-
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
During this Sumpreme Court case the court ruled that the right against self-incrimination is no limited to court testimony but also during police questioning. Before questioning police must advise suspects of their rights. Some rights include: the right to remain silent; any statements made can be used as evidence; the right to have an attorney present. Marion, N.E., & Oliver, W.M. (2006). The Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice hall -
United States v. James Daniel Good Real property (1993)
During this Supreme Court hearing the court ruled that person(s) are entitled to advance notice of any hearings before the government can seize any property. Prior to this ruling the police found drugs in the offender's home and he pled guilty under Hawaiian law. Soonafter the federal government files to seize offender's property because he committed a federal offense. -
Sattazahan v. Pennsylvania (2003)
During this Supreme Court case the court ruled that a second ruling does not violate the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment when the first jury is not able to reach an unanimous verdict. Sattazahan was convicted of first degree murder but could not make an unanimous verdict whether to sentence him to life in prison or death. Chu, D. (2004, April). The Substitution of words for analysis and other judicial pitfalls: Why David Sattazahn should have received double jeopardy protection.
