-
#10 Christy Bros. Circus v. Turnage
In this episode we step down from the U.S. Supreme Court to visit the Georgia Court of Appeals. Here, we re-argue the case Christy Brothers Circus v. Turnage.
An evening at the circus suddenly turned an unsuspecting audience member into part of the show.
The question before the court: can a victim collect damages for emotional distress without physical injury?
(more…)
-
#9 United States v. Causby
In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case United States v. Causby.
A couple bought property, where they made their home and ran a chicken farm. Their property was less than half a mile away from an airfield, which the U.S. government began using. The family’s farm (and their nerves) were then destroyed by lots of large military aircraft flying less than 100 feet overhead day and night. They sued the government.
The question before the court: was their property taken by the government without just compensation, in violation of the 5th Amendment?
(more…)
-
#8 North Carolina v. Alford
In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case North Carolina v. Alford.
HA was charged with First-Degree Murder, a capital offense in North Carolina. There was a lot of evidence against him, so his lawyer recommended he plead guilty. HA ultimately agreed to plead guilty to Second-Degree Murder, but when he went before the judge, HA testified he didn’t commit the crime and was only pleading guilty to avoid the death penalty. He was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison. He later appealed, stating that he had been coerced into the guilty plea because of the prospect of the death penalty.
The question before the court: is a guilty plea invalid when the defendant is also claiming innocence and is only pleading guilty to avoid the death penalty?
(more…)
-
#7 Prince v. Massachusetts
In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Prince v. Massachusetts.
Massachusetts has adopted child labor laws prohibiting children from selling periodicals on the street, and prohibiting adults from making children work illegally. SP is a Jehovah’s Witness who would distribute religious literature on the street. Her children and her niece begged and cried to join her. SP was confronted by authorities, charged, and ultimately convicted of violating child labor laws. SP says that the government is using inapplicable law to interfere with her parental rights, and her and the child’s religious freedom.
The question before the court: do the state laws prohibiting child labor interfere with parental rights and religious freedoms?
(more…)
-
#6 Schenck v. United States
In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States.
The U.S. is at war. CS took part in printing and mailing leaflets criticizing the war and the draft. The leaflets also encouraged young men to resist the draft. He was arrested and convicted of conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act.
The question before the court: did CS’s conviction for criticizing the draft violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech?
(more…)
-
#5 United States v. 95 Barrels, More or Less, Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar, Douglas Packing Company
In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case United States v. 95 Barrels, More or Less, Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar, Douglas Packing Company, Claimant.
The Douglas Packing Company is selling a product that they have labeled as apple cider vinegar. However, the feds have an issue with the fact that sometimes the company presses fresh apples, and at other times they press dehydrated and rehydrated apples without informing consumers of the difference. Does this still count as “apple cider vinegar”? Neither the company, the feds, nor the lower courts can agree.
The question before the court: was the apple cider vinegar misbranded under the provisions of the Pure Food and Drug Act?
(more…)
-
#4 Mapp v. Ohio
In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio.
One evening, police arrived at the home of DM and demanded to be let in to conduct a search. After calling her lawyer, DM declined to allow police to enter her home without a search warrant. Police eventually broke down her door and searched her home despite not having a search warrant. DM was later tried and convicted for possession of obscene material. She appealed her conviction.
The question before the court: are state courts subject to the same constitutional requirements as the federal courts?
This is episode 3 of a 3-part series on the development of the Exclusionary Rule.
(more…)
-
#3 Wolf v. United States
In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Wolf v. Colorado.
Police investigating illegal abortions searched a doctor’s office without a search warrant and took a log of patients. After interviewing his patients, police charged JW and others. The results of the search were used as evidence and JW was convicted. JW appealed his conviction.
The question before the court: do 4th Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures apply to criminal cases in state courts? Or do state courts get to make their own rules?
This is episode 2 of a 3-part series on the development of the Exclusionary Rule.
(more…)
-
#2 Weeks v. United States
In this episode we re-argue the landmark case Weeks v. United States.
Local law enforcement entered and searched FW’s home without a search warrant. At the same time, other officers arrested FW at work. Afterward, a federal marshal conducted a second search of FW’s home without a warrant. Using the evidence from the search, the prosecution secured a conviction against FW, who appealed his conviction.
The question before the court: under the 4th and 5th Amendments, can the feds use evidence obtained without a search warrant (and in violation of an individual’s civil rights) at federal trials?
This is episode 1 of a 3-part series on the development of the Exclusionary Rule.
(more…)
-
#1 Deshaney v. Winnebago County DSS
In the pilot episode of Relitigated, we re-argue the Supreme Court case Deshaney v. Winnebago County DSS.
(more…)