Study the Constitution
The U.S. Constitution speaks mostly in general terms. The U.S. Supreme Court interprets and applies the Constitution to cases brought before it, striking down laws and government actions that it deems to be unconstitutional. Criminal cases may be affected by provisions of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Click each constitutional provision below to read landmark cases that interpret it.
Articles that address criminal law
Article I, Section 9
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Article III, Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Calder v. Bull (1798) - In this case involving a will, the Court defined ex post facto laws to include any law that applies retroactively to effectuate any of the following:
Make an act criminal
Aggravate the seriousness of a crime
Increase a punishment
Alter the rules of evidence in order to convict an offender
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) 3-prong test for Establishment Clause violations (supplemented by tests in Lee v. Weisman (1992) and Van Orden v. Perry (2005)).
the statute must have a secular legislative purpose
its principal or primary effect must neither promote nor inhibit religion; and
it must not foster “excessive government entanglement with religion
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Near v. Minnesota (1931) - Prior restraints on speech are generally unconstitutional, such as when they forbid the publication of malicious, scandalous, and defamatory content.
Gitlow v. New York (1925) - The First Amendment applies to the states and does not prevent the government from punishing political speech that directly advocates its violent overthrow.
FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY
DeJonge v. Oregon (1937) - states may not violate the right of peaceable assembly
Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
United States v. Miller (1939) - Supreme Court adopted the Collective Rights Theory, holding that Congress could prohibit a sawed-off shotgun because it was unrelated to a militia.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) - The Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, unconnected with a militia.
McDonald v. Chicago (2010) - The Court held the right to bear arms for self-defense is fundamental and applies to the states.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n Inc. v. Bruen (2022) - The Court rejected the government’s subjective test for individuals’ need to carry a firearm in public.
Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Weeks v. United States (1914) - Supreme Court created the federal Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule
Weeks v. US (1914) - Exclusionary Rule invented
Olmstead v. US (1928) - Court held wiretapping was not a Fourth Amendment search or seizure because there was no trespass or physical examination of one's person, papers, houses, or effects
Wolf v. Colorado (1949) - Court declined to impose Exclusionary Rule on the states
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) - Court applied Exclusionary Rule to the states
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) - Supreme Court inferred a right to privacy from several amendments in the Bill of Rights
Katz v. US (1967) - Fourth Amendment protects privacy, not places
Terry v. Ohio (1968) - Police with reasonable and articulable suspicion may stop and frisk
Scott v. US (1978) - Police must minimize wiretaps to focus on criminal activity
Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
GRAND JURY
Hurtado v. California (1884) - The right to a grand jury does not apply to the states.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Benton v. Maryland (1969) - The Double Jeopardy Clause is a fundamental right, which applies to the states.
SELF-INCRIMINATION
Brown v. Mississippi (1936) - No physical abuse allowed
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) - Right to attorney during interrogation
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - Suspect in custody must be advised of rights before interrogation
Edwards v. Arizona (1981) - Once attorney is requested, all questioning must cease
Nix v. Williams (1984) - Inevitable discovery exception to Miranda
New York v. Quarles (1984) - Public safety exception to Miranda
Moran v. Burbine (1986) - Intelligent and knowing waiver defined
Fulminante v. Arizona (1991) - No extreme psychological manipulation allowed
Davis v. US (1994) - Request for attorney must be unequivocal to stop interrogation
US v. Patane (2004) - Failure to provide Miranda warnings did not justify exclusion of non-testimonial, physical evidence
Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
SPEEDY TRIAL
Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967) - The right to speedy trial applies to the states
CONFRONTATION
Crawford v. Washington (2004) - The Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear in court in that matter, unless:
the witness was unavailable to testify; and
the defense had a prior opportunity for cross-examination (e.g., in a preliminary hearing).
Davis v. Washington (2006) - 911 call declared non-testimonial, thus admissible
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) - the right to counsel applies during the “critical stage” between arrest and indictment
Massiah v. United States (1964) - interrogating a represented defendant in the absence of counsel after criminal proceedings have begun violates the right to counsel
Edwards v. Arizona (1981) - once a request for counsel has been made, no further interrogation may occur until counsel has been made available, unless the subject initiates further conversations with the police
Brewer v. Williams (1977) - interrogation defined to include officer actions reasonably designed to elicit incriminating information (the “Christian burial speech” in this case)
Eighth Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
EXCESSIVE FINES
Timbs v. Indiana (2019)
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
Furman v. Georgia (1972) - death penalty out
Gregg v. Georgia (1976) - death penalty back - bifurcated trial approved: 1. Guilt phase + 2. Penalty phase
Woodson v. North Carolina (1976) - No mandatory death penalty for 1st Degree Murder
Coker v. Georgia (1977) - Death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment for adult rape
Ford v. Wainwright (1986) - Cruel and unusual to execute inmate who lost sanity post-sentencing
Ring v. Arizona (2002) - Juries decide facts, including death penalty aggravating factors
Atkins v. Virginia (2002) - Death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment for mentally ill
Schriro v. Summerlin (2004) - Apprendi & Ring (jury to decide enhancers & death) are not retroactive
Roper v. Simmons (2005) - No death penalty for offenders who were under 18 at time of crime
Deck v. Missouri (2005) - No shackles for defendant in a capital trial unless necessary
Baze v. Rees (2008) - “Kentucky cocktail” lethal injection is not wanton torture, lingering
Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008) - Death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment for child rape
Madison v. Alabama (2019) - State cannot execute one who cannot rationally understand why
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.