United states supreme court



Download 494.78 Kb.
Page8/8
Date conversion15.02.2016
Size494.78 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8

KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES (1944)

323 U.S. 214

Learning Stations

Learning Objectives: The students will


1. Analyze and determine which statements reflect the arguments for each side in the Supreme Court case: Korematsu v. United States (1944);

2. Compare and contrast two other cases to Korematsu v. United States (1944) using a Venn Diagram.


TEKS/TAKS: US HIST 6 B
Materials Needed: Transparency of relocation orders for both the Russian and Japanese, learning stations, two Venn Diagrams per group, copy of other cases for each group.
Vocabulary: Ancestry, alien, excommunicating
Teaching Strategy:
1. To introduce the Supreme Court Case Korematsu v. United States (1944), place a transparency of the relocation order dealing with people of Russian ancestry. Tell the students because of all the problems the CIA is having with spies, the government has given this order to control the amount of information getting out to the Russians. Ask the students how they feel about the order.
2. Once they have discussed the Russian order, put on the real relocation order dealing with the Japanese. Read a few of the excerpts from Testimony to the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians. Have the students read the information on Korematsu v. United States (1944).
3. Listed on the pages 129-130 are excerpts from the majority and minority decisions in the case of Korematsu v. United States (1944). The excerpts should be made into larger signs (8 ½ x 11 is a good size for each station) and placed around the room.
4. Students should be paired into learning teams. The students should go through all ten learning stations. Instruct students they need to go to a vacant station, and have one student read the station sign. The other should rephrase what the other has just read. Working together they will decide if the quote favors the argument for Korematsu or the argument for the United States. The students will mark their score sheet (See

example below) with the number of the station under the appropriate heading. You may want the students to rewrite the quote instead of just placing the number.


Score Card--Answers
Korematsu United States

3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 1, 2, 7, 9

Extention for GT/AP: Compare and contrast two other cases to Korematsu v. U.S., using a Venn Diagram.



Presidio of San Francisco, California:
INSTRUCTIONS

TO ALL PERSONS OF

RUSSIAN

ANCESTRY

LIVING IN THE FOLLOWING AREA:

All of that portion of the City of Los Angeles, State of California, within that boundary beginning at the point at which Figueroa Street meets a line following the middle of the Los Angeles River; thence southerly and following the said line to East First Street to Alameda Street; thence northerly on Main Street to First Street; thence north-westerly on First Street to Figueroa Street; thence north-easterly on Figueroa Street to the point of beginning.


Pursuant to the provisions of Civilian Exclusion Order No. 33, this Headquarters, all persons of RUSSIAN ancestry, both alien and non-alien, will be evacuated from the above area by 12 o’clock noon, P.W.T.
No RUSSIAN person living in the above area will be permitted to change residence after 12 o’clock noon, P.W.T., without obtaining special permission from the representative of the Commanding General, Southern California Sector, at the Civil Control Station located at:
Union Church

120 North San Pedro Street,

Los Angeles, California.
Such permits will only be granted for the purpose of uniting members of a family, or in cases of grave emergency.
The Civil Control Station is equipped to assist the RUSSIAN population affected by this evacuation in the following ways:
1. Give advice and instructions on the evacuation.

2. Provide services with respect to the management, leasing, sale, storage or other disposition of most kinds of property, such as real estate, business and professional equipment, household goods, boats, automobiles, and livestock.

3. Provide temporary residence elsewhere for all RUSSIANS in family groups.

4. Transport persons and a limited amount of clothing and equipment to their new residence.



THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS MUST BE OBSERVED:


1. A responsible member of each family, preferably the head of the family, or the person in whose name most of the property is held, and each individual living alone, will report to the Civil Control Station to receive further instructions. This must be done between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Monday, or between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Tuesday.

2. Evacuees must carry with them on departure for the Assembly Center, the following property:


[a] Bedding and linens (no mattress) for each member of the family;

[b] Toilet articles for each member of the family;

[c] Extra clothing for each member of the family;

[d] Sufficient knives, forks, spoons, plates, bowls, and cups for each member of the family;

[e] Essential personal effects for each member of the family.

All items carried will be securely packaged, tied and plainly marked with the name of the owner and numbered in accordance with instructions obtained at the Civil Control Station. The size and number of packages is limited to that which can be carried by the individual or family group.

3. No pets of any kind will be permitted.

4. No personal items and no household goods will be shipped to the Assembly Center.

5. The United States Government through its agencies will provide for the storage, at the sole risk of the owner, of the more substantial household items, such as iceboxes, washing machines, pianos and other heavy furniture. Cooking utensils and other small items will be accepted for storage if crated, packed, and plainly marked with the name and address of the owner. Only one name and address will be used by a given family.

