FC: This Mix book will show the cases, Gideon VS. Wainwright Marbury VS. Madison Miranda VS. Arizona Escobedo VS. Illinois Brown VS. Board of Education & Reed VS. Reed
1: Gideon VS. Wainwright
2: Gideon Vs. Wainwright The parties involved were - Clarence Earl Gideon, a habitual petty criminal, was the petitioner/plaintiff; Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary to the Florida Department of Corrections, was the respondent/defendant. Wainwright's predecessor, H. G. Cochran, Jr., was the original respondent, but vacated office before the case reached the US Supreme Court The individuals that were affected were- Gideon was affect by this case The final decision on the case was - the Supreme Court unanimously decided that states had to provide free legal counsel to indigent criminal defendants. A quote from the trial " Gideon was charged in Florida court in with breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. This is a felony in Florida. He was too poor to hire a lawyer, and his request for counsel to be appointed was denied. He therefore represented himself, apparently not laughably, but not well enough, and was found guilty. His appeal to the Florida supreme court was denied."
3: Marbury VS. Madison
4: Marbury VS. Madison The parties involved were- William Marbury, William Harper, Robert R. Hooe, and Dennis Ramsay were the plaintiffs (actually petitioners); US Secretary of State James Madison was the nominal respondent The individuals it affected were- Marbury was the individual affected by this. The final decision was- the Court rendered a unanimous decision, that Marbury had the right to his commission but the court did not have the power to force Madison to deliver the commission. A quote from the trial- "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." — Chief Justice John Marshall
5: Miranda VS. Arizona
6: Miranda VS. Arizona The parties involved were- Ernesto Miranda was the petitioner (like a plaintiff); the state of Arizona was the respondent (like a defendant). The individuals affected - Miranda was the individual affected by this case. The final decision - The Supreme Court ruled that based on the testimony and admission given, Miranda was obviously never informed of his right to council or to avoid self-incrimination. As a result, the Court reversed the decision and conviction A quote from the trial- "I, Ernesto A. Miranda, do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.”
7: Escobedo VS. Illinois
8: Escobedo VS. Illinois The partied involved were -Danny Escobedo; Plaintiff - Escobedo v. Illinois The State of Illinois; Defendant - Escobedo v. Illinois The individuals affected were- Escobedo was the person who was affected in this crime. The final decision on the case was - Escobedo was arrested in connection with a murder and brought to the police station A quote from the case- " We will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold." -William Jennings Bryan."
9: Brown VS. Board of Education
10: Brown VS. Board of Education The parties involved were-1.Darlene Brown 2.Oliver L. Brown3.Lena M. Carper 4.Sadie Emmanuel5.Marguerite Emerson6.Shirla Fleming 7.Mrs. Andrew (Zelma) Henderson8.Shirley Hodison 9.Mrs. Richard (Maude) Lawton10.Alma Lewis 11.Iona Richardson12.Vivian Scales13.Lucinda Todd The individuals affected were- Oliver Brown and the children. The final decision- The district court ruled in favor of the board of education. A quote from the case - "After the Supreme Court ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, the doctrine of “separate but equal” applied to all segregated facilities throughout America. However, in May 1954, the Supreme Court ruled against this “separate but equal” doctrine in favor of school integration. It reasoned that “separate” inherently meant unequal. This epoch decision added credibility to civil rights movements in the South, and became a precedent for future court decisions regarding race relations in America."
11: Reed VS. Reed
12: Reed VS. Reed The parties involved were- Allen R. Derr argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Melvin L. Wulf, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Pauli Murray, and Dorothy Kenyon. Charles S. Stout argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief was Myron E. Anderson. Individuals affected by this case were- Sally Reed was affected by this. The final decision on the case was- In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the law's dissimilar treatment of men and women was unconstitutional. The Court argued that to give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment A quote from the case-"Believing that more fundamental change was necessary, some women's rights advocates pinned their hopes on the Equal Rights Amendment, then pending in Congress. While the Reed decision was heartening, it seemed that only through a constitutional amendment could gender equality be firmly secured."
13: The websites i used for this project - http://www.supremecourthistory.org/learning-center/womens-rights/breaking-new-ground/ http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0372_0335_ZS.html http://www.lawnix.com/cases/marbury-madison.html http://www.east-buc.k12.ia.us/02_03/AG/mir/kc1.htm
14: I hope you enjoy my book about the six following cases, Gideon V. Wainwright Marbury V. Madison Miranda V. Arizona Escobedo V. Illinois Brown V. Bored of Education & Reed V. Reed