Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Facts of The Case:: Schmerber v. California

    Uploaded by

    Crise Zsalb
    The Supreme Court held that: 1) Taking handwriting exemplars from the petitioner did not violate his constitutional rights. 2) Admission of a codefendant's out-of-court statements that mentioned the petitioner was properly rejected by the California Supreme Court. 3) There were not enough clear facts about the search and seizure claim to resolve that issue. 4) Admission of in-court witness identifications of the petitioner without determining if they were tainted by an illegal lineup was constitutional error. The conviction was vacated pending a determination of whether the identifications were independently sourced.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Facts of The Case:: Schmerber v. California

    Uploaded by

    Crise Zsalb
    52 views5 pages
    The Supreme Court held that: 1) Taking handwriting exemplars from the petitioner did not violate his constitutional rights. 2) Admission of a codefendant's out-of-court statements that mentioned the petitioner was properly rejected by the California Supreme Court. 3) There were not enough clear facts about the search and seizure claim to resolve that issue. 4) Admission of in-court witness identifications of the petitioner without determining if they were tainted by an illegal lineup was constitutional error. The conviction was vacated pending a determination of whether the identifications were independently sourced.

    Original Title

    ANNE

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court held that: 1) Taking handwriting exemplars from the petitioner did not violate his constitutional rights. 2) Admission of a codefendant's out-of-court statements that mentioned the petitioner was properly rejected by the California Supreme Court. 3) There were not enough clear facts about the search and seizure claim to resolve that issue. 4) Admission of in-court witness identifications of the petitioner without determining if they were tainted by an illegal lineup was constitutional error. The conviction was vacated pending a determination of whether the identifications were independently sourced.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    52 views5 pages

    Facts of The Case:: Schmerber v. California

    Uploaded by

    Crise Zsalb
    The Supreme Court held that: 1) Taking handwriting exemplars from the petitioner did not violate his constitutional rights. 2) Admission of a codefendant's out-of-court statements that mentioned the petitioner was properly rejected by the California Supreme Court. 3) There were not enough clear facts about the search and seizure claim to resolve that issue. 4) Admission of in-court witness identifications of the petitioner without determining if they were tainted by an illegal lineup was constitutional error. The conviction was vacated pending a determination of whether the identifications were independently sourced.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    Schmerber v.

    California
    Facts of the Case: 
    Schmerber had been arrested for drunk driving while
    receiving treatment for injuries in a hospital. During his
    treatment, a police officer ordered a doctor to take a blood
    sample which indicated that Schmerber had been drunk while
    driving. The blood test was introduced as evidence in court
    and Schmerber was convicted.

    Question: 
    Did the blood test violate the Fifth Amendment guarantee
    against self-incrimination?

    Conclusion: 
    No. Justice Brennan argued for a unanimous Court that the
    protection against self-incrimination applied specifically
    to compelled communications or testimony. Since the results
    of the blood test were neither "testimony nor evidence
    relating to some communicative act or writing by the
    petitioner, it was not inadmissible on privilege grounds."
    Decisions
    Decision: 5 votes for California, 4 vote(s) against
    Legal provision: Due Process

    Case Basics
    Docket No.: 
     658
    Petitioner: 
     Schmerber
    Respondent: 
     California
    Decided By: 
     Warren Court (1965-1967)
    Opinion: 
     384 U.S. 757 (1966)
    Argued: 
     Monday, April 25, 1966
    Decided: 
     Monday, June 20, 1966
    Issues: 
     Criminal Procedure, Self-Incrimination
    Schmerber v. California
    348 U.S. 757 (1966)

    Facts: Appellant was involved in an accident and he was


    taken to the hospital by the police officer where a blood
    sample was withdrawn to test for his blood alcohol level. 
    Appellant objected to the test and now claims that the blood
    sample violated his 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights (only
    4thand 5th for our purposes).

    Procedure:  The Appellate Department of California Superior


    Court affirmed appellant’s conviction.

    Issue:  Did the withdrawing of the blood sample violate


    appellant’s 5th Amendment privilege against self-
    incrimination?  Did it violate his 4thAmendment right to be
    free from unreasonable searches and seizures?

