LDC Module
Unit V: Rights of the Accused
Resource Packet
1
Scoring
Elements
Not Yet
1
Approaches Expectations
1.5
2
Meets Expectations
2.5
3
Advanced
3.5
4
Focus
Attempts to address prompt, but
lacks focus or is off-task.
Addresses prompt appropriately, but
with a weak or uneven focus.
Addresses prompt appropriately and
maintains a clear, steady focus.
Addresses all aspects of prompt appropriately
and maintains a strongly developed focus.
Controlling
Idea
Attempts to establish a controlling
idea, but lacks a clear purpose.
Establishes a controlling idea with a
general purpose.
Establishes a controlling idea with a
clear purpose maintained throughout
the response.
Establishes a strong controlling idea with a clear
purpose maintained throughout the response.
Reading/
Research
Attempts to present information in
response to the prompt, but lacks
connections or relevance to the
purpose of the prompt. (L2) Does
not address the credibility of
sources as prompted.
Presents information from reading
materials relevant to the purpose of
the prompt with minor lapses in
accuracy or completeness. (L2) Begins
to address the credibility of sources
when prompted.
Presents information from reading
materials relevant to the prompt with
accuracy and sufficient detail. (L2)
Addresses the credibility of sources
when prompted.
Accurately presents information relevant to all
parts of the prompt with effective selection of
sources and details from reading materials. (L2)
Addresses the credibility of sources and
identifies salient sources when prompted.
Development
Attempts to provide details in
response to the prompt, including
retelling, but lacks sufficient
development or relevancy. (L2)
Implication is missing, irrelevant, or
illogical. (L3) Gap/unanswered
question is missing or irrelevant.
Presents appropriate details to
support the focus and controlling idea.
(L2) Briefly notes a relevant
implication or (L3) a relevant
gap/unanswered question.
Presents appropriate and sufficient
details to support the focus and
controlling idea. (L2) Explains relevant
and plausible implications, and (L3) a
relevant gap/unanswered question.
Presents thorough and detailed information to
strongly support the focus and controlling idea.
(L2) Thoroughly discusses relevant and salient
implications or consequences, and (L3) one or
more significant gaps/unanswered questions.
Attempts to organize ideas, but
lacks control of structure.
Uses an appropriate organizational
structure to address the specific
requirements of the prompt, with
some lapses in coherence or awkward
use of the organizational structure
Maintains an appropriate
organizational structure to address the
specific requirements of the prompt.
Maintains an organizational structure that
intentionally and effectively enhances the
presentation of information as required by the
specific prompt.
Conventions
Attempts to demonstrate standard
English conventions, but lacks
cohesion and control of grammar,
usage, and mechanics. Sources are
used without citation.
Demonstrates an uneven command of
standard English conventions and
cohesion. Uses language and tone
with some inaccurate, inappropriate,
or uneven features. Inconsistently
cites sources.
Demonstrates a command of standard
English conventions and cohesion, with
few errors. Response includes language
and tone appropriate to the audience,
purpose, and specific requirements of
the prompt. Cites sources using an
appropriate format with only minor
errors.
Demonstrates and maintains a well-developed
command of standard English conventions and
cohesion, with few errors. Response includes
language and tone consistently appropriate to
the audience, purpose, and specific
requirements of the prompt. Consistently cites
sources using an appropriate format.
Content
Understanding
Attempts to include disciplinary
content in explanations, but
understanding of content is weak;
content is irrelevant, inappropriate,
or inaccurate.
Briefly notes disciplinary content
relevant to the prompt; shows basic or
uneven understanding of content;
minor errors in explanation.
Accurately presents disciplinary content
relevant to the prompt with sufficient
explanations that demonstrate
understanding.
Integrates relevant and accurate disciplinary
content with thorough explanations that
demonstrate in-depth understanding.
Organization
2
3
United States Constitution
Bill of Rights (1791)
Fourth Amendment
Fifth Amendment
Sixth Amendment
Reading Resources
From http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amend.html
4
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
“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.”
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
“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. ”
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
“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.”
5
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Reading Resources
From http://www.streetlaw.org/
6
Background summary & questions (•)
Dollree Mapp lived in Cleveland, Ohio. One day, the police broke into Mapp's house to look for a suspected bomber. Mapp had refused to let the
police into her house earlier because they did not have a search warrant. When the police broke in, they showed Mapp a piece of paper. They said
the paper was a search warrant, but they did not let her see it.
The police searched Mapp's house without her permission. They looked in her room, her daughter's bedroom, the kitchen, the living room, and the
basement. In the basement they found a trunk. Inside the trunk were obscene pictures, photographs, and books. The police did not find the bomber,
but they arrested Mapp anyway. They said she broke the law by having obscene pictures.
The court found her guilty. Mapp then appealed her case to the Supreme Court of Ohio. She said that her rights were violated in the search. The
Supreme Court of Ohio said that the actions of the police were probably illegal. However, they also said that the evidence (the illegal pictures) the
police found could be used against Mapp, even though the search itself may have been illegal. Mapp then appealed her case to the Supreme Court of
the United States.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches by the government. In Mapp's case, the Supreme Court
of the United States had to decide when a search is legal and whether evidence from an illegal search could be used in a criminal case. In 1961 the
Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case of Mapp v. Ohio.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDE R
1.
2.
3.
Was Mapp right to not let the police enter her house? Why or why not?
Was there anything unreasonable about the police search of Mapp's house? Explain.
The Supreme Court of the United States has to protect both humans and society. In this case, whom do you think they should protect first?
Mapp? Society? Explain your answer.
7
Background Summary & Questions (••)
Suspicious that Dollree Mapp might be hiding a person suspected in a bombing, the police went to her home in Cleveland, Ohio. They knocked on
her door and demanded entrance. On the advice of her lawyer, Mapp refused to let them in because they did not have a warrant.
After observing her house for several hours and recruiting more officers to the scene, the police forced their way into Mapp's house. When Mapp
confronted them and demanded to see their search warrant, one of the officers held up a piece of paper. He claimed it was the search warrant. Mapp
grabbed the paper but an officer recovered it and handcuffed Mapp. The police dragged her upstairs and searched her bedroom. Finding nothing there
they went to other rooms in the house, including the basement.
As a result of their search of the basement, the police found a trunk containing pornographic books, pictures, and photographs. They arrested Mapp
and charged her with violating an Ohio law against the possession of obscene materials. At the trial the police officers did not show Mapp and her
attorney the alleged search warrant or explain why they refused to do so. Nevertheless, the court found Mapp guilty and sentenced her to jail.
Mapp and her attorney appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Mapp's attorney argued that because the police had no warrant, their search
of her basement was illegal. Because the search was illegal, he said, the evidence gained from the search was also illegal. Illegal evidence should not
have been allowed in Mapp's trial. In the ruling, the Court disagreed and said that because the evidence was taken peacefully from the trunk, rather
than by force from Mapp, it was legal. As a result, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction upheld.
Mapp then appealed her case to the Supreme Court of the United States. The case came down to this fundamental question: is evidence obtained
through a search that violates the Fourth Amendment admissible in state courts? The Fourth Amendment states "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 . . . and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The Fourth Amendment, however,
does not define when a search or seizure becomes "unreasonable". It also does not explain how evidence obtained from an "unreasonable" search
should be treated.
Mapp's case was not the first case to ask this kind of question. In several rulings over the hundred years leading up to Mapp the Supreme Court of the
United States had tried to answer questions about what, exactly, the Fourth Amendment means. They had agreed that neither federal nor state
officials could conduct "unreasonable searches". Furthermore, in Weeks v. United States, they had determined that federal officials could not use
evidence obtained in such searches at trial. However, they had not ruled on whether states could use illegally seized evidence to convict a criminal.
Some states, including Ohio, felt that they should be able to make their own determination regarding this issue. Doing so would be consistent with
historical tradition—states had always supervised the operation of their criminal justice systems.
In 1960 the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Mapp's case and determine whether the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, which
said the Fourth Amendment applies to the states, prohibited state officials from using evidence obtained in an unreasonable search. The decision
in Mapp v. Ohio was handed down in 1961.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDE R
1.
2.
3.
In your opinion, was Mapp right to not let the police enter her house? Explain your reasoning.
The Fourth Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. . .
." Pretend that you were a justice for the Supreme Court of Ohio. What, if anything, would you find unreasonable in the search of Mapp's
house? Explain.
The Supreme Court of the United States has to balance the protection of the rights of individuals against the protection of society. If the
police had not searched Mapp's house they would never have found the pornography. With this in mind, do you think the rights of Mapp or
society should have been more important? Explain.
8
Background Summary & Questions (•••)
Ms. Dollree Mapp and her daughter lived in Cleveland, Ohio. After receiving information that an individual wanted in connection with a recent
bombing was hiding in Mapp's house, the Cleveland police knocked on her door and demanded entrance. Mapp called her attorney and subsequently
refused to let the police in when they failed to produce a search warrant. After several hours of surveillance and the arrival of more officers, the
police again sought entrance to the house. Although Mapp did not allow them to enter, they gained access by forcibly opening at least one door. Once
the police were inside the house, Mapp confronted them and demanded to see their warrant. One of the officers held up a piece of paper claiming it
was a search warrant. Mapp grabbed the paper but an officer recovered it and handcuffed Mapp "because she had been belligerent". Dragging Mapp
upstairs, officers proceeded to search not only her room, but also her daughter's bedroom, the kitchen, dinette, living room, and basement.
In the course of the basement search, police found a trunk containing "lewd and lascivious" books, pictures, and photographs. As a result, Mapp was
arrested for violating Ohio's criminal law prohibiting the possession of obscene materials. At trial, the court found her guilty of the violation based on
the evidence presented by the police. When Mapp's attorney questioned the officers about the alleged warrant and asked for it to be produced, the
police were unable or unwilling to do so. Nonetheless, Mapp was found guilty and sentenced to 1 to 7 years in the Ohio Women's Reformatory.
