Adamson v. California Brief PDF

Preview

Summary

Case brief for SCOTUS case Adamson v. California...

Description

Adamson v. California (1947) Votes: 5-4 Majority opinion by: Reed Facts of the case: Adamson was convicted of first-degree murder after prosecutors pointed out, and the jury considered as evidence, his having declined to testify, as was permitted by The California Constitution and Penal Code. He appealed this decision, first to the state supreme court and then to the US Supreme Court, on the basis that the comments made by the prosecutor violated the Privileges and Immunities and the Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment. Questions presented: (1) Does a defendant’s right against self-incrimination apply to the state under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment? Disposition: Affirmed (1) No Majority reasoning:       

The Due Process clause does not incorporate the entire BoR Palko clearly states that only those rights which are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” are protected under the 14th Amendment “For a state to require testimony from an accused is not necessarily a breach of a state’s obligation to give a fair trial.” The Due Process Clause forbids “compulsion to testify only by fear of hurt, torture, or exhaustion.” California law permits the types of comments made by the state This law is a way for juries to seek the truth in a trial By failing to testify, the accused is prohibiting the jury from seeking the truth

Concurring opinion: Frankfurter   

Bill of Rights does not expressly apply to states Only 1/43 past Justices have been in favor of total incorporation The idea that the 14th Amendment was some backdoor way to apply the first 8 Amendments has been rejected time and time again, originally by justices that

 

lived at the same time as its passing and better understood its intent There are some cases where total incorporation doesn’t make sense The Court will have to rule subjectively if it chooses any other manor than total incorporation, which it has rejected

Dissenting: Black 

      

 

The court operates under the premise that the Constitution is a living document based on the premise of natural law, which “degrades the constitutional safeguards of the Bill of Rights” Study of the passage of the 14th Amendment is sufficient to believe that they intended to totally incorporate the first 8 Amendments to the state governments The explicit purpose of the 14th Amendment was to overturn Barron The Court has never considered this viewpoint in any of the Court’s opinions No past decision prevents total incorporation of the 5th Amendment Natural law gives the courts the ultimate power, over the legislatures, upon matters where there is no constitutional provision The Bill of Rights were designed to “meet ancient evils” The people of any nation will never be at threat of losing liberty as long as the have a Bill of Rights that survives and is conscientiously interpreted to provide continuous protection against old and new threats to liberty The ideas expressed in Palko are much better than those expressed in Twinning, but the original purpose of the 14th Amendment go far beyond both The idea that the Court can determine which parts of the Bill of Rights will be enforced is to “frustrate the great design of a written Constitution”

Dissenting: Murphy   

Substantially agrees with Justice Black The 14th Amendment contains the first 8 Amendments but is not limited by them There are other instances where a lack of due process may arise despite a specific provision in the Bill of Rights

Commentary:  

Selective incorporation (Reed and Frankfurter) vs. Total incorporation (Black and Douglas) vs. total incorporation plus (Murphy and Rutledge) Court will eventually move more towards Black’s opinion, but does not embrace total incorporation...