughout the 1960s that: Extended individual rights and forced the government to justify any attempts to infringe such rights Guaranteed equal voting rights by deciding that redistricting was justiciable thus enabling federal courts to intervene in and to decide reapportionment cases

3. The Warren Court Introduced the concept of “one man, one vote” forcing state and local govts to provide for equal voting rights Limited the scope of police searches Extended the right of accused felons to have counsel even if they were unable to afford them Recognized a fundamental right of privacy

4. Gideon v Wainwright 1963 Clarence Gideon, a homeless drifter charged in a Florida state court with a felony for robbery in 1961

5. Gideon v Wainwright 1963 Lacked funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defence Requested the court to appoint an attorney for him but court refused stating it was only obliged to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases

6. Gideon v Wainwright 1963 Gideon defended himself in the trial but was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison Case ultimately heard in Supreme Court on the question of did the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

8. Gideon v Wainwright 1963 Prior to Gideon court had consistently ruled that representation was a right in capital trials but denied counsel to indigent defendants when prosecuted by a state Betts v Brady 1942 - unless there were special circumstances like illiteracy, or being in an especially complicated trial, there was no need for a court- appointed attorney

9. Gideon v Wainwright 1963 Justice Black called it an “obvious truth” that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel Those familiar with the American system of justice, commented Black, recognized that “lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries”

10. Gideon v Wainwright 1963 Court held unanimously that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court- appointed attorney and thus overruled its decision in Betts v. Brady In Gideon, Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

12. Miranda v Arizona 1966 On 13 March Ernesto Miranda a petty criminal in Arizona was arrested for kidnapping and rape of a 17 year old girl Confessed but was not told of his right to counsel or right to remain silent Convicted but appealed on the grounds that his confession was not voluntary and should not have been admitted to court

13. Miranda v Arizona 1966 Supreme Court heard the case on the question of the whether the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?

15. Miranda v Arizona 1966 Court held on a 5-4 decision that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards “effective to secure the privilege against self- incrimination”

16. Miranda v Arizona 1966 Court noted that “the modern practice of in- custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented” and that “the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition“ Court specifically outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations

17. Miranda v Arizona 1966 On being taken into custody an individual “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that, if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires”

18. Miranda v Arizona 1966 Considerable antagonism towards the decision for supposedly undermining the efficiency of the police, belief the ruling would contribute to an increase in crime Nixon in 1968 promised to appoint judges who would be “strict constructionalists” who would exercise judicial restraint Yet warning became widely accepted in police practice

19. Miranda v Arizona 1966 Miranda v. Arizona governs the admissibility in federal and state courts of confessions and admissions given during custodial interrogation by the police. The Miranda warnings are a constitutional rule; therefore, any law passed by Congress that seeks to overturn it is unconstitutional

20. Warren Court Rulings in Gideon and Miranda revolutionized criminal procedure by holding that the rights of the accused guaranteed in the Bill or Rights apply in state courts as well as federal courts Upholding the Bill of Rights as emancipating individuals was the driving force of the Warren Court

21. Impeach Earl Warren