Supreme Court Cases on Religious Freedom

Practical Ramifications:

Dowling v. U.S (1990)

U.S v. Ursery (1996)

• Evidence of a crime you were acquitted of can be introduced in a different case for other conduct.

• Civil forfeiture is considered a form of punishment under the double jeopardy clause.

• A ski mask was not relevant evidence in the case of Dowling v. U.S.

• Drug traffickers are exempt from civil forfeiture laws.

• Griffin v. California (1965) Pre-Miranda

What was the outcome regarding the use of the Fifth Amendment “right to silence” during trial?

• Prosecutors can use silence as evidence against suspects.

• Silence cannot be used against suspects unless they testify.

• Silence can be used as a comment during trial.

• Prosecutors cannot use the Fifth Amendment “right to silence” as evidence.

Hudson v. U.S (1997)

• Hudson was acquitted of all charges due to lack of evidence.

• The Supreme Court ruled that Double Jeopardy applies in this case.

• The Supreme Court held that the first was a civil fine, not criminal.

• Hudson was sentenced to prison for the banking violations.

Gamble v. U.S (2019)

• The Supreme Court held that Gamble's conviction was invalid due to double jeopardy.

• The Supreme Court held that states and the federal government can charge a person for the same conduct.

• The Supreme Court held that Gamble's conviction was valid based on a new interpretation of the law.

• The Supreme Court held that Gamble's case was an exception to the long-standing practice of dual sovereignty.

Illinois v. Perkins (1990) What was the Supreme Court's ruling regarding the admissibility of Perkins' statements made to an undercover officer?

• The statements were inadmissible due to a violation of privacy rights.

• The statements were admissible as there was no expectation of privacy in a jail cell.

• The statements were admissible because they were made in a public place.

• The statements were inadmissible because Perkins was not informed of his rights.

Seizures/searches are “reasonable” without a warrant when….

• Police can stop vehicles for general crime control without reasonable suspicion.

• Police stopped all vehicles on freeway and used drug dog.

• The Supreme Court allows random stops on highways for safety checks.

• Stopping cars for “general crime control” is legal without reasonable suspicion.

California v. Acevedo (1991)

• The police may search a car or its containers if they have probable cause that contraband or evidence is within the car.

• The police can only search the car if they have a warrant.

• The police must have a suspect's confession to search the car.

• The police can search a car without any probable cause.

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

• Escobedo was arrested for killing his brother-in-law and was advised of his rights before questioning.

• Escobedo was interviewed for 14 hours without being allowed to see his lawyer.

• Escobedo confessed after being informed of his right to remain silent.

• The Supreme Court ruled that Escobedo's confession was valid because he was not a suspect.

Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944)

• Both confessions were admissible

• Only voluntary confessions are admissible

• Both confessions were coerced

• Only Ashcraft's confession was admissible

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

• The Supreme Court upheld the state law requiring children to attend school until age 16.

• Yoder was fined for refusing to send his children to school beyond 8th grade.

• The Supreme Court ruled that the state law placed a burden on Yoder's religious practices.

• Yoder was allowed to send his children to school until they were 18.