    Holding:  No, No

    Rationale:  The Court held that the blood test did not
    violate the 5th Amendment because this Amendment protects
    only against compulsion to give testimonial or communicative
    evidence and not physical evidence as is involved in this
    case.  The Court further held that the blood test did not
    violate the 4th Amendment.  The 4th Amendment clearly
    protects the rights of people to be securing in “their
    person”.  But in this case, the officer smelled alcohol and
    observed that the appellant’s eyes were bloodshot, watery
    and had a glassy appearance.  Furthermore, the officer had
    the reasonable fear that the evidence will be lost if he
    goes out to seek a search warrant.  Therefore, the blood
    test was an appropriate measure conducted in a reasonable
    manner.

    GILBERT V. CALIFORNIA, 388 U. S. 263 (1967)


    U.S. Supreme Court

    Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967)

    Gilbert v. California

    No. 223

    Argued February 15-16, 1967

    Decided June 12, 1967

    388 U.S. 263

    Syllabus

    Petitioner was convicted of armed robbery and the murder of


    a police officer. There were separate guilt and penalty
    stages of the trial before the same jury, which rendered a
    guilty verdict and imposed the death penalty. Petitioner
    alleges constitutional errors in the admission of testimony
    of some of the witnesses that they had also identified him
    at a lineup, which occurred 16 days after his indictment and
    after appointment of counsel, who was not notified, and in
    in-court identifications of other witnesses present at that
    lineup; in the admission of handwriting exemplars taken from
    him after arrest, and in the admission of a codefendant's
    out-of-court statements mentioning petitioner's part in the
    crimes, which statements were held to have been improperly
    admitted against the codefendant on the latter's appeal.
    Additionally, he alleges violation of his Fourth Amendment
    rights by police seizure of photographs of him from his
    locked apartment after a warrantless entry, and the
    admission of testimony identifying him from these
    photographs.
    Held:

    1. The taking of handwriting exemplars did not violate


    petitioner's constitutional rights. Pp. 388 U. S. 265-267.

    (a) The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination


    reaches compulsory communications, but a mere handwriting
    exemplar, in contrast with the content of what is written,
    is an identifying physical characteristic outside its
    protection. Pp. 388 U. S. 266-267.

    (b) The taking of the exemplars was not a "critical" stage


    of the criminal proceedings entitling petitioner to the
    assistance of counsel; there is minimal risk that the
    absence of counsel might derogate from his right to a fair
    trial. P. 388 U. S. 267.

    2. Petitioner's request for reconsideration of Delli Paoli


    v. United States, 352 U. S. 232(where the Court held that
    appropriate instructions to the jury would suffice to
    prevent prejudice to a defendant from references to him in a
    codefendant's statement) in connection with his
    codefendant's statements, need not be considered in view of
    the California Supreme Court's holding rejecting the Delli
    Paoli rationale, but finding that any error to petitioner by
    the admission of the statements was harmless. Pp. 388 U. S.
    267-268.

    Page 388 U. S. 264

    3. A closer examination of the record than was possible when


    certiorari was granted reveals that the facts with respect
    to the search and seizure claim are not sufficiently clear
    to permit resolution of that question, and certiorari on
    this issue is vacated as improvidently granted. P. 388 U. S.
    269.

    4. The admission of the in-court identifications of


    petitioner without first determining that they were not
    tainted by the illegal lineup procedure but were of
    independent origin was constitutional error. United States
    v. Wade, ante, p. 388 U. S. 218. Pp. 388 U. S. 269-274.

    (a) Since the record does not permit an informed judgment


    whether the in-court identifications at the two stages of
    the trial had an independent source, petitioner is entitled
    only to a vacation of his conviction, pending proceedings in
    California courts allowing the State to establish that the
    in-court identifications had an independent source or that
    their introduction in evidence was harmless error. P. 388 U.
    S. 272.

    (b) With respect to testimony of witnesses that they


    identified petitioner at the lineup, which is a direct
    result of an illegal procedure, the State is not entitled to
    show that such testimony had an independent source, but the
    California courts must, unless "able to declare a belief
    that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt," grant
    petitioner a new trial if such testimony was at the guilt
    stage, or grant appropriate relief if it was at the penalty
    stage. Pp. 388 U. S. 272-274.

    63 Cal.2d 690, 408 P.2d 365, vacated and remanded.

    You might also like