Upon her conviction, Mapp appealed her case to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial
because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrantless search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained, the evidence was
illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that "a reasonable argument" could be made that
the conviction should be reversed "because the 'methods' employed to obtain the [evidence]. . . were such as to 'offend' a sense of justice." But the
Court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully
seized from an inanimate object (the trunk) rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her
conviction upheld.
Mapp appealed again to the Supreme Court of the United States. The case came down to this fundamental question: may evidence obtained through a
search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admissible in state criminal proceedings? The Fourth Amendment states "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 . . . and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The Fourth Amendment,
however, does not define when a search or seizure is "unreasonable" nor does it specify how evidence obtained from an "unreasonable" search should
be treated.
While never previously addressing the specific question presented by Mapp's case, the Supreme Court of the United States had made attempts to
determine what constitutes a reasonable search and what evidence can be used in court. It first wrestled with these issues in Boyd v. United
States (1886) when the Court declared that "any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man's own . . . private papers to be used as evidence to
convict him of a crime . . . is within the condemnation of . . . [the Fourth Amendment]. Later, in Weeks v. United States(1914), the Court ruled that
the Fourth Amendment "put the courts of the United States and federal officials . . . under limitations . . . and forever secure[d] the people, their
persons, houses, papers and effects against all unreasonable searches and seizures. . . ." By including only United States and federal officials in its
ruling, however, the Court still left open the question of whether evidence unlawfully seized could be used in a state criminal court proceeding.
In Wolf v. Colorado (1949) the Court for the first time discussed the effect of the Fourth Amendment on the states. It concluded that the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated, or made applicable to the states, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. However, the ruling
in Wolf also made clear that "in a prosecution in a State court for a State crime the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence
obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure." In other words, the exclusionary rule did not apply to the states.
Some states, including Ohio, felt that they should be able to make their own determination regarding the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence.
Nevertheless, in 1960 the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Mapp's case and reconsider the decision it had reached in Wolf by
determining whether the U.S. Constitution prohibited state officials from using evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The
decision in Mapp v. Ohio was handed down in 1961.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDE R
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In your opinion, was Dollree Mapp justified in denying the police entrance to her house? Explain your reasoning.
The Fourth Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated . . .
" If you were a justice for the Supreme Court of Ohio what, if anything, would you find unreasonable in the search of Mapp's house?
Explain.
Complete the chart below based on your reading.
Why didn't the Court's decision in Wolf protect Mapp?
The Supreme Court of the United States has to balance the protection of the rights of individuals against the protection of society. If the
police had not searched Mapp's house they would never have found the trunk containing "lewd and lascivious books". With this in mind, do
you think the rights of Mapp or society should have been given more weight? Why?
9
Key Excerpts from the Majority Opinion
The case was decided six to three. Justice Clark delivered the opinion of the Court.
Since the Fourth Amendment's right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth, it
is enforceable against them by the same sanction of exclusion as is used against the Federal Government. Were it otherwise . . . the freedom from
state invasions of privacy would be so ephemeral and so neatly severed from its conceptual nexus with the freedom from all brutish means of
coercing evidence as not to merit this Court's high regard as a freedom "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." . . . in extending the substantive
protections of due process to all constitutionally unreasonable searches—state or federal—it was logically and constitutionally necessary that the
exclusion doctrine—an essential part of the right to privacy-be also insisted upon as an essential ingredient of the right. . . .
. . . our holding that the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments is not only the logical dictate of prior
cases, but it also makes very good sense. There is no war between the Constitution and common sense.
Federal-state cooperation in the solution of crime under constitutional standards will be promoted, if only by recognition of their now mutual
obligation to respect the same fundamental criteria in their approaches.
There are those who say, as did Justice (then Judge) Cardozo, that under our constitutional exclusionary doctrine "[t]he criminal is to go free because
the constable has blundered." . . . In some cases this will undoubtedly be the result. But, as was said in Elkins, "there is another consideration-the
imperative of judicial integrity." . . . The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more
quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.
. . . Our decision, founded on reason and truth, gives to the individual no more than that which the Constitution guarantees him, to the police officer
no less than that to which honest law enforcement is entitled, and, to the courts, that judicial integrity so necessary in the true administration of
justice.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDE R
1.
In the majority opinion, the justices refer to the "exclusionary rule." Under this rule, what has to be excluded from trial? Why?
2.
The majority identifies several reasons why evidence gained in an illegal search cannot legally be used against a defendant during trial.
Why do they say that such a rule is constitutionally necessary?
3.
The majority insists that to allow illegally seized evidence during trial would destroy the government. Explain.
4.
What foundation of U.S. government is the Court referring to when it states, "Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its . . .
disregard of the character of it own existence"?
5.
Do you agree with the Court's statement "there is no war between the Constitution and common sense"? Explain.
10
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Summary of the Decision
In a 5-3 decision,* the Court ruled in favor of Mapp. The majority opinion, written by Justice Clark, applied the exclusionary rule to the states. That
rule requires courts to exclude from criminal trials evidence that was obtained in violation of the constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches and
arrests. Justice Harlan wrote a dissenting opinion. The majority opinion was based on several earlier decisions that had begun the process of
applying federal constitutional protections to state criminal justice systems.
In one of those earlier decisions, the Supreme Court had ruled that the states must be bound by the Fourth Amendment because its guarantees were
part of the “due process of law” required of states by the Fourteenth Amendment. That decision essentially required the Fourth Amendment’s
provisions, which previously had only applied to the federal government, to apply to the states as well. The justices ruled that since the guarantees of
the Fourth Amendment applied to both the federal and state governments, they should be enforced the same way in both federal and state
courts. Evidence obtained unlawfully is not admissible in federal court, so it should not be admissible in state courts either.
The justices reasoned that requiring states to obey to the exclusionary rule created “no war between the Constitution and common sense.” They
responded to the argument that the exclusionary rule would make it possible for criminals to go free due to police error by pointing out that “the
criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free.” The justices stated that the exclusionary rule was necessary to make state
authorities abide by the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, for “nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its
own laws.” Thus, the Court decided that “the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.”
In his dissent, Justice Harlan argued that the majority had confronted the wrong issue in its decision. Because Ms. Mapp was convicted under an
Ohio statute criminalizing the possession of obscene material, Justice Harlan believed that the “new and pivotal issue” was whether this statute “is
consistent with the rights of free thought and expression assured against state action by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Thus, he concluded that the
majority had ignored the principles of judicial restraint and stare decisis, and had “’reached out’” to consider the exclusionary rule issue. According
to Justice Harlan, this was a First Amendment case and not an appropriate case for extending the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule to the
states. He also concluded that it was wrong to impose the exclusionary rule, designed for the federal criminal process, on the states which, in his
view, bore quite different responsibilities in this area of law.
*Justice Stewart wrote a separate opinion that did not address the issue of the exclusionary rule. He voted to reverse Mapp’s conviction solely on
First Amendment grounds.
11
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Reading Resources
From http://www.streetlaw.org/
12
Background Summary & Questions (•)
On June 3, 1961, someone broke into the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida. Some beer and wine were stolen. The cigarette machine
and jukebox were smashed and money was missing. A witness said he saw Clarence Earl Gideon in the poolroom early that morning. The police
found Gideon and arrested him. He had a lot of change in his pockets and was carrying a bottle of wine. They charged him with breaking and
entering.
Gideon was poor. He could not afford a lawyer. At the trial, he asked the judge to appoint a lawyer for him. The judge said no. Gideon argued that
the Sixth Amendment says he is entitled to a lawyer. The judge told Gideon that the state doesn't have to pay for a poor person's legal defense. This
meant that Gideon had to defend himself. He tried hard but didn't do a very good job. For example, he called some witnesses who helped the other
side more than they helped him.
Gideon was found guilty and was sentenced to five years in jail. He thought that this was unfair because he had not been given a lawyer. He asked the
Supreme Court of Florida to release him but the court said no. Gideon kept trying. He wrote a petition and sent it to the Supreme Court of the United
States. When it read what Gideon had written, the Court agreed to hear his case.
In an earlier case, Betts v. Brady, the Court had ruled that in state criminal trials, the state must supply a poor defendant with a lawyer only if there
are "special circumstances". These special circumstances could be that the case is very complicated or that the person is illiterate or not competent to
represent himself. Gideon did not claim any of these special circumstances. The Court needed to decide if it should get rid of this "special
circumstances" rule. If it did so, then poor people like Gideon would be given a lawyer if charged with a felony in a state court.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDE R
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What was Gideon accused of doing?
At the trial, what did Gideon ask the judge to give him? Do you think this would have helped him? Why or why not?
What did Gideon send to the Supreme Court of the United States?
Why did the Supreme Court of the United States agree to hear Gideon's case?
Do you think that poor people who are accused of crimes should be given a free lawyer? Why or why not?
13
Background Summary & Questions (••)
Between midnight and 8:00 a.m. on June 3, 1961, a burglary occurred at the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida. In the course of the
burglary, a window was smashed and the cigarette machine and jukebox were broken into. A witness claimed to have seen Clarence Earl Gideon in
the poolroom early that morning. When Gideon was found nearby with a pint of wine and some change in his pockets, the police arrested him. They
charged him with breaking and entering.
Gideon was a semi-literate drifter who could not afford a lawyer. When he appeared at the Florida Circuit Court for trial, he asked the judge to
appoint one for him. Gideon argued that the Court should do so because the Sixth Amendment says that everyone is entitled to a lawyer. The judge
denied his request, claiming that the state doesn't have to provide a poor person with a lawyer unless "special circumstances" exist. Gideon was left to
represent himself. He had been arrested many times before, so he understood some of the legal procedures. However, he did a poor job of defending
himself. For instance, his choice of witnesses was unusual—he called the police officers who arrested him to testify on his behalf. He lacked skill in
questioning witnesses, which made it difficult for him to present his case.
