Case Brief Project Constitutional Law

Case Brief Project Constitutional Law PLA 4885 Fall 2022 Rakisha L. Everett Dr. Robert Diotalevi

Discriminatory peremptory challenges Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (2006) 1. Discuss the history of the case. This case stems from the landmark case Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79 (1986). The Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor cannot systematically use preemptory challenges to strike witnesses based on race i . The courts created a three-step process to evaluate future discrimination claims ii . These decisions have caused courts to consistently hold the burden of proof or disproof of racial motivation on the party challenging the strikes iii . Stephen Collins was an African American man on trial in Los Angeles for drug possession with the intent to distribute. Because he was a habitual offender, he was eligible for California's three-strike sentence law iv . During the jury selection process, the prosecutor removes an African American woman known as juror #16 on a preemptive challenge. The defendant contended the strike base on his assumption that the juror was removed for her race. The prosecutor listed race-neutral reasons for the challenge. One of these reasons included was the juror's behavior. Prosecutor mentioned her rolling her eyes at the response to a question. Another reason cited was that her youth made her more tolerant towards drugs, and the last reason stated was that she lacked sufficient ties to the community. The trial court did state that they did not notice the juror's behavior doing the selection process. However, they did agree with the prosecutor on her age being youthful. Subsequently, Collins was convicted and received a 25-year sentence. While in prison, he raised the preemptive strike issue in multiple courts seeking a remedy. 2. Describe the ruling of the case as well as the court’s rationale/reasoning behind it. The issue in this action is the lower court’s rejection of Collins’s argument. Juror 16 was not the only African American juror struck from the jury panel. Collins challenged multiple peremptory

and defense attorneys shield their agents against biased beliefs, certain social or economic statuses, and racism xi . All of these nuances are a part of selecting a jury member for trial. Most attorneys make great attempts to avoid picking closed-minded individuals who hold biases that are directly related to the issues of the case. Discrimination will occur depending on the case's variables and has occurred in the past. In Avery v. Georgia, 345 US 559 (1953), prospective black jurors' cards were marked yellow xii . In Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545 (1967), prospective jurors were selected from a segregated county tax book xiii . When choosing prospective jurors, courts have been found guilty of approving only a small number of jurors to be selected to control the outcome of cases. The top priority should be given to competent jurors. However, selecting only a small group of any given population that systematically excludes a particular race or gender from jury service is discrimination. Peremptory challenge issues have been extended to other groups other than race, economic class, and gender is also included. 4. Provide any insight as to how the decision may be correct or incorrectly legally given the state of the law today. Criminal defendants have the legal standing to acquire third-party equal-protection rights xiv . A defendant is entitled to third-party rights when certain events take place. The defendant's and juror's rights are violated when jurors are absolved from services based on race. This behavior threatens the justice system. (1) When the accused suffers a significant injury and is concerned about the results of the proceeding xv . (2) When the accused is in close proximity to the third party. (3) When third-party rights are obstructed, they cannot assert their rights xvi . When discrimination is used during the peremptory challenge phase, the criminal defendant suffers injury by the prosecution. This practice produces skepticism about the impartiality and integrity of criminal proceedings. The

connection that bridges these rights between the defendant and jurors occurs during voir dire. There is also a common interest in eradicating discrimination in criminal proceedings.