6. Each family, and individual living alone, will be furnished transportation to the Assembly Center or will be authorized to travel by private automobile in a supervised group. All instructions pertaining to the movement will be obtained at the Civil Control Station.


GO TO THE CIVIL CONTROL STATION BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8:00 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M., MONDAY, OR BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8:00 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M., TO RECEIVE FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.
J.L. DeWITT

Lt. General,U.S.Army

SEE CIVILIAN EXCLUSION ORDER NO. 33 Commanding


Presidio of San Francisco, California
May 3, 1942
INSTRUCTIONS

TO ALL PERSONS OF

JAPANESE

ANCESTRY

LIVING IN THE FOLLOWING AREA:
All of that portion of the City of Los Angeles, State of California, within that boundary beginning at the point at which Figueroa Street meets a line following the middle of the Los Angeles River; thence southerly and following the said line to East First Street to Alameda Street; thence northerly on Main Street to First Street; thence north-westerly on First Street to Figueroa Street; thence north-easterly on Figueroa Street to the point of beginning.
Pursuant to the provisions of Civilian Exclusion Order No. 33, this Headquarters, dated May 3, 1942, all persons of Japanese ancestry, both alien and non-alien, will be evacuated from the above area by 12 o’clock noon, P.W.T., Saturday, May 9, 1942.
No Japanese person living in the above area will be permitted to change residence after 12 o’clock noon, P.W.T., Sunday, May 3, 1942, without obtaining special permission from the representative of the Commanding General, Southern California Sector, at the Civil Control Station located at:
Japanese Union Church

120 North San Pedro Street,

Los Angeles, California.
Such permits will only be granted for the purpose of uniting members of a family, or in cases of grave emergency.
The Civil Control Station is equipped to assist the Japanese population affected by this evacuation in the following ways:

1. Give advice and instructions on the evacuation.

2. Provide services with respect to the management, leasing, sale, storage or other disposition of most kinds of property, such as real estate, business and professional equipment, household goods, boats, automobiles, and livestock.

3. Provide temporary residence elsewhere for all Japanese in family groups.

4. Transport persons and a limited amount of clothing and equipment to their new residence.

THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS MUST BE OBSERVED:

1. A responsible member of each family, preferably the head of the family, or the person in whose name most of the property is held, and each individual living alone, will report to the Civil Control Station to receive further instructions. This must be done between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Monday, May 4, 1942, or between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Tuesday, May 5, 1942.

2. Evacuees must carry with them on departure for the Assembly Center, the following property:
[a] Bedding and linens (no mattress) for each member of the family;

[b] Toilet articles for each member of the family;

[c] Extra clothing for each member of the family;

[d] Sufficient knives, forks, spoons, plates, bowls, and cups for each member of the family;

[e] Essential personal effects for each member of the family.
All items carried will be securely packaged, tied and plainly marked with the name of the owner and numbered in accordance with instructions obtained at the Civil Control Station. The size and number of packages is limited to that which can be carried by the individual or family group.

3. No pets of any kind will be permitted.

4. No personal items and no household goods will be shipped to the Assembly Center.

5. The United States Government through its agencies will provide for the storage, at the sole risk of the owner, of the more substantial household items, such as iceboxes, washing machines, pianos and other heavy furniture. Cooking utensils and other small items will be accepted for storage if crated, packed, and plainly marked with the name and address of the owner. Only one name and address will be used by a given family.

6. Each family, and individual living alone, will be furnished transportation to the Assembly Center or will be authorized to travel by private automobile in a supervised group. All instructions pertaining to the movement will be obtained at the Civil Control Station.
GO TO THE CIVIL CONTROL STATION BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8:00 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M., MONDAY MAY 4, 1942, OR BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8:00 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M., TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1942, TO RECEIVE FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.
J.L. DeWITT

Lt. General,U.S.Army

SEE CIVILIAN EXCLUSION ORDER NO. 33 Commanding


LEARNING STATIONS



Korematsu v. U.S. (1944)

Station #1:


In light of the principles we announced in the Hirabayashi case, we are unable to conclude that it was beyond the war power of Congress and the Executive to exclude those of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast war area at the time they did.

Station #2:


Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can.

Station #3:


... [I]t is essential that there be definite limits to military discretion, especially where martial law has not been declared.

Station #4:


But the exclusion, either temporarily or permanently, of all persons with Japanese blood in their veins has no reasonable relation. And that relation is lacking because the exclusion order necessarily must rely for its reasonableness upon the assumption that all persons of Japanese ancestry may have a dangerous tendency to commit sabotage and espionage and to aid our Japanese enemy in other ways.

Station #5:


In excommunicating them without benefit of hearings, this order also deprives them of all their constitutional rights to procedural due process.