Gideon was found guilty of breaking and entering and petty larceny, which is a felony in Florida. He was sentenced to five years in a Florida state
prison. While there, he began studying law in the prison library. Gideon's study of the law reaffirmed his belief that the Circuit Court's refusal to
appoint counsel for him constituted a denial of his rights. With that in mind, he filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Florida for habeas corpus,
which is an order to free him because he had been illegally imprisoned. That petition was rejected, but Gideon persevered. From his prison cell, he
handwrote a petition asking the Supreme Court of United States to hear his case. The Court allowed him to file it in forma pauperis, or free of charge.
After reading the petition, they agreed to hear his case.
When the Supreme Court of the United States agrees to hear a case, it does so because the case "presents questions whose resolution will have an
immediate importance far beyond the particular facts and parties involved" (Lewis 25). The justices were interested not simply with the merits of
Gideon's case, but with the larger issue of whether poor people charged with noncapital offenses are entitled to a free lawyer in state criminal trials.
In a 1942 case, Betts v. Brady, the Court had ruled that in state criminal trials, the state must supply an indigent defendant with a lawyer only if
special circumstances exist. These special circumstances include complex charges, incompetence, and illiteracy on the part of the defendant. Gideon
did not claim any of these special circumstances, so for the Court to rule in his behalf, they would need to overturn Betts v. Brady. The Supreme
Court of the United States asked both sides to present arguments on the issue of "Should Betts v. Brady be overturned"?

Lewis, Anthony. Gideon's Trumpet. New York: Random House, 1964.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDE R
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What were the charges against Gideon?
Did Gideon seem to be capable of defending himself? Could a lawyer have helped him? If so, how?
What was unique about the petition that Gideon filed with the Supreme Court of the United States?
Why did the Supreme Court of the United States agree to hear Gideon's case?
In Betts v. Brady, the Court had said that in state courts, poor people are entitled to an attorney free of charge only if "special
circumstances" existed. Gideon did not claim any "special circumstances." Do you think that states should be required to provide him and
others like him with a lawyer? Why or why not?
14
Background Summary & Questions (•••)
Between midnight and 8:00 am on June 3, 1961, a burglary occurred at the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida. Someone broke a
window, smashed the cigarette machine and jukebox, and stole money from both. Later that day, a witness reported that he had seen Clarence Earl
Gideon in the poolroom at around 5:30 that morning. When Gideon was found nearby with a pint of wine and some change in his pockets, the police
arrested him and charged him with breaking and entering.
Gideon was a semi-literate drifter who could not afford a lawyer, so at the trial, he asked the judge to appoint one for him. Gideon argued that the
Court should do so because the Sixth Amendment says that everyone is entitled to a lawyer. The judge denied his request, ruling that the state did not
have to pay a poor person's legal defense unless he was charged with a capital crime or "special circumstances" existed. Gideon was left to represent
himself.
As might be expected, Gideon did a poor job of defending himself. He had done no preparation work before his trial; his choice of witnesses was
unusual—for instance, he called police officers who arrested him to testify on his behalf, not having any reason to believe they would help his case.
He had no experience in cross-examining a witness in order to impeach that person's credibility, so his line of questioning was not as productive as a
lawyer's would have been.
Gideon was found guilty of breaking and entering and petty larceny, which was a felony. He was sentenced to five years in a Florida state prison,
partly because of his prior criminal record. While in prison, he began studying law in the prison library, believing that his Sixth Amendment rights
had been violated when he was denied a defense lawyer paid for by the State. His study of the law led him to file a petition for habeas corpus with
the Supreme Court of Florida, which asked that he be freed because he had been imprisoned illegally. After the Supreme Court of Florida rejected his
petition, he handwrote a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, asking that it hear his case. The Court allowed him
to file it in forma pauperis, which meant that the Court would waive the fees generally associated with such a petition. Generally, the Court dismisses
most of these petitions; Gideon's was among those that it did not dismiss.
In state criminal trials, are indigent defendants entitled to a lawyer, even in noncapital cases? That was the question the Court agreed to decide when
they accepted Gideon's petition. It was not merely a question of whether Gideon had been treated fairly; the Court's ruling would affect many other
people who faced similar circumstances. In a previous decision, Betts v. Brady (1942), the Court had held that in state criminal trials, an indigent
defendant must be supplied with an attorney only in special circumstances, which included complex charges and incompetence or illiteracy on the
part of the defendant. Since Gideon had not claimed special circumstances, the Court would have to overturn Betts in order to rule in Gideon's favor.
(Florida's state law provided indigent defendants with lawyers only in capital cases; many other states had laws providing lawyers to most or all
indigent defendants.)
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDE R
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
What were the accusations against Clarence Gideon?
Did Gideon seem capable of defending himself? How could a lawyer have helped him?
What was unusual about the petition Gideon filed with the Supreme Court of the United States?
Why did the Supreme Court of the United States agree to hear Gideon's case?
What is the language in the Bill of Rights that is relevant to this case? Would you interpret those words to mean a defendant cannot be
denied an attorney if he can afford one, or that a defendant must be provided an attorney even if he cannot afford one? Why?
Do you think the states should be required to provide defendants like Gideon with a lawyer? Why or why not?
15
Key Excerpts from the Majority Opinion
The decision was unanimous. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court.
Since 1942, when Betts v. Brady . . . was decided by a divided Court, the problem of a defendant's federal constitutional right to counsel has been a
continuing [sic] source of controversy and litigation in both state and federal courts. To give this problem another review here, we
granted certiorari… Since Gideon was proceeding in forma pauperis, we appointed counsel to represent him and requested both sides to discuss in
their briefs and oral arguments the following: "Should this Court's holding in Betts v. Brady be reconsidered?…
The Sixth Amendment provides, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
defence." We have construed this to mean that in federal courts counsel must be provided for defendants unable to employ counsel unless the right is
competently and intelligently waived. Betts argued that this right is extended to indigent defendants in state courts by the Fourteenth Amendment. In
response, the Court stated that, while the Sixth Amendment laid down "no rule for the conduct of the States, the question recurs whether the
constraint laid by the Amendment upon the national courts expresses a rule so fundamental and essential to a fair trial, and so, to due process of law,
that it is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment." . . . In order to decide whether the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel
is of this fundamental nature, the Court in Betts set out and considered "[r]elevant data on the subject….
On the basis of this historical data the Court concluded that "appointment of counsel is not a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial."….
Explicitly recognized to be of this "fundamental nature" and therefore made immune from state invasion by the Fourteenth . . . are the First
Amendment's freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, association, and petition for redress of grievances . . . the Fifth Amendment's command
that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and
seizures, and the Eighth's ban on cruel and unusual punishment….
We accept Betts v. Brady's assumption, based as it was on our prior cases, that a provision of the Bill of Rights, which is "fundamental and essential
to a fair trial" is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. We think the Court in Betts was wrong, however, in concluding that
the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is not one of these fundamental rights. Ten years before Betts v.Brady, this Court . . . had . . . declared
that "the right to the aid of counsel is of this fundamental character." Powell v. Alabama, . . . (1932). While the Court at the close of
its Powell opinion did . . . limit its holding to the particular facts and circumstances of that case, its conclusions about the fundamental nature of the
right to counsel are unmistakable.
. . . Not only these precedents but also reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled
into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems to us to be an obvious truth.
Governments, both state and federal . . . spend vast sums of money to . . . try defendants accused of crime . . . Similarly, there are few defendants
charged with crime, few indeed, who fail to hire the best lawyers they can get to prepare and present their defenses. That government hires lawyers to
prosecute and defendants who have the money hire lawyers to defend are the strongest indications of the widespread belief that lawyers in criminal
courts are necessities, not luxuries. The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some
countries, but it is in ours. From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and
substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal
cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him. A defendant's need for a lawyer is
nowhere better stated than in the moving words of Mr. Justice Sutherland in Powell v. Alabama:
"The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent
and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining
for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put
on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He
lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he has a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of
counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does
not know how to establish his innocence." . . .
The Court in Betts v. Brady departed from the sound wisdom upon which the Court's holding in Powell v. Alabama rested. Florida, supported by two
other States, has asked that Betts v. Brady be left intact. Twenty-two states, as friends of the Court, argue that Betts was "an anachronism when
handed down" and that it should now be overruled. We agree.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Supreme Court of Florida for further action not inconsistent with this opinion.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDE R
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Why did the Supreme Court of the United States agree to hear Gideon's case?
Prior to this case, which rights were considered to be "fundamental and essential to a fair trial" and thus "made obligatory on the States by
the Fourteenth Amendment"? Why do you think the right to a lawyer was not included in this list?
What did the Court say about the right to counsel in the Powell case?
When Justice Black says, "Governments, both state and federal . . . spend vast sums of money to . . . try defendants accused of crime. . . .
Similarly, there are few defendants charged with crime, few indeed, who fail to hire the best lawyers they can get to prepare and present
their defenses", what point is he trying to make? Provide an example of a recent case in which "vast sums of money" were spent. Do you
think it made a difference in the outcome of the case? Explain.
Many of the decisions the Supreme Court of the United States makes are based on the principle of stare decisis, or let the previous decision
stand. In the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, the Court clearly broke with a precedent it had established. Was it justified in doing so?
16
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Summary of the Decision
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gideon in a unanimous decision. Justice Black wrote the opinion for the Court, which ruled that the right to the
assistance of counsel in felony criminal cases is a fundamental right, and thus must be required in state courts as well as federal courts. Justices
Harlan and Clark wrote concurring opinions.
The Court rejected part of their prior decision in Betts v. Brady (1942). In that case, the justices had ruled that indigent defendants need only be
provided with a lawyer under special circumstances. The decision accepted the portion of the Court’s ruling in Betts which stated that the parts of the
Bill of Rights that are “fundamental and essential to a fair trial” are made binding on the states by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. They specifically noted, however, that “the Court in Betts was wrong … in concluding that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of
counsel was not one of these fundamental rights.”