jurisdiction over Native Americans xxi . The federal government did allocate this prosecutorial power to the Indian Tribes, thus charging Lara for the same crime twice under federal authority. 3. Give your opinion on the historical and legal significance of the case decision, as well as whether or not you agree or disagree with the outcome. The Supreme Court recognizes Indian tribes as unique political communities whose sovereignty is constrained by Congress. The courts have acknowledged the precarious position Native Americans fall under xxii . Simply Speaking, Native Americans do not dwell in their territory by the government's permission. It is their right to exist outside of the government's control. The constitution of the United States broadens authority that extends beyond local jurisdiction. The federal government can pass laws on behalf of Native American tribes. The political relationship between Native American tribes and the federal government draws from the Commerce and Treaty Clause of the Constitution xxiii . Tribes are regarded as "pre-constitutional sovereigns," cited in Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 55 (1978) xxiv . In Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 (1896), the determination of the legal status of Indian tribes under federal law is established xxv . The point of the relationship is to “build trust between the government and the Native Americans”, as quoted in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1, 17 (1831) xxvi . 4. Provide any insight as to how the decision may be correct or incorrectly legally given the state of the law today. The Duro v. Reina, 495 U. S. 676 (1990) case created an amendment to the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (ICRA). Clearly, congress had the intent to reestablish the Native American natural sovereign power for themselves xxvii . Congress was cautious about suggesting the theory of intrinsic sovereignty. Taking their interpretation places the prosecution of Lara in the wrong courts. This is why the case needed to be resolved on several occasions in different judicial

branches. The real issue that needs to be addressed is whether Congress has the power to delegate independent power. The historical proprietorship of "natural power" is the reason for tribal sovereignty. What is most troubling is the suggestion that Congress can reduce limitations on "natural sovereignty" that extends from its historical base. These types of cases will have to be addressed on a one-by-one basis. The theory of intrinsic sovereignty is the foundation of this law and must be defined as time permits it. The law must be exercised and measured to distinguish its spirit.

constitutionally wrong. Let us assume that the defendant gave a proper alibi to the prosecution. Will this notice harm him later if he decides not to present this alibi defense, or could the prosecution harm the defendant because he now has a potential eyewitness to question? xxxiii The prosecution may quickly obtain incriminating evidence regarding the defendant under these circumstances. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being forced to give any evidence that could be utilized in a conviction xxxiv . The burden must be placed on the government to find evidence to build its case. This holding is unconstitutional. The State is given access to compelling information from the defendant before trial. 4. Provide any insight as to how the decision may be correct or incorrectly legally given the state of the law today. The Supreme Court decided that the authorization to reveal one's strategy to opponents in an adversary setting will not certainly rig the match. xxxv A six-man jury convicted Johnny Williams. Williams' only defense was his alibi. Florida's criminal procedure rules required the defendant to furnish the prosecutor with information about his/hers whereabouts at the time of the crime and an alibi witness list. Williams pursued a protective order on the alibi statute because it infringed on his constitutional rights. Williams asserted that the statute authorized the State to discover (his alibi) and denied him due process under the fourteenth amendment xxxvi . The lower courts rejected his assertion citing that "reciprocal discovery" is permitted under the Florida rule. The Supreme Court believed that the discovery statute did not violate the Constitution. Also, the Supreme Court discussed the Sixth Amendment. The amendment does not require a trial by a jury of 12 people xxxvii .

Speedy Trial Clause Vermont v. Brillon, 129 S. Ct. 1283 (2009) 1. Discuss the history of the case. Michael Brillon was arrested for felony domestic assault against his paramour in 2001. xxxviii The state scheduled Brillon’s trial for February 2002, citing a heavy caseload. Four days before jury selection Brillon’s attorney asked for a continuance. Brillon fired his attorney and the court- appointed new counsel. However, the attorney withdrew immediately because of a conflict. By June 11, 2002, Brillon had hired and fired three attorneys whom he alleged were all ineffective. Brillon’s fourth attorney requested additional time for preparation for trial discovery. On November 26, Brillon’s 4th attorney informed the court that his employment with the public defender’s office would end. Between January 2003 to April, Brillon would go through two more attorneys. Kathleen Moore, Brillon’s sixth attorney, began her representation in August 2003. Moore filed a motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial xxxix , but the motion was denied. Again, Moore filed a post-trial motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, citing that the delays in Brillon’s case caused him a disadvantage. The jury trial commenced in June 2004. Brillon was found guilty and sentenced to twelve years in prison. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the trial’s court verdict and contested that Brillon’s constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated. 2. Describe the ruling of the case as well as the court’s rationale/reasoning behind it. The Sixth Amendment offers a speedy trial to the accused. xl There are factors to consider when determining if the right has been violated. The extent of the delay and the justification for the delay is taken into consideration. The court found that the defendant, not the state, triggered the