Station #6:


Justification for the exclusion is sought, instead, mainly upon questionable racial and sociological grounds not ordinarily within the realm of expert military judgment, supplemented by certain semi-military conclusions drawn from an unwarranted use of circumstantial evidence ....

Station #7:


It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional.

Station #8:


Individuals must not be left impoverished of their constitutional rights on a plea of military necessity that has neither substance nor support ....

Station #9:


. . . [W]e cannot reject as unfounded the judgment of the military authorities and of Congress that there were disloyal members of that population, whose number and strength could not be precisely and quickly ascertained.”

Station #10:


This exclusion of “all persons of Japanese ancestry, both alien and non-alien,” from the Pacific Coast area on a plea of military necessity in the absence of martial law ought not to be approved. Such exclusion goes over “the brink of constitutional power” and falls into the ugly abyss of racism.

ERNESTO MIRANDA v. ARIZONA

384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694

Argued Feb. 18, March 1-2, 1966

Decided June 13, 1966



On March 3, 1963, an eighteen-year-old female was walking home from her job at a movie theater when a man grabbed her, threw her into the back seat of a car and tied her up. After driving around for about twenty minutes, the man stopped the car and raped her. She was then driven back to the area where she had been picked up and released.
After investigating the crime for ten days, police arrested 23-year-old Ernesto Miranda in his Phoenix home. Miranda had been in and out of trouble since he was fourteen. He was asleep when policemen knocked on the door of his rented house and said they wanted to take him to headquarters. "I didn't know whether I had a choice ...." he said in a 1973 interview. "I get in the car and asked them what it was about. They said they couldn't tell me anything."
At the station, Miranda was placed in a four-man lineup. When the victim stepped into the viewing room, she could not positively identify him. The police then took Miranda into an interrogation room and questioned him for two hours, after which he confessed to having committed the crimes.
Detectives said they never threatened Miranda or promised him leniency. Miranda told a different story: “… I haven’t had any sleep since the day before. I’m tired. I just got off work, and they have me there interrogating me …. They start badgering you one way or the other … ‘you better tell us … or we’re going to throw the book at you’ … that is what was told to me ….” Whichever version was true, Miranda admitted to the rape and kidnapping.
After his brief confession, the detectives brought the victim into the room. One of them asked Miranda if his was the person he had raped. Miranda looked at her and said, “That’s the girl.”
When asked to formalize his confession in a written statement, Miranda agreed. Across the top of the statement was a typewritten disclaimer saying that the suspect was confessing voluntarily, without threats or promises of immunity, and “with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.” He signed the disclaimer.
Miranda said he repeatedly asked for a lawyer during the questioning but was refused. Two weeks later, at a preliminary hearing, he said he was again denied a lawyer. Finally, when he was arraigned, an attorney was appointed by the court—a 73-year-old attorney who had practiced virtually no criminal law for sixteen years. He persuaded Miranda to plead guilty by reason of insanity.
The written confession was introduced as evidence when Miranda was tried. He was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and sentenced to twenty to thirty years in prison.
When the case was appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, Miranda did not appeal on the basis that his confession was false or coerced. Instead, he argued that he would not have confessed if he had been advised of his right to remain silent and of his right to an attorney. Lawyers for the state of Arizona said that Miranda could have asked for an attorney at any time and had not. They also indicated that his confession had been freely given.


  • ISSUE: Under the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process of Law, what are the rights of a suspect taken into custody by the police?




MIRANDA v. ARIZONA (1966)