The Court said that the best proof that the right to counsel was fundamental and essential was that “[g]overnments … spend vast sums of money to …
try defendants accused of crime … Similarly, there are few defendants charged with crime[s]… who fail to hire the best lawyers they can get to
prepare and present their defenses.” This indicated that both the government and defendants considered the aid of a lawyer in criminal cases
absolutely necessary. In addition, the opinion noted that the Constitution places great emphasis on procedural safeguards designed to guarantee that
defendants get fair trials. According to the opinion, “this noble idea cannot be realized if the poor man charged with a crime has to face his accusers
without a lawyer to assist him.” The Court concluded that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a right to counsel was fundamental and essential to a
fair trial in both state and federal criminal justice systems. In all felony criminal cases, states must provide lawyers for indigent defendants.
In his concurring opinion in Gideon, Justice Clark agreed that Betts v. Brady should be overturned, and that the Sixth Amendment must be
interpreted to require states to provide counsel for criminal defendants. Under Betts, states were only required to provide lawyers for criminal
defendants under special circumstances, which included capital cases. Justice Clark noted that the Constitution does not make any distinction
between capital and noncapital cases, but requires procedural protections for defendants meeting the standard of due process of law in both
situations. The procedural protections required therefore should not be different depending on whether the defendant was charged with a capital
crime or a noncapital crime, according to Justice Clark.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Harlan also agreed that the right to counsel in criminal cases is a fundamental and essential right. He explained that
Betts v. Brady mandated that there must be special circumstances present, such as complex charges, incompetence or illiteracy of defendants, or the
possibility of the death penalty as a sentence, to require states to provide criminal defendants with counsel. He then argued that “the mere existence
of a serious criminal charge constituted in itself special circumstances.” Since, according to Justice Harlan, all felony criminal trials involved special
circumstances, states should be required to provide lawyers for indigent defendants.
17
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Reading Resources
From http://www.streetlaw.org/
18
Background Summary & Questions (•)
Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant who lived in Arizona in 1963. A woman accused Miranda of committing a crime against her. The
police arrested Miranda and asked him questions about the crime for two hours.
In the United States, people who are accused of crimes have certain rights granted by the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution says
that they have the right to be silent. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution says that they have the right to have a lawyer to help defend
themselves.
The police did not tell Miranda that he had these rights when they arrested him. After the police were finished asking Miranda questions, he signed
a confession. The police used his confession in the trial and Miranda was convicted of the crime. The judge decided he should serve 20 to 30 years in
prison for each crime.
Miranda appealed his case to the highest court in Arizona, called the Supreme Court of Arizona. His attorney argued that his confession should not
have been used as evidence in his trial because Miranda had not been informed of his rights, and no attorney had been present to assist him during
his interrogation. The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld Miranda's conviction.
The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Miranda's case. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona was handed down in 1966.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDE R
1.
2.
3.
4.
What rights of the accused does the Fifth Amendment protect? The Sixth Amendment?
If the police had informed Ernesto Miranda of these rights, do you think he would have done anything differently?
This case involves balancing the rights of the accused against society's need to to fight crime. Could informing accused persons of their
rights hurt the ability of the police to fight crime? Why or why not?
Do you think that informing people of their rights when they are accused of crimes helps protect innocent citizens? Why or why not?
19
Background Summary & Questions (••)
Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona in 1963. A Phoenix woman was kidnapped and raped. She identified
Miranda in a police lineup. Miranda was arrested, charged with the crimes, and questioned by the police for two hours. The police officers
questioning him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an
attorney. The Fifth Amendment states that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. . . ." The Sixth
Amendment states that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
As a result of the questioning, Miranda confessed in writing to the crimes. His statement also said that he was aware of his right against selfincrimination. During his trial, the prosecution used his confession to obtain a conviction, and he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison on each
count.
Miranda appealed his case to the Arizona Supreme Court. His attorney argued that his confession should have been excluded from trial because he
had not been informed of his rights, nor had an attorney been present during his interrogation. The police officers involved admitted that they had not
given Miranda any explanation of his rights. The state argued, however, that because Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must
have been aware of his rights. The Arizona Supreme Court denied Miranda's appeal and upheld his conviction.
The case comes down to this fundamental question: What is the role of the police in protecting the rights of the accused, as guaranteed by the Fifth
and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution? The Supreme Court of the United States had made previous attempts to deal with these issues. The Court
had already ruled that the Fifth Amendment protected individuals from being forced to confess. They had also held that persons accused of serious
crimes have a fundamental right to an attorney, even if they cannot afford one. In 1964, after Miranda's arrest, but before the Court heard his case, the
Court ruled that when an accused person is denied the right to consult with his attorney, his or her Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of a
lawyer is violated. But do the police have an obligation to ensure that the accused person is aware of these rights before they question that person?
In 1965, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Miranda's case. At the same time, the Court agreed to hear three similar cases. The
Court combined all the cases into one case. Since Miranda was listed first among the four cases considered by the Court, the decision came to be
known by that name. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona was handed down in 1966.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDE R
1.
2.
3.
4.
What rights of the accused does the Fifth Amendment protect? The Sixth Amendment?
If the police had informed Ernesto Miranda of these rights, do you think he might have done anything differently?
Individual rights must be balanced against the values of society at large. For instance, the right to free speech must be balanced against our
desire for an orderly society. This is why demonstrations, while protected by the First Amendment, can have certain restrictions placed on
them. In Miranda, what values or goals of society must be balanced against the right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel?
You are probably learning about the rights of the accused in a government or history class. Some would argue that it is the individual's
responsibility to know what his or her rights are under the Constitution, and the government can assume that accused persons know their
rights without informing them after they are arrested. Do you think the government should have to inform each individual who is arrested of
his or her rights? Why or why not?
20
Background Summary & Questions (•••)
Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona, in 1963. Miranda was arrested after a crime victim identified him in a
police lineup. Miranda was charged with rape and kidnapping and interrogated for two hours while in police custody. The police officers questioning
him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney.
As a result of the interrogation, he confessed in writing to the crimes with which he was charged. His written statement also included an
acknowledgement that he was aware of his right against self-incrimination. During his trial, the prosecution used his confession to obtain a
conviction, and he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison on each count.
Miranda's defense attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. His attorney argued that his confession should have been excluded from trial
because he had not been informed of his rights, nor had an attorney been present during his interrogation. The police officers involved admitted that
they had not given Miranda any explanation of his rights. They argued, however, that because Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he
must have been aware of his rights. The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld his conviction.
The case comes down to this fundamental question: What is the role of the police in protecting the rights of the accused, as guaranteed by the Fifth
and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution? The Fifth Amendment states that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself. . . ." The Sixth Amendment states that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the assistance of
counsel for his defense." The Supreme Court of the United States had made previous attempts to deal with these issues.
In Brown v. Mississippi (1936), the Court had ruled that the Fifth Amendment protected individuals from being forced to confess.
In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Court held that persons accused of felonies have a fundamental right to an attorney, even if they cannot afford
one. In 1964, after Miranda's arrest, the Court ruled that when an accused person is denied the right to consult with his attorney, his or her Sixth
Amendment right to counsel is violated (Escobedo v. Illinois). But do the police have an obligation to ensure that the accused person is aware of
these rights? If so, at what point in the criminal justice process must the defendant learn of these rights?
In 1965, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Miranda's case. At the same time, the Court agreed to hear three similar
cases, Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart. The Court combined the four cases. Since Miranda was listed first
among the four cases considered by the Court, the decision came to be known by that name. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona was handed down in
1966.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDE R
1.
2.
3.
4.
What rights of the accused does the Fifth Amendment protect? The Sixth Amendment?
How might knowledge of these rights have changed what Ernesto Miranda did when the police questioned him?
Individual rights must be balanced against the values of society at large. For instance, the right to free speech must be balanced against our
desire for an orderly society. This is why demonstrations, while protected by the First Amendment, can have certain restrictions placed on
them. In Miranda, what values must be balanced against the right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel?
You are probably learning about the rights of the accused in a government or history class. Some would argue that it is the individual's
responsibility to know what his or her rights are under the Constitution, and the government can assume that accused persons know their
rights without informing them. Do you think the government should have to inform each individual who is arrested of his or her rights?
Why or why not?
21
Key Excerpts from the Majority Opinion
The case was decided 5 to 4. Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the Court.
The cases before us raise questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence: the restraints society must observe
consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime. More specifically, we deal with the admissibility of statements obtained
from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation and the necessity for procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his
privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself. . . .
Our holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow but briefly stated it is this: the prosecution may not use statements,
whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards
effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers
after a person has been taken into custody. . . . As for the procedural safeguards to be employed . . . the following measures are required. Prior to any
questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him,
and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the
waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to
consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not
wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements
on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter
consents to be questioned. . . .
The Fifth Amendment privilege is so fundamental to our system of constitutional rule and the expedient of giving an adequate warning as to the
availability of the privilege so simple, we will not pause to inquire in individual cases whether the defendant was aware of his rights without a
warning being given. . . .The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used
against the individual in court. This warning is needed in order to make him aware not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences of forgoing
it. . . . [T]his warning may serve to make the individual more acutely aware that he is faced with a phase of the adversary system-that he is not in the
presence of persons acting solely in his interests. . . .
. . . [W]e hold that an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer
with him during interrogation under the system for protecting the privilege we delineate today. . . . No amount of circumstantial evidence that the
person may have been aware of this right will suffice to stand in its stead: Only through such a warning is there ascertainable assurance that the
accused was aware of this right.
If an individual indicates that he wishes the assistance of counsel before any interrogation occurs, the authorities cannot rationally ignore or deny his
request on the basis that the individual does not have or cannot afford a retained attorney. . . . The privilege against self-incrimination secured by the
Constitution applies to all individuals. The need for counsel in order to protect the privilege exists for the indigent as well as the affluent. . . .