the Barker v. Wingo case, the right to a speedy trial is determined ad hoc. xlvi Trial Courts must take specific considerations when determining if the defendant’s rights have been deprived. Public Trial Clause Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) 1. Discuss the history of the case. The Georgia police department was granted authority to wiretap phones and conduct searches to investigate illegal gambling. xlvii Many individuals were indicted and moved to suppress the evidence related to the investigation. The state moved to close the motion to suppress the public hearing to censure evidence related to offenders not on trial yet. xlviii The trial court supported the state to close the hearing. The case went to trial, and the defendants were acquitted under the RICO Act but convicted under other statutes. 2. Describe the ruling of the case as well as the court’s rationale/reasoning behind it. The court acknowledged that the Sixth Amendment right could be applied to suppression hearings. xlix The interest of a public trial is just as crucial as a hearing to suppress wrongfully seized evidence. l Trial openness could be overridden based on the necessity to preserve specific standards. Those interests are carefully tailored to serve those concerned with the public having access to protected areas of constitutional rights. 3. Give your opinion on the historic and legal significance of the case decision, as well as whether or not you agree or disagree with the outcome. The Supreme Court administered a four-part test to decide if the court closures were appropriate. li Part 1- If a party is seeking to close a proceeding, there must be a concern that is believed to be prejudiced. In Sheppard v. Maxwell 384 U.S. 333 (1966), The judge failed to take reasonable

measures to reduce the prejudice caused by widespread publicity before the trial. The supreme court held that the defendant’s rights were violated due to a tainted jury. lii Part 2- The closing of the proceeding must be limited to protect the public interest. The court found that a victim's request to exclude observers from the courtroom during her testimony is a legitimate justification. The press was included, and spectators were excluded during the victim's testimony. liii State v. Smith, 123 Ariz. 243, 250 (1979) Part 3- There must be a consideration for reasonable substitutes to closing a proceeding. A defendant in a trial for robbery was removed from the courtroom for frequent disruptive behavior; his appointed counsel was present while the defendant was not in the courtroom. The defendant was permitted to return to the courtroom while his counsel presented his defense liv . Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) Part 4- The court must make necessary decisions for trial closure. The right to a public trial is still being determined. These rights are limited to persuasive considerations. A discretion to prohibit an audience must be reasonable, and several alternatives are made before closure. Our nation believes in the tradition of open criminal proceedings. The importance of a public trial and the defendant's right to a fair trial is essential to our democracy and criminal justice system. 4. Provide any insight as to how the decision may be correct or incorrectly legally given the state of the law today. This case brings about three questions. Does a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right expand to a suppression hearing before the jury trial? Was a right violated here? What would be the appropriate remedy? To consider the scope of the rights under the Sixth Amendment, the defendant insists upon a public trial. However, does the right extend to the scrutiny of evidence before the trial? There is a significant precedent that the court observes. Globe Newspaper Co. v.

