The Warren Court
During 1953 and 1969, the Supreme Court of the United States was known as the Warren Court, after Earl Warren’s appointment as Chief Justice. This period is known for uprising of activist movement and cases that Court was dealing with. The biggest achievements of the Warren Court embrace the extension of civil rights and liberties, judicial and federal power.
The Warren Court decisions have framed the legislation base, law enforcement practice and judicial system of modern America. The Court is known for a number of significantly important decisions. I would like to highlight cases that are connected with criminal proceedings - Katz v. United States (1961), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) and Miranda v. Arizona Case (1966).
The Katz v.United States Case. Katz was arrested for transmitting gambling-related information via public phone. FBI pressed charges based on information received after recording his phone conversations. Katz argued that recordings were received by violation of the Fourth Amendment. Kat’s position was upheld as Fourth Amendment allowed protection of a person from illegal searches and seizures and grants “reasonable expectation of privacy”.
The Gideon v. Wainwright Case. Clarence Gideon was accused with misdemeanor intent, which is a felony under Florida law. During the trial, he requested to appoint him a counsel, as he was unable to afford an attorney. His request was denied by judge as attorneys were appointed only for poor defendants who were charged with capital offenses. After his plea to Supreme Court he was granted with a hearing and lawyers attracted to his case. The main issue was connected with the violation of fair trial in regard to Gideon. As a result, Court ruling stated that regardless of the type of crime all citizens must be provided with the lawyer if they cannot afford one.
The Miranda v. Arizona Case. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape of an eighteen-year old and after two-hour interrogation he pleaded guilty. His lawyer appealed to the Court, claiming that his rights were violated. The Court decision ensures that suspects ought to be informed of their rights prior to questioning and any statement or evidence obtained prior to interrogation is considered as inadmissible.