The principles announced today deal with the protection which must be given to the privilege against self-incrimination when the individual is first
subjected to police interrogation while in custody at the station or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. It is at this
point that our adversary system of criminal proceedings commences, distinguishing itself at the outset from the inquisitorial system recognized in
some countries. Under the system of warnings we delineate today or under any other system which may be devised and found effective, the
safeguards to be erected about the privilege must come into play at this point. . . . . . . [W]e hold that when an individual is taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is
jeopardized. . . .
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDE R
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
According to Chief Justice Warren, what fundamental questions does this case raise about the American justice system?
What does he mean by "custodial interrogation"?
Why does he say that we should not rely on asking individuals whether they are aware of their rights without a warning being given?
What does Chief Justice Warren say the police have to do to ensure due process?
Do you agree that when a person is taken into custody and subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized
unless explicit warnings are given about rights? Why or why not? Should there be any exceptions to this rule? Explain.
22
Key Excerpts from the Dissenting Opinion
The case was decided 5 to 4. Mr. Justice Harlan, with Justices Stewart and White joining, wrote the main dissenting opinion.
I believe the decision of the Court represents poor constitutional law and entails harmful consequences for the country at large. How serious these
consequences may prove to be only time can tell. But the basic flaws in the Court's justification seem to me readily apparent now once all sides of the
problem are considered. . . .The new rules are not designed to guard against police brutality or other unmistakably banned forms of coercion. Those
who use third-degree tactics and deny them in court are equally able and destined to lie as skillfully about warnings and waivers. Rather, the thrust of
the new rules is to negate all pressures, to reinforce the nervous or ignorant suspect, and ultimately to discourage any confession at all. The aim in
short is toward "voluntariness" in a utopian sense, or to view it from a different angle, voluntariness with a vengeance. . . .
Without at all subscribing to the generally black picture of police conduct painted by the Court, I think it must be frankly recognized at the outset that
police questioning allowable under due process precedents may inherently entail some pressure on the suspect and may seek advantage in his
ignorance or weaknesses. . . .
The Court's new rules aim to offset . . . minor pressures and disadvantages intrinsic to any kind of police interrogation. The rules do not serve due
process interests in preventing blatant coercion since . . . they do nothing to contain the policeman who is prepared to lie from the start. The rules
work for reliability in confessions almost only in the . . . sense that they can prevent some from being given at all. In short, the benefit of this new
regime is simply to lessen or wipe out the inherent compulsion and inequalities to which the Court devotes some nine pages of description.
What the Court largely ignores is that its rules impair, if they will not eventually serve wholly to frustrate, an instrument of law enforcement that has
long and quite reasonably been thought worth the price paid for it. There can be little doubt that the Court's new code would markedly decrease the
number of confessions. To warn the suspect that he may remain silent and remind him that his confession may be used in court are minor
obstructions. To require also an express waiver by the suspect and an end to questioning whenever he demurs must heavily handicap questioning.
And to suggest or provide counsel for the suspect simply invites the end of the interrogation.
How much harm this decision will inflict on law enforcement cannot fairly be predicted with accuracy. . . . We do know that some crimes cannot be
solved without confessions, that ample expert testimony attests to their importance in crime control, and that the Court is taking a real risk with
society's welfare in imposing its new regime on the country. The social costs of crime are too great to call the new rules anything but a hazardous
experimentation. . . .
Though at first denying his guilt, within a short time Miranda gave a detailed oral confession and then wrote out in his own hand and signed a brief
statement admitting and describing the crime. All this was accomplished in two hours or less without any force, threats or promises and . . . without
any effective warnings at all.
Miranda's oral and written confessions are now held inadmissible under the Court's new rules. One is entitled to feel astonished that the Constitution
can be read to produce this result. These confessions were obtained during brief, daytime questioning conducted by two officers and unmarked by
any of the traditional indicia of coercion. They assured a conviction for a brutal and unsettling crime, for which the police had and quite possibly
could obtain little evidence other than the victim's identifications, evidence which is frequently unreliable. There was, in sum, a legitimate purpose,
no perceptible unfairness, and certainly little risk of injustice in the interrogation. Yet the resulting confessions, and the responsible course of police
practice they represent, are to be sacrificed to the Court's own finespun conception of fairness which I seriously doubt is shared by many thinking
citizens in this country. . . .
Nothing in the letter or the spirit of the Constitution or in the precedents squares with the heavy-handed and one-sided action that is so precipitously
taken by the Court in the name of fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities. The foray which the Court makes today brings to mind the wise and
farsighted words of Mr. Justice Jackson in Douglas v. Jeannette: "This Court is forever adding new stories to the temples of constitutional law, and
the temples have a way of collapsing when one story too many is added."
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDE R
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Why does Justice Harlan say the Miranda warnings are not designed to guard against "police brutality or other unmistakably banned forms
of coercion"?
According to Justice Harlan, how will the Court's new rules impair "an instrument of law enforcement that has long and quite reasonably
been thought worth the price paid for it"?
Why does Harlan say the Court's new rules are "hazardous experimentation"?
This case involves the balancing of individual rights against the desire of society to fight crime. How do Justice Harlan and Chief Justice
Warren disagree in how they believe these rights and values should be balanced?
Has reading the excerpts from the majority and dissenting opinions changed your opinion about this case? How?
23
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Summary of the Decision
In a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, concluded that
defendants arrested under state law must be informed of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to representation by an attorney
before being interrogated when in police custody. Justices Clark, Harlan, Stewart and White dissented.
In their majority opinion, the justices explained that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is fundamental to our system of justice, and
is “one of our Nation’s most cherished principles.” This guarantee requires that only statements freely made by a defendant may be used in
court. The justices described some of the techniques used by police officers in interrogations. They observed that “the modern practice of in-custody
interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented,” and cited the advantage police officers hold in custodial interrogations
(interrogations that take place while the subject is in police custody). Because of these advantages, they concluded that “the very fact of custodial
interrogation exacts a heavy toll on individual liberty, and trades on the weakness of individuals.”
The Court ruled that in order to reconcile the necessary practice of custodial interrogations with the guarantees of the Fifth Amendment, police must
ensure that defendants are aware of their rights before they are interrogated in custody. Because the right against self-incrimination is so important to
our system of justice, a case by case determination made by police officers of whether each defendant understands his or her rights is not
sufficient. Before interrogating defendants in police custody, they must be warned 1) that they have the right to remain silent 2) that anything they
say may be used against them in court, 3) that they have the right to an attorney, either retained by them or appointed by the court, and 4) that they
may waive these rights, but they retain the right to ask for an attorney any time during the interrogation, at which point the interrogation can only
continue in the presence of a lawyer.
The Supreme Court reasoned that because the right against self-incrimination is so fundamental, and because it is so simple to inform defendants of
their rights, any statements made by defendants during a custodial interrogation in which the defendant has not been read his “Miranda rights” are
inadmissible in both state and federal courts.
Justice Harlan wrote the main dissent. He argued that the newly created rules did not protect against police brutality, coercion or other abuses of
authority during custodial interrogations because officers willing to use such illegal tactics and deny their use in court were “equally able and
destined to lie as skillfully about warnings and waivers.” Instead, he predicted that the new requirements would impair and substantially frustrate
police officers in the use of techniques that had long been considered appropriate and even necessary, thus reducing the number of confessions police
would be able to obtain. He concluded that the harmful effects of crime on society were “too great to call the new rules anything but a hazardous
experimentation.”
24
Vocabulary
Graphic Organizers
25
26
27
Bridging Activities
From http://www.streetlaw.org/
28
Mapp v. Ohio:
Search Warrants: What Are They and How Do They Work?
DIRECTIONS
A search warrant is an order signed by a judge that allows the police to look in a specific place for a specific item at a specific time. In order to get a
search warrant, the police must persuade a judge that they have "probable cause" to believe they will find evidence of criminal activity in the place
to be searched. Police officers do this through an affidavit, which is an oral or written statement made under oath. In the affidavit, they identify the
place to be searched, the reason it is to be searched, and the items that are to be seized. If a judge believes that a police officer has demonstrated
"probable cause" that he will find the items, the judge will issue the search warrant. If the judge does not believe that "probable cause" exists he
will not issue the warrant.
In the activity that follows, you will walk through the process of obtaining a search warrant.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Your teacher will divide the class into groups of two and will give each group a scenario to read. (Some groups will have the same
scenario.) Your teacher will also assign one person in each group to one of the following roles:
 Police Officer
 Witness
The police officer and witnesses read the scenario and will answer the questions that follow the scenario.
The police officer will interview the witness, who will describe any "suspicious behavior" she has seen to the police officer. (In some
scenarios, the witness will play more than one role). The information in the scenario provided will serve as a basis for the witnesses, but she
may embellish the details as appropriate. If the situation merits a request for a search warrant, the police officer will complete an
"Application and Affidavit for a Search Warrant." If the situation does not merit a request for a search warrant, members of the scenario
should discuss why.
Each group of two will now form a group of four with another set of partners. The "witnesses" will trade places and will now serve as
judges. If the lawyer has an affidavit to submit, she will give it to the judge. If not, she will explain to the judge why she did not submit one.
The judge will review the "Application and Affidavit for a Search Warrant" and determine whether or not there is probable cause for a
warrant. The judge will complete the first page of the search warrant form explaining why or what additional information he would need in
order to grant the request.
Each group will present the outcome of its scenario to the class and will explain what transpired and why.
FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS
1.
In which scenarios did the police officers request a search warrant?
2.
In which scenarios did the judge issue a search warrant?
3.
Why were warrants issued in some cases but not in others?
4.
In situations where warrants were not issued, how did the police obtain evidence?