i Jones, RonNell, and Aaron Nielson. “Clarence Thomas The Questioner †.” Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 111, no. 4, Northwestern University (on behalf of School of Law), Jan. 2017, p. 1185. ii Rice v. Collins, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/04-52 (last visited Oct 16, 2022). iii 546 US 333 Rice v Collins | Open Jurist. (n.d.). Retrieved October 16, 2022, from https://openjurist.org/546/us/333/rice-v- collins iv California’s Three Strikes Sentencing Law - criminal_justice. (n.d.). Retrieved November 5, 2022, from https://www.courts.ca.gov/20142.htm v RICE V. COLLINS. (n.d.-b). Retrieved October 16, 2022, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-52.ZS.html vi Watts, & Jeffcott, E. C. (2011). A primer on Batson, including a discussion of Johnson v. California, Miller-el v. Dretke, Rice v. Collins, & Snyder v. Louisiana. St. Mary’s Law Journal, 42(2), 337–349. vii 546 US 333 Rice v Collins | Open Jurist. (n.d.). Retrieved October 16, 2022, from https://openjurist.org/546/us/333/rice-v- collins viii Jones, RonNell, and Aaron Nielson. “Clarence Thomas The Questioner †.” Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 111, no. 4, Northwestern University (on behalf of School of Law), Jan. 2017, p. 1185. ix Watts, & Jeffcott, E. C. (2011). A primer on Batson, including a discussion of Johnson v. California, Miller-el v. Dretke, Rice v. Collins, & Snyder v. Louisiana. St. Mary’s Law Journal, 42(2), 337–349. x Watts, & Jeffcott, E. C. (2011). A primer on Batson, including a discussion of Johnson v. California, Miller-el v. Dretke, Rice v. Collins, & Snyder v. Louisiana. St. Mary’s Law Journal, 42(2), 337–349. xi RICE V. COLLINS. (n.d.-b). Retrieved October 16, 2022, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-52.ZS.html xii Avery v. Georgia, 345 U.S. 559 (1953). (n.d.). Justia Law. Retrieved November 5, 2022, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/345/559/ xiii Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545 (1967). (n.d.). Justia Law. Retrieved November 5, 2022, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/545/ xiv The Constitution Annotated (n.d.-b). Retrieved November 5, 2022, from https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-6-9-3/ALDE_00013013/ xv Watts, & Jeffcott, E. C. (2011). A primer on Batson, including a discussion of Johnson v. California, Miller-el v. Dretke, Rice v. Collins, & Snyder v. Louisiana. St. Mary’s Law Journal, 42(2), 337–349. xvi Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (1976). (n.d.). Justia Law. Retrieved November 5, 2022, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/106/ xvii United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004). (n.d.). Justia Law. Retrieved October 23, 2022, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/541/193/ xviii (2020). Hg.org. https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/do-native-american-indians-have-special rights-31571 xix United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978). (n.d.). Justia Law. Retrieved November 5, 2022, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/435/313/ xx (2020). Hg.org. https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/do-native-american-indians-have-special rights-31571 xxi United States Code: Constitutional Rights of Indians, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1341 (1970). (n.d.). The Library of Congress. Retrieved November 5, 2022, from https://www.loc.gov/item/uscode1970-006025015/ xxii United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004). (n.d.). Justia Law. Retrieved October 23, 2022, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/541/193/ xxiii Commerce With Indian Tribes. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved November 5, 2022, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-3/commerce-with-indian-tribes\ xxiv Stetson, C. L. (1980). Tribal Sovereignty: Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez: Tribal Sovereignty 146 Years Later. American Indian Law Review, 8(1), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.2307/20068143 xxv https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-talton-v-mayes xxvi BrowserMedia - www.browsermedia.com. (n.d.-b). Tribal Governance | NCAI. Retrieved November 5, 2022, from https://www.ncai.org/policy-issues/tribal-governance xxvii Senate Report 112-166 - AMENDING THE ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934, TO REAFFIRM THE AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO TAKE LAND INTO TRUST FOR INDIAN TRIBES. (n.d.). Retrieved November 5, 2022, from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-112srpt166/html/CRPT-112srpt166.htm xxviii Williams v. Florida (1970) | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis. (n.d.). Community. Retrieved October 23, 2022, from https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-williams-v-florida xxix Rule 3.200 - NOTICE OF ALIBI, Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.200 (n.d.-c). Retrieved November 6, 2022, from https://casetext.com/rule/florida-court-rules/florida-rules-of-criminal-procedure/pretrial-motions-and-defenses/rule-3200- notice-of-alibi xxx Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970) - Justia Law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/399/78/ xxxi Gensler, S., Higginbotham, P., & Rosenthal, L. (2022, July 14). Better by the Dozen: Bringing Back the 12-Person Civil Jury. Judicature | the Scholarly Journal About the Judiciary. https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/better-by-the-dozen-

