chapter_20_section_3_notes.ppt | |
File Size: | 6730 kb |
File Type: | ppt |
Lyndon Johnson's Presidency
This 6:15 clip discusses how LBJ rose through the political ranks, his experience as Vice President under Kennedy, assuming the presidency after JFK's assassination (with footage of the funeral), his plans to get stuff accomplished during his presidency (The Great Society) that JFK could not do while he was living, and a brief summary of Civil Rights successes(mainly the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965) that occurred during his presidency (more details provided in Chapter 21).
This 3:35 clip discusses LBJ's belief that poverty in the U.S. needed to be addressed with a variety of different kinds of legislation, his campaign in 1964 and the impact that the famous anti-Goldwater, nuclear bomb advertisement had on LBJ getting elected, and a brief discussion of other Great Society programs (Medicare & Medicaid).
Medicare vs Medicaid
Immigration Act of 1965 Summary
Connecting Immigration Act of 1965 to the past and the modern day
Warren Court Case Summaries of the 1960's
Baker v. Carr (1962)
Required courts to hear challenges to how voting districts are determined and required them to have nearly equal populations. The case began in Tennessee, which had not redrawn state legislative districts for about 60 years, even as millions moved out of rural districts and into cities. The decision broke the rural lock on political power and gave urban voters more equal representation.
Mapp v Ohio (1961)
Dorlee Mapp was suspected of having information in her home that would implicate a suspected bomber, and of running an illegal gambling ring out of her basement. The police came to her home and asked if they might search the residence. Ms. Mapp called her lawyer and was advised to ask for a warrant. They police did not have a warrant and were asked to leave. Hours later the police returned and forcibly entered the residence. Mrs. Mapp demanded to see the warrant and a piece of paper was waved in her face. Mrs. Mapp grabbed the paper and tucked it in her blouse. A struggle ensued where Ms. Mapp was knocked to the ground as police retrieved the supposed warrant. Outside Ms. Mapp's attorney arrived on the scene but was prevented from entering the residence. The police found pornographic materiels in the house and Ms. Mapp was arrested for possession of lewd materials. Ms. Mapp was convicted of this crime. Ms.. Mapp appealed her conviction on the grounds that the search of her home was in violation of her rights. The court ruled that the evidence obtained in the search was not admissable because it was seized in an illegal search. In ruling this way the court created the "exclusionary rule" which makes illegally obtained evidence inadmissable in court. This ruling upheld the principles of the fourth amendment.
Gideon v Wainwright (1963)
Clarence Earl Gideon was accused of breaking into a poolroom and stealing money from a jukebox and cash register. Gideon, an ex con, was too poor to pay for a lawyer and asked the court to appoint one for him. The court refused to grant his request stating that lawyers were only provided for those accused of committing capital crimes (ones where a possible sentence was death) like murder or rape. Gideon was tried and was forced to defend himself. He was unsuccessful and ended up getting sentenced to 5 years in prison. While in prison, Gideon hand wrote a plea to the Supreme Court and was granted a hearing. At this point he received representation from lawyers who were attracted to his case. Gideon argued that his right to a fair trial was violated. Gideon's position was upheld. The Court ruled that all citizens must be provided a lawyer if they cannot afford one. This is regardless of the type of crime. In a retrial, Gideon was found not guilty.
There is a really good movie about this case that was made in 1980 called Gideon's Trumpet. It's available on Youtube in 10 minute segments (you can watch the entire thing that way) if you're interested.
Required courts to hear challenges to how voting districts are determined and required them to have nearly equal populations. The case began in Tennessee, which had not redrawn state legislative districts for about 60 years, even as millions moved out of rural districts and into cities. The decision broke the rural lock on political power and gave urban voters more equal representation.
Mapp v Ohio (1961)
Dorlee Mapp was suspected of having information in her home that would implicate a suspected bomber, and of running an illegal gambling ring out of her basement. The police came to her home and asked if they might search the residence. Ms. Mapp called her lawyer and was advised to ask for a warrant. They police did not have a warrant and were asked to leave. Hours later the police returned and forcibly entered the residence. Mrs. Mapp demanded to see the warrant and a piece of paper was waved in her face. Mrs. Mapp grabbed the paper and tucked it in her blouse. A struggle ensued where Ms. Mapp was knocked to the ground as police retrieved the supposed warrant. Outside Ms. Mapp's attorney arrived on the scene but was prevented from entering the residence. The police found pornographic materiels in the house and Ms. Mapp was arrested for possession of lewd materials. Ms. Mapp was convicted of this crime. Ms.. Mapp appealed her conviction on the grounds that the search of her home was in violation of her rights. The court ruled that the evidence obtained in the search was not admissable because it was seized in an illegal search. In ruling this way the court created the "exclusionary rule" which makes illegally obtained evidence inadmissable in court. This ruling upheld the principles of the fourth amendment.
Gideon v Wainwright (1963)
Clarence Earl Gideon was accused of breaking into a poolroom and stealing money from a jukebox and cash register. Gideon, an ex con, was too poor to pay for a lawyer and asked the court to appoint one for him. The court refused to grant his request stating that lawyers were only provided for those accused of committing capital crimes (ones where a possible sentence was death) like murder or rape. Gideon was tried and was forced to defend himself. He was unsuccessful and ended up getting sentenced to 5 years in prison. While in prison, Gideon hand wrote a plea to the Supreme Court and was granted a hearing. At this point he received representation from lawyers who were attracted to his case. Gideon argued that his right to a fair trial was violated. Gideon's position was upheld. The Court ruled that all citizens must be provided a lawyer if they cannot afford one. This is regardless of the type of crime. In a retrial, Gideon was found not guilty.
There is a really good movie about this case that was made in 1980 called Gideon's Trumpet. It's available on Youtube in 10 minute segments (you can watch the entire thing that way) if you're interested.
Escobedo v Illinois (1964)
Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken into police custody as a suspect in the murder of his
brother-in-law. Escobedo asked to speak to his attorney and was denied, even though his attorney had arrived at police headquarters soon after Escobedo had been taken into custody. Escobedo was not warned of his right to remain silent
before or during the interrogation and was eventually convicted of murder, mainly due to statements he made to police during this time. The Supreme Court ruled that not allowing someone to speak with an attorney, and not advising them of their right to remain silent after they have been arrested and before they have been interrogated is a denial of assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Escobedo was retried and found not guilty due to a lack of evidence and his confession being inadmissable in court.
Miranda v Arizona (1966)
Ernesto Miranda was arrested and taken to the police station where officers questioned him for two hours. He signed a confession that stated he made it voluntarily and had full knowledge of his legal rights. Despite his limited ability to understand the written confession and his limited English proficiency, it was used against him at trial and he was convicted of rape and kidnapping. The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the case and eventually ruled that law enforcement officials must inform an accused of his constitutional rights verbally as well as in writing and that statements obtained from an individual while being subjected to police interrogation were inadmissible at trilal if he has not been notified of his privilege under the 5th Amendment not to be compelled to incriminate himself. From this point forward, incriminating statements made by an individual are only admissible in court if the following warning have been given: 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 have an attorney present; and if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him. The suspect then must acknowledge that he understands the rights as they've been read to him before any questioning can occur. Miranda was retried and found guilty due to other physical evidence and eyewitness testimony presented in court.