29
SCENARIO 1
Residents in Las Vegas, Nevada are complaining about one of their neighbors. They believe that the adults living in the corner house of Caroline
Way are involved in something illegal. The neighbors notice cars coming and going at all hours. Most of the time single men drive the cars. These
men spend very little time in the house before leaving, often carrying a package with them when they leave. Additionally, the children living in the
house appear sad and malnourished. They are frequently playing in the back yard during school hours and walk around the neighborhood wearing
little more than their underwear. When interacting with each other, the children use very mature language, often peppering their comments with
profanity. At school, the children's teachers notice that they have trouble sitting still and often complain about not feeling well. Witnesses to this
suspicious activity include the next-door neighbor and the nurse at the children's elementary school.
Questions to Consider
1.
2.
What illegal activity might the parents be involved in? List two possibilities below.
List three pieces of possible evidence to support each of the above predictions.
SCENARIO 2
In a quiet neighborhood outside of Chicago, Illinois a middle-class family has begun to spend money as if they were rich. The wife, a stay-at-home
mother of two, traded her Ford station wagon for a BMW SUV. She purchased three platinum and diamond rings for her right hand and a huge
emerald and diamond ring for her engagement finger. Furthermore, as the weather has gotten colder, a fur has replaced her wool coat. The father,
a manager at the local Bank of America branch, recently bought a snowmobile and a mint condition 1957 Corvette. At school, the kids have been
bragging to their friends about skiing in Switzerland. Witnesses to this suspicious activity include the next-door neighbor and the mother of the
children's best friend.
Questions to Consider
1.
2.
What illegal activity might the parents be involved in? List two possibilities below.
List three pieces of possible evidence to support each of the above predictions.
SCENARIO 3
A wealthy businessman in San Francisco, California has a family with three beautiful children. He and his wife are well known for their philanthropic
contributions to society. Recently, an article in a San Francisco newspaper featured the family and mentioned that they were worth about 500
million dollars. The weekend after the article appeared in the newspaper, the youngest daughter was at soccer practice in a city park. Mrs. Smith,
who usually watches her daughter's practice, left for about 20 minutes to run some errands. When she came back, her daughter was nowhere to
be found. Frantic, she asked the team coaches and parents at the practice if they knew where her daughter was. No one did, but one father, Mr.
Cruz, mentioned that he had seen an unknown woman lingering near the water fountain at the far side of the field. Mrs. Smith called her husband
in tears, wondering how she was going to explain the situation. However, when she reached her husband she did not need to explain. He told her
that a letter was mailed to him that afternoon. It says, "We have your daughter. To get her back, you must contribute the following fee to the
"HELP ME" organization: $25 million dollars. Collect the money, DO NOT call the police, and await further instructions." A witness to this suspicious
activity includes Mr. Cruz, the soccer father.
Questions to Consider
1.
2.
What illegal activity may have taken place?
List three pieces of possible evidence to support the above prediction.
30
SCENARIO 4
A high-school senior at a New York prep school comes to class wearing brand new sneakers, an expensive shirt and very pricey jeans. A talented
artist, he is known to take beautiful, dramatic photographs of people. Because he usually wears neat, but not new clothes to school, his classmates
comment on his new look. He is pleased and tells them to wait and see what he has on tomorrow. The following day, he again comes to school in
new clothes. In addition to the clothes, however, he also has on a new gold necklace and is seen in the cafeteria treating three of the most popular
girls to lunch. When questioned about his new wealth, he says that he has gotten a job. At the end of the week, he drives to school in a new Jeep
Cherokee. That weekend, he is spotted at several parties he has never before been invited to. At the parties, he is often seen in quiet conversation
with other students where money exchanges hands. Witnesses to this activity include the high-school student's art teacher, the captain of the
cheerleading squad, and the manager at the store where the boy claims to work.
Questions to Consider
1.
2.
What illegal activity might the student be involved in? List two possibilities below.
List three pieces of possible evidence to support each of the above predictions.
SCENARIO 5
When visiting downtown Kansas City, Missouri you and your friend come across a woman on the street corner selling stereo equipment out of the
back of her SUV. The equipment that she is selling is very high quality but she is selling it for less than half the price it would cost in a specialty
store. When you ask how she is able to sell the equipment at such a low price, she tells you that the merchandise was previously owned, but
assures you that it has been checked and is in excellent condition. Not wanting to commit to a purchase, you ask if she will be back next weekend.
She says she will, but might not be in the exact location. During the week, you talk to your uncle who lives in Kansas City, Kansas. He asks if your
community is having the same crime wave that his is suffering. You tell him no, and you ask for details. He says that homes in one of the more
affluent neighborhoods are being burglarized. When you ask what is being stolen, he tells you jewelry and electronic goods. Although you think
nothing of it at the time, when the weekend comes you again see the woman selling stereos and think twice. Witnesses to this activity include your
friend and your uncle.
Questions to Consider
1.
2.
What illegal activity may have taken place?
List three pieces of possible evidence to support the above prediction.
SCENARIO 6
Bored one Saturday evening, you are sitting in your family room watching MTV and wishing your parents would stop arguing over whose turn it is
to do the dinner dishes. As the VJ introduces the latest smash hit, you hear a screeching noise in your driveway, followed by the sound of wood
splintering. Rushing outside, you come across two friends in a gorgeous bright red BMW with a personalized license plate that reads "Doc."
Surprised, you ask, "What's up?" "The sky," the driver replies and tells you to get in the car "NOW." Ignoring the yelling of your parents, you hop in
the car, figuring you are about to embark on a fantastic adventure. Once in the car, you ask your friend in the passenger seat where you are going.
He looks scared, but answers bravely, "Anywhere our chauffer wants to take us." Careening around corners and running red lights, you get to the
center of town before you notice the flashing lights of a police car behind you. Your friend ignores the police until you and the other passenger
convince him to pull over. Witnesses to this activity are the two passengers; Doctor Rodriquez, whose red BMW is missing from the restaurant
parking lot where he had parked it; the driver of another car that was almost run over by both the BMW; and the police car pursuing the BMW.
Questions to Consider
1.
2.
List two illegal activities that may have taken place.
List three pieces of possible evidence to support each of the above predictions.
31
Gideon v. Wainwright:
Does a Lawyer Really Make a Difference In a Trial?
BACKGROUND
When Clarence Earl Gideon was tried for breaking and entering, he told the judge he was too poor to afford a lawyer and asked the judge to appoint
one for him. The judge denied Gideon's request, saying that Gideon's case was not a capital offense. (A capital offense is one that holds the
possibility of a death sentence.) The judge cited Betts v. Brady in explaining that in noncapital cases, the accused is entitled to a lawyer only if
"special circumstances" exist. Examples of "special circumstances" include complex charges and illiteracy or incompetence on the part of the
accused. Gideon did not fit into any of these categories, so he represented himself at trial.
PART I
Your teacher will play a clip from the movie, Gideon's Trumpet. As you watch the clip, take notes on how Gideon defends himself.
 Note to Teacher: Play the entire courtroom scene from beginning to end. This clip starts with the text "August 4, 1961" at approximately 6:24
into the movie and runs for approximately 13 minutes, until 19:28, when Gideon's lawyer leaves the courtroom.
QUESTIONS FOR CLASS DISCUSSION
1.
2.
3.
How well did Gideon defend himself?
What could a lawyer have done differently? Would that have changed the outcome of the case?
Can the average person, who like Gideon, is not illiterate or incompetent, do an adequate job of defending himself or herself at trial? Why
or why not?
PART II
Your teacher will now play another clip from the same movie. As you watch the clip, take note of the differences between this trial and the earlier
one.

Note to Teacher: Play the final courtroom scene, which begins with Gideon and his lawyer walking up the steps to the courtroom. It starts at
approximately 1:23:00 into the movie and runs for approximately 18 minutes, until 1:41:23, when Gideon leaves the courtroom.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDE R
1.
2.
What did Gideon's lawyer do that was different from what Gideon had done? How did his knowledge of courtroom procedure, his
investigative tactics, and his ability to question witnesses affect the outcome of the trial?
In the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that even in noncapital criminal cases, the accused
is entitled to a lawyer. Based on the clip you have seen and what you already know, do you think this was an appropriate decision?
32
Miranda v. Arizona:
Controversy Over the Court's Decision
DIRECTIONS
The Court’s decision in Miranda was met with criticism when it was handed down in 1966, and it continues to be controversial today. The
table below contains commentary on the decision and its effect on law enforcement. For each quote decide whether the writer is supporting
(pro) or criticizing (con) the decision in Miranda.
Quote
Pro or
Con?
1. ". . . the idealistic impulse toward protecting individuals from overbearing state authority has resulted in a system where we deny
people the opportunity to take responsibility for their criminal acts. In our system, a man or woman who takes responsibility must be
crazy!"
2. "[T]here is little evidence that a significant number of guilty people are going free because of the Miranda warning. The chief reason
for this is that, contrary to expectations, most people under arrest do not keep their mouths shut and do not ask for a lawyer, even
though it is almost always in their interest to do so."
3. "Our citizens' confidence in the criminal justice system will be strengthened by ensuring that the rules will be fair to crime victims as
well as suspects; will protect the public by helping convict those who voluntarily confess their guilt; and will promote honesty and
accuracy in criminal trials by allowing the jury to hear all truthful evidence. . . A society that beats confessions out of suspects has lost
its morals. But a society that rejects a suspect's voluntarily given confession has lost its marbles.”
4. "When people around the world go to the movies, they see a bad guy who has just murdered a nun, impaled a policeman and blown up
a school, collared by Eastwood or Stallone or Tommy Lee Jones. What are the first words out of the good guy's mouth? 'You have the
right to remain silent.' The viewer has to wonder what kind of political paradise America really is. People seeing this in Belgrade and
Harare and Kuala Lumpur, places where the innocent get whacked and beaten and tortured at the whim of the authorities, can only be
awestruck at a country that treats even its monsters with such delicacy."