bringing-back-the-twelve-person-civil-jury/ xxxii Rule 12.1 Notice of an Alibi Defense. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved November 6, 2022, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_12.1 xxxiii Steele, Lisa, Investigating and Presenting an Alibi Defense (April 9, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3572102 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3572102 xxxiv Smentkowski, B. P. (2020, January 9). Fifth Amendment | Summary, Rights, & Facts. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fifth-Amendment xxxv Williams v. Florida (1970) | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis. (n.d.). Community. Retrieved October 23, 2022, from https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-williams-v-florida xxxvi Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970) - Justia Law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/399/78/ xxxvii Gensler, S., Higginbotham, P., & Rosenthal, L. (2022, July 14). Better by the Dozen: Bringing Back the 12-Person Civil Jury. Judicature | the Scholarly Journal About the Judiciary. https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/better-by-the-dozen- bringing-back-the-twelve-person-civil-jury/ xxxviii VERMONT v. BRILLON | 129 S.Ct. 1283 (2009) | By... | 20090309847 .... https://www.leagle.com/decision/insco20090309847 xxxix People v. Williams, 58 Cal.4th 197, (Cal. 2013) – Justia Law. Retrieved October 23,2022, from https://casetext.com/case/people-v-williams-248 xl Mustafaa, Ayesha. “The U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights Must Be Protected.” Muslim Journal, vol. 43, no. 46, Muslim Journal, 3 Aug. 2018, p. 1. xli The Right to an Attorney: Theory vs. Practice. (2022, October 4). Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/right-attorney-theory-vs-practice xlii PAYING FOR JUSTICE “he Human Cost of Public Defender Fees” (2022,November 6). Yale law. Retrieved from https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/center/liman/document/pdfees-report.pdf xliii Rose, E. (2014). Speedy Trial as a Viable Challenge to Chronic Underfunding in Indigent-Defense Systems. Michigan Law Review, 113(2), 279–314. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24770768 xliv Klopfer v. North Carolina. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 6, 2022, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/100 xlv 628. Speedy Trial Act of 1974. (2020, January 22). JM | Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-628-speedy-trial-act-1974 xlvi Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). (n.d.). Justia Law. Retrieved November 6, 2022, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/407/514/ . xlvii 2021 Georgia Code :: Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses :: Chapter 11 - Offenses Against Public Order and Safety :: Article 3 - Invasions of Privacy :: Part 1 - Wiretapping, Eavesdropping, Surveillance, and Related Offenses :: § 16-11-64. Interception of Wire or Oral Transmissions by Law Enforcement Officers. (n.d.). Justia Law. Retrieved November 6, 2022, from https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2021/title-16/chapter-11/article-3/part-1/section-16-11-64/ xlviii Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984). (n.d.). Justia Law. Retrieved November 6, 2022, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/39/ xlix Logan Munroe Chandler, Sixth Amendment--Public Trial Guarantee Applies to Pretrial Suppression Hearings, 75 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 802 (1984) l 9-5.000 - Issues Related To Discovery, Trials, And Other Proceedings. (2020, January 29). JM | Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-5000-issues-related-trials-and-other-court-proceedings li Stephen E. Smith, The Right to a Public Trial and Closing the Courtroom to Disruptive Spectators, 93 WASH. U. L. REV. 235 (2015). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol93/iss1/11 lii Sheppard v. Maxwell. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 6, 2022, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/490 liii State v. Smith, 123 Ariz. 243, 599 P.2d 199 (Ariz. 1979). Justia Law. Retrieved November 6, 2022, from https://casetext.com/case/state-v-smith-2706 liv Illinois v. Allen | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis. (n.d.). Community. Retrieved November 6, 2022, from https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-illinois-v-allen lv Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct., 457 U.S. 596 (1982). (n.d.). Justia Law. Retrieved November 6, 2022, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/596/ lvi Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct., 464 U.S. 501 (1984). (n.d.). Justia Law. Retrieved November 6, 2022, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/501/ lvii A. Access to voir dire Archives. (n.d.). The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Retrieved November 6, 2022, from https://www.rcfp.org/open-court-sections/a-access-to-voir-dire/