-
Roth v. United States, 1957
Roth v. United States in a landmark case before the United States Supreme Court which redefined the Constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment. -
Mapp v. Ohio, 1961
Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark case in the criminal procedure which the Untied States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment which protests against unreasonable searches and seizures may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts and federal courts. -
Baker v. Carr 1962
The case Baker v. Carr was the first of a series of the Supreme Court cases in the early 60s that established the federal judiciary’s right to determine the constitutionality of legislates. -
Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963
Gideon v. Wainwright is a landmark case in the United States Supermen Court, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to afforded their own attorneys. -
Reynolds v. Sims 1964
The Reynold v. Sims is a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that the state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population. -
Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964
Escobedo v. Illinois is a United States Supreme Court case holding that criminal suspects will have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth Amendment. -
Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965
The Griswold v. Connecticut was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. -
Engel v. Vitale, 1965
Engel v. Vitale was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that determined that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools. -
Miranda v. Arizona, 1966
Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant no