5. "Who invokes their right to remain silent or, especially, their right to counsel? The usual suspects: the hardened criminals, the ones who
have been through the system many times before or who come into it well-heeled and well-counseled. These offenders don't need the
warnings to understand their rights, and they are quick to assert them. For all the rest, Miranda amounts to little more than red tape,
just another part of the ritual of putting on the handcuffs and making the trip to the station . . . Miranda does little, if anything, to
protect the most vulnerable suspects."
6. "In the common view, Miranda was necessary to protect accused criminals from being forced to confess through coercion or torture.
Everyone is justifiably horrified at the possibility of punishing an innocent man. In order to avoid this extreme injustice, it was argued,
it might be necessary at first to let a few obviously guilty murderers, rapists, and robbers go free on 'technicalities,' while the police
'learned the ropes.' . . . Yet twenty years later, the police still seem to 'make mistakes' all the time. Confessions are continually ruled
inadmissible because they have been 'coerced.'. . . Investigations carried out under highly trained prosecutors often fail to issue in a
conviction because the investigators did not 'observe the defendant's constitutional rights.'"
7. "Unless Miranda warnings are a totally impotent gesture . . . there must be some percentage of suspects who invoke their right to
remain silent who would not have done so. Some subset of that group, in turn, presumably would have gone on to make truthful
confessions that would not have been 'involuntary' in the classic beaten-out-of-him sense. And in some subcategory of that subset, the
confession would have been crucial to building a case against that suspect."
Write a paragraph expressing your opinion about the decision:
SOURCES OF THE QUOTE S
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Rothwax, Harold. Guilty: The Collapse of Criminal Justice. New York: Random House, 1996, p. 79.
"A Pillar of the Law Assailed." Economist 12/11/99 v 353 i8149 p. 23.
Otis, William G. "Miranda: Morals and Marbles." The Washington Post 24 November 1999: A23.
Krauthammer, Charles. "Supreme Hypocrisy." The Washington Post 30 June 2000: A31.
Coughlin, Anne M., "Miranda Only Works for the Usual Suspects." The Washington Post 12 December 1999: B1.
Tucker, William, "True Confessions: The Long Road Back from Miranda." National Review 18 October 1985: 28.
Parloff, Roger, "Miranda on the Hot Seat." New York Times Magazine 26 September 1999: 84-87.
33
Academic Integrity and
Bibliography Activities
34
Name: ____________________________________________________
Date: _____/_____/_____
Citations! Giving Authors Credit When We Use Their Information
1. A source is any document, film, recording, etc that a researcher uses to
gain __________________ on a topic.
2. When we use another author’s ideas or exact words, we need to give
them ____________by using a citation.
3. If we do not give an author credit for his/her____________, we are
“stealing” them. Stealing ideas is called plagiarism.
4. [Greek: plagiarius=kidnapper]
5. We can still use an author’s ideas by ___________(telling where they
came from) and creating a bibliography.
How to cite an author:
6. If you use an exact quote you need to use ____________ marks.
7. If you summarize, or paraphrase, an author’s idea, you put it into your
_____________and then you need to insert an in-text citation. To do
this, put the author’s name and the page number that the information
came from before the period and inside parentheses. This sentence is
an example (Seyfert 1). This sentence is an example (Seyfert 1).
8. Today I will be able to ____________________________________
Why is it important for us to make sure that we don’t plagiarize?
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
35
Name: ____________________________________________________
Date: _____/_____/_____
Bibliographies! Making a list of all the sources you used in an Essay
Brain Launch!: Fix the in-text citations below so that they follow the correct format.


For instance, when Odysseus was troubled deep into the night thinking about when to kill the suitors,
Athena “showered sleep across his eyes/ and back to Olympus went the lustrous goddess.” (Homer 20)
Calypso is spellbindingly beautiful and affects people in such a way that immortal gods who found her would
stare at her in endless wonder (Homer, page 5.)
A bibliography is a __________ of sources that you use and cite in your own essay. They are often called
Works Cited.
[Latin: bibli/biblion=book; graph/graphia=writing or recording]
Bibliographies include (in this exact order):
Author’s Last Name, _____________________. Title of the Book or Article. Town of Publisher,
STATE: Publishing Company Name, Year.
Here are some examples:
Baker, Linda. The New Guide to Feeding Hummingbirds in Your Backyard. Cincinnati, OH: Tanner
Publishing, 1999.
McDonald, Drew. Sailors of the High Seas in Early Eighteenth Century North America.. New York,
NY: Luken Publishing, 2001.
Note:
 Did you notice how strange the indents look in a bibliography? This is called a hanging indent. All
lines except for the ________________ are indented.
 The entries are in __________________ order by the author’s last name.
 Titles are always in _______________.
 A publisher is a company that prints and sells a book.
36
Fill-in the blank answer key (blanks are in underlined CAPS)
Citations:



When we use another author’s ideas or exact words, we need to give them CREDIT by using a
citation.
If we do not give an author credit for his/her WORDS OR IDEAS, we are “stealing” them. Stealing
ideas is called plagiarism. [Greek: plagiarius=kidnapper]
We can still use an author’s ideas by CITING THEM (telling where they came from) and creating a
bibliography.
To cite an author:
 If you use an exact quote you need to use QUOTATION marks.
 If you summarize, or paraphrase, an author’s idea, you put it into your OWN WORDS and then you
need to insert an in-text citation. To do this, put the author’s name and the page number the
information came from before the period and inside parentheses. This sentence is an example
(Seyfert 1).
Bibliographies:
A bibliography is a LIST of sources that you use and cite in your own essay. They are often called Works
Cited. [Latin: bibli/biblion=book; graph/graphia=writing or recording]
Bibliographies include (in this exact order):
Author’s Last Name, AUTHOR’S FIRST NAME. Title of the Book or Article. Town of Publisher, STATE:
Publishing Company Name, Year.
Here are some examples:
Baker, Linda. The New Guide to Feeding Hummingbirds in Your Backyard. Cincinnati, OH: Tanner
Publishing, 1999.
McDonald, Drew. Sailors of the High Seas in Early Eighteenth Century North America.. New York,
NY: Luken Publishing, 2001.
Note:
 Did you notice how strange the indents look in a bibliography? This is called a hanging indent. All
lines except for the FIRST LINE are indented.
 The entries are in ALPHABETICAL order by the author’s last name.
 Titles are always in ITALICS (OR UNDERLINED).
A publisher is a company that prints and sells a book
37
Name: ____________________________________________________
Date: _____/_____/_____
How to Write a Bibliography (Article Citations)
Why is this Important?
Throughout high school, college, and even graduate school students are expected to write research
papers in which the students use “sources” and “research” to prove a point (their thesis). If you use
someone else’s writing or research to help prove your point, you have to give them proper credit.
Otherwise it’s plagiarism.
Introduction to New Information:
So that we give proper credit where it is due, it is important that we learn how to cite a magazine
article. The second most popular type of text to put in bibliographies (after books) is magazine
articles. Many magazine articles are filled with amazing information, research, and data that can be
used in research papers. If you use someone else’s work, you have to cite their article.
Here is what a Magazine Article Citation looks like:
 Wheeler, Sheldon. “How to Cite Magazine Articles.” Bibliography Writing. January 2004: Pages 14
– 15.
 Author’s Last Name, Authors First Name. “Title of Article.” Name of Magazine. Month and Year:
Page Numbers of Article.
The order you list information is very specific. Start by listing the author’s name (last name, then first
name), writing the title of the article (put quotes around the title), the name of the magazine (remember to
underline it), the month and year it was published, and the page numbers the article was found on within
the magazine. Make sure to put periods, commas, and colons where they belong!
Notice that you don’t indent the first line, but do indent all the lines below. This is called “reverse
indentation” because it’s the reverse of what normal paragraphs look like.
Write a Citation:
Try it out. Use this information to write a proper article citation (indent properly!):
The author of the article “Hawaii’s Coral Reefs” is Joan Lin. It was printed in the December 2007 issue of
Ocean Life Magazine from pages 10 to 14.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
38
What if there are two or more authors?
For two authors, you will put both authors in the author section of the citation, just like in a book
citation. For three or more authors, use the abbreviation “et al” (which means “and the rest” in Latin)
after the first name. This is also like a book citation.


Wheeler, Sheldon and Brenda Chun. “Magazine Articles.” Writing Better Bibliographies.
November 2000: Pages 20 – 33.
Wheeler, Sheldon, et al. “More Magazine Articles.” Writing the Best Bibliographies. September
2001: Pages 34 – 41.
Remember that you still need to use “reverse indentation”!
Write the Citation:
Use this information to write a proper article citation (indent properly!)
Jasmine Perry and Ryan Tauriainen wrote an article called “Our Amazing Seventh Graders.” It was
printed in the June 2006 issue of Middle School Magazine, pages 4 – 9.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
What about Newspaper Articles?
Writing a citation for a newspaper article is very similar to a magazine article. In the case of
newspapers, make sure you say the day, month, and year it was written. The name of the article goes in
quotes and the name of the newspaper is underlined. Remember: newspaper pages often have letters
and numbers included.

Stevenson, Kyle. “Citing Newspaper Articles.” New York Times. 16 February 2005: Pages A18 –
A17.
Use this information to write an article citation (reverse indent!)
Wayne Koki wrote the article “Wheeler Kids Ace the HSA” for the Honolulu Star. It was in the issue
printed on July 20th, 2009 on pages B2 – B4.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Remember:
[Author’s Last Name], [Author’s First Name]. [“Title of Article”]. [Name of Magazine/Newspaper]. [Day
Month Year]: [Page Numbers].
39
Name: ____________________________________________________
Date: _____/_____/_____
How to Write a Bibliography (Book Citations)
Why is this Important?
Throughout high school, college, and even graduate school students are expected to write research
papers in which the students use “sources” and “research” to prove a point (their thesis). If you use
someone else’s writing or research to help prove your point, you have to give them proper credit.