Decision


The Miranda case was one of four decided together by the Supreme Court, all raising questions as to whether police methods had violated the constitutional rights of the defendants. The Supreme Court overturned Miranda's conviction, saying that his Fourteenth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law had been violated. Chief Justice Warren wrote the five-to-four opinion in which he was highly concerned about what goes on in the privacy of interrogation. He wrote:
An understanding of the nature and setting of this in-custody interrogation is essential to our decisions today. The difficulty in depicting what transpires at such interrogations stems from the fact that in this country they have largely taken place incommunicado. From extensive factual studies undertaken in the early 1930's ... it is clear that police violence and the "third degree" flourished at that time. In a series of cases decided by this Court long after these studies, the police resorted to physical brutality—beatings, hangings, whipping—and to sustained and protracted questioning incommunicado in order to extort confessions ... The use of physical brutality and violence is not, unfortunately, relegated to the past or to any part of the country.
Again we stress that the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented ... this Court has recognized that coercion can be mental as well as physical, and that the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition.... A valuable source of information about present police practices ... may be found in various police manuals and texts which document procedures employed with success in the past, and which recommend various other effective tactics.
From these representative samples of interrogation techniques, the setting prescribed by the manuals and observed in practice becomes clear. In essence, it is this: To be alone with the subject is essential to prevent distraction and to deprive him of any outside support. The aura of confidence in his guilt undermines his will to resist. He merely confirms the preconceived story the police seek to have him describe. Patience and persistence, at times relentless questioning, are employed. To obtain a confession, the interrogator must "patiently maneuver himself or his quarry into a position from which the desired object may be obtained." When normal procedures fail to produce the needed result, the police may resort to deceptive stratagems such as giving false legal advice. It is important to keep the subject off balance, for example, by trading on his insecurity about himself or his surroundings. The police then persuade, trick, or cajole him out of exercising his constitutional rights....
In these cases, we might not find the defendants' statements to have been involuntary in traditional terms. Our concern for adequate safeguards to protect precious Fifth Amendment rights is, of course, not lessened in the slightest. To be sure, the records do not evince overt physical coercion or patented psychological ploys. The fact remains that in none of these cases did the officers undertake to afford appropriate safeguards at the outset of the interrogation to insure that the statements were truly the product of free choice...
Chief Justice Warren explained that in order that a suspect's rights are fully protected, certain safeguards must be employed:
We hold that when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must be employed to protect the privilege, and unless other fully effective means are adopted to notify the person of his right of silence and to assure that the exercise of the right will be scrupulously honored, the following measures are required. He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires (emphasis added). Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him.
The Court indicated that these safeguards were "not intended to hamper the traditional function of police officers in investigating crime," and that, "There is no requirement that police stop a person who enters a police station and states that he wishes to confess to a crime, or a person who calls the police to offer a confession or any other statement he desires to make."
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Harlan, with whom Justices Stewart and White agreed, wrote:
While passing over the costs and risks of its experiment, the Court portrays the evils of normal police questioning in terms which I think are exaggerated. Albeit stringently confined by the due process standards interrogation is no doubt often inconvenient and unpleasant for the suspect. However, it is no less so for a man to be arrested and jailed, to have his house searched, or to stand trial in court, yet all this may properly happen to the most innocent given probable cause, a warrant, or an indictment. Society has always paid a stiff price for law and order and peaceful interrogation is not one of the dark moments of the law.
All four of these cases involved here present express claims that confessions were inadmissible; not because of coercion in the traditional due process sense, but solely because of lack of counsel or lack of warnings concerning counsel and silence. For the reasons stated in this opinion, I would adhere to the due process test and reject the new requirements inaugurated by the Court.
Justice White, with whom Justices Stewart and Clark joined, also dissented and wrote:
There is the not so subtle overtone of the opinion—that it is inherently wrong for the police to gather evidence from the accused himself. And this is precisely the nub of this dissent. I see nothing wrong or immoral, and certainly nothing unconstitutional, with the police asking a suspect whom they have reasonable cause to arrest whether or not he killed his wife or with confronting him with the evidence on which the arrest was based, at least where he has been plainly advised that he may remain completely silent. Until today, "the admissions or confessions of the prisoner, when voluntarily and freely made, have always ranked high in the scale of incriminating evidence."
The most basic function of any Government is to provide for the security of the individual and of his property. These ends of society are served by the criminal law which for the most part is aimed at the prevention of crime. Without the reasonably effective performance of the task of preventing private violence and retaliation, it is idle to talk about human dignity and civilized values.
Justice Stewart also wrote a separate dissenting opinion.
The Court reversed Miranda's conviction and remanded his case to the Arizona courts.

FOLLOW-UP: Miranda was later retried, but the state did not introduce his written confession since it had been taken without his having voluntarily waived what is now called "the Miranda rights." Other evidence was sufficient and he was convicted and resentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison for the crimes, committed in 1963. Miranda also served a concurrent term for an unrelated $8 robbery of a housewife.
Miranda was paroled in 1972 but was again arrested while on parole in July 1974 on charges of possession of dangerous drugs (three amphetamine pills) and a firearm. That arrest came after he was stopped for a routine traffic violation. The charges were dropped in October 1974 after a Superior Court judge ruled that the search violated Miranda's rights because police had no reasonable cause to search the car.
Miranda attempted to capitalize on the Supreme Court decision after being released from prison. He sold autographed "Miranda cards" around the Maricopa County Superior Court building. He originally sold the cards for $1.50 but later raised the price to $2, one officer said.
In 1978 Ernesto Miranda was stabbed to death in Phoenix in a fight over a bar room card game. When Miranda’s killer fled down a back alley, police caught his accomplice. As the officers placed the man in the back of their cruiser, one of them pulled out a small card with words printed in English on one side and Spanish on the other. He began to read:
You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to the presence of an attorney to assist you prior to questioning and to be with you during questioning if you so desire.
If you cannot afford an attorney, you have the right to have an attorney appointed for you prior to questioning.
Do you understand these rights?
Will you voluntarily answer my questions?



1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page