Otherwise it’s plagiarism.
Introduction to New Information:
We will be learning how to cite (which means “give credit to”) three popular types of sources of
information: books, articles, and internet websites. Following the steps and instructions provided will
make sure you always give proper credit where it is due. You never want to get in trouble for
plagiarism or copying. In college, it is grounds for getting expelled from your school forever! This
section is all about citing books.
Here is what a Book Citation looks like:
 Wheeler, Sheldon. Writing Perfect Bibliographies. Wahiawa: Middle School Publications, 2010.
 Author’s Last Name, Authors First Name. Title of Book. City Book was Publish in: Publishing
Company, Year Book was Published.
The order you list information is very specific. Start by listing the author’s name (last name, then first
name), writing the title of the book (underline the title), the city it was published in, the name of the
company that published the book, and the year it was published. Make sure to put periods, commas, and
colons where they belong!
Notice that you don’t indent the first line, but do indent all the lines below. This is called “reverse
indentation” because it’s the reverse of what normal paragraphs look like.
Write a Citation:
Try it out. Use this information to write a proper book citation (indent properly!):
The author of the book Teaching Bibliographies is Nancy Smith. Penguin Press is the company which
published her book, and it did in the city of Chicago in 2002.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
40
What if there are two or more authors?
For two authors, you will put both authors in the author section of the citation. When you write the first
author, put his or her last name, then first name. Follow the first author’s name with the word “and”
then write the next author’s full name.

Wheeler, Sheldon and Brenda Chun. Writing Better Bibliographies. Wahiawa: Wheeler Middle
Publications, 2009.
For three or more authors, use the abbreviation “et al” (which means “and the rest” in Latin) after the first
name. This symbolizes there are more authors, but you do not need to list all of them. Imagine your citation
if there were ten authors!

Wheeler, Sheldon, et al. Writing the Best Bibliographies. Wahiawa: Wheeler Middle Publications,
2009.
Write the Citations:
Try two authors: use this information to write a proper book citation (indent properly!)
Jasmine Perry and Ryan Tauriainen wrote a book, together, called Teaching the Best Seventh Graders. It
was published by the Harvard University Press, in the city of Cambridge, in the year 2009.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Try three or more authors: use this information to write a book citation (reverse indent!)
Charlotte Doyle wrote a book called Sailing the High Seas with all of the other sailors on the Seahawk. She
published her book in 1832 through the Royal Publishing Company, located in London.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Remember:
[Author’s Last Name], [Author’s First Name]. [Title of Book.] [City Book Was Published In]: [Name Of
Publishing Company], [Year of Publication].
41
How to Write a Bibliography (Internet Citations)
Why is this Important?
Throughout high school, college, and even graduate school students are expected to write research papers
in which the students use “sources” and “research” to prove a point (their thesis). If you use someone
else’s writing or research to help prove your point, you have to give them proper credit. Otherwise it’s
plagiarism.
Introduction to New Information:
So that we give proper credit where it is due, it is important that we learn how to cite internet pages. As
time goes on, internet articles are being used more and more in research and reports. If you look in the
right places, internet pages can be filled with tons of information. Remember: if you use someone else’s
words, even if they are on an internet website, you have to cite it.
Here is what an Internet Article Citation looks like:
 Wheeler, Sheldon. “How to Cite Websites.” Webliography Online. 23 March 2001. Accessed 12 April
2010 <www.weblio.com/websites>.
 Author’s Last Name, Authors First Name. “Title of Web-Article.” Name of Website. Date Site Was
Created/Edited. Date Site Was Accessed <URL of Website>.
The order you list information is very specific. Start by listing the author’s name (last name, then first name),
writing the title of the web-article (put quotes around the title), the name of the website (remember to
underline it), the date it was created or last edited (sometimes it only says the month or year), the date you
visited the site, and the URL (web address) where you found the web-article (inside angled brackets < >). Make
sure to put periods, commas, and colons where they belong!
Notice that you don’t indent the first line, but do indent all the lines below. This is called “reverse indentation”
because it’s the reverse of what normal paragraphs look like.
Write a Citation:
Try it out. Use this information to write a proper internet citation (indent properly!):
Jon Smith wrote the article “Barrack Obama” for the website US Presidents. The website was created on
January 20, 2009. You accessed the site on July 4, 2009 and the URL was www.uspresidents.com/obama .
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Remember:
[Author’s Last Name], [Author’s First Name]. [“Title of Article”]. [Name of Website]. [Date Created/Edited].
[Date Accessed] [ < URL > ]
42
Writing Process
43
Basic Essay Structure
Is your introductory paragraph H.O.T.T.?
Hook—This is the first sentence. It should interest the reader and is a chance to show off, but be
reasonable. Do not spend too much time on this.
Overview—Similar to the hook. This sentence sets the stage for your thesis. This can also be a
restatement of the question.
Thesis—The position you will argue and support. This is definitely the most important sentence in
your essay. It should be clear but not short. Well-developed thesis statements often
include key words such as “although” and may stretch several sentences in length.
Themes/Topics—This sentence or group of sentences introduces the reader to the main points
that will support your thesis and will be fully developed in your essay. It is best
to keep these in the same order throughout your essay.

Do the body paragraphs T.E.S.T. what you know?
Topic Sentence—This is the theme that will be developed and supported in a paragraph.
Evidence and Analysis—Evidence is the specific information and factual details that will support
your theme. Analysis is the explanation of how and why your evidence
(from the documents and outside information) support your thesis.
These two elements are the heart of any essay.
Summary Statement—This sentence will remind the reader of the relevant sub-points made in
this paragraph.
Transition—This sentence finishes off the paragraph and introduces the theme of the next
paragraph.

Do you S.T.O.P. in your conclusion?
Summarize the Main Points—This sentence or group of sentences should remind the reader of
the main points that were made. Do not include new information.
Thesis Restatement—This sentence should remind the reader of your answer to the question.
Restate the thesis in different words than before.
Omit Any New Information—The only exceptions would be to make a conceptual point that is
more general than your main points, or to mention the aftermath
or result of something.
Perspective—Finish your essay with a sentence that unifies the essay and/or puts it in historical
perspective. Leave a good impression with the reader.
44
45
Name: ____________________________________________________
Date: _____/_____/_____
Essay Organizer
INTRODUCTION
______________________________________________________________
Thesis (what you will prove): _________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Background Information: ___________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Hook:
Three pieces of supporting evidence:
Body 1 __________________________________________________________
Body 2 __________________________________________________________
Body 3 __________________________________________________________
Conclusion sentence: ______________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
BODY #1
__________________________________________________________
Details: 1. ____________________________________________________________
2. ___________________________________________________________
3. ___________________________________________________________
Quote: ______________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Explain how quote supports the evidence: ___________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Conclusion sentence: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Evidence #1:
46
BODY #2
__________________________________________________________
Details: 1. ____________________________________________________________
2. ___________________________________________________________
3. ___________________________________________________________
Quote: ______________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Explain how quote supports the evidence: ___________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Conclusion sentence: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Evidence #1:
BODY #3
__________________________________________________________
Details: 1. ____________________________________________________________
2. ___________________________________________________________
3. ___________________________________________________________
Quote: ______________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Explain how quote supports the evidence: ___________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Conclusion sentence: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Evidence #1:
CONCLUSION
Restate thesis: _________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
Summarize your evidence: 1. _________________________________________________
2. _________________________________________________
3. _________________________________________________
Extend, go beyond, larger meaning: ______________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
47
WRITE THE CONCLUSION
Just as every essay has a clear beginning, it should have a clear ending. The last paragraph,
also known as the conclusion, should make your essay sound finished.
The concluding paragraph typically has two parts:
1. The summary statement is one or two sentences, which restate the thesis in a fresh way
to reinforce the essay's main idea.
2. The clincher is a final thought which should create a lasting impression on the reader.
THE SUMMARY STATEMENT
The summary statement is an effective way to start your concluding paragraph because it
helps to drive home the ideas you've expressed in your essay.
Look at your thesis statement again and rework it in a new way. Avoid repeating key words
and phrases from the thesis statement because you don't want the summary statement
to sound boring or repetitive. Using a thesaurus is a good way to find new, interesting
words.
Here are some examples of thesis statements and summary statements:
Thesis Statement: Many Americans are buying the Toyota Corolla because of its
competitive price, fuel economy, and high resale value.
Summary Statement: Reasonable pricing, low miles per gallon, and an attractive resale
value have all contributed to the popularity of the Toyota Corolla in today's market.
Thesis Statement: San Francisco is a stimulating place to visit because of its magnificent
location, its theaters and art galleries, and its many fine restaurants.
Summary Statement: If you love beautiful surroundings, world class theater and art, and
an exquisite meal, then San Francisco is the place for you.
THE CLINCHER
The clincher, also referred to as the closer, is your last opportunity to connect with the
reader. One way to make the most of this moment is to return to the technique you
used for your grabber.
48
Name of Reviewer: ___________________________________________
Date: _____/_____/_____
Peer Review Worksheet
Name of the Author: _________________________________________
1. Introduction: How does the first paragraph introduce both the paper’s topic and the writer’s approach or
general conclusion? Is the first sentence attention-getting and relevant to the topic?
2. What can you identify as a thesis statement? Suggest, if possible, a way to improve the introduction or
thesis statement.
3. Structure: Can you identify the organization of the paper from the main idea of each paragraph? What
are the main concepts explored in the paper? Does each paragraph make a relevant point that is distinct
from what has already been covered? What are the main conclusions?
49
4. Clarity/Style: Did you find distracting grammar, punctuation, spelling, or word usage problems? Circle
them and identify any patterns or themes you detect. Is the tone of the essay formal? If you find
awkward sentences, try to explain why they don’t make sense to you.
5. Resources: Does the author clearly identify his/her sources? Is proper in-text and reference format used?
6. What is/are the paper’s greatest strength(s)? Explain.
50