In this episode we step down from the U.S. Supreme Court to visit the Georgia Court of Appeals. Here, we re-argue the case Christy Brothers Circus v. Turnage.

An evening at the circus suddenly turned an unsuspecting audience member into part of the show.

The question before the court: can a victim collect damages for emotional distress without physical injury?

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case United States v. Causby.

A couple bought property, where they made their home and ran a chicken farm. Their property was less than half a mile away from an airfield, which the U.S. government began using. The family’s farm (and their nerves) were then destroyed by lots of large military aircraft flying less than 100 feet overhead day and night. They sued the government.

The question before the court: was their property taken by the government without just compensation, in violation of the 5th Amendment?

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case North Carolina v. Alford.

HA was charged with First-Degree Murder, a capital offense in North Carolina. There was a lot of evidence against him, so his lawyer recommended he plead guilty. HA ultimately agreed to plead guilty to Second-Degree Murder, but when he went before the judge, HA testified he didn’t commit the crime and was only pleading guilty to avoid the death penalty. He was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison. He later appealed, stating that he had been coerced into the guilty plea because of the prospect of the death penalty.

The question before the court: is a guilty plea invalid when the defendant is also claiming innocence and is only pleading guilty to avoid the death penalty?

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Prince v. Massachusetts.

Massachusetts has adopted child labor laws prohibiting children from selling periodicals on the street, and prohibiting adults from making children work illegally. SP is a Jehovah’s Witness who would distribute religious literature on the street. Her children and her niece begged and cried to join her. SP was confronted by authorities, charged, and ultimately convicted of violating child labor laws. SP says that the government is using inapplicable law to interfere with her parental rights, and her and the child’s religious freedom.

The question before the court: do the state laws prohibiting child labor interfere with parental rights and religious freedoms?

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States.

The U.S. is at war. CS took part in printing and mailing leaflets criticizing the war and the draft. The leaflets also encouraged young men to resist the draft. He was arrested and convicted of conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act.

The question before the court: did CS’s conviction for criticizing the draft violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech?

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case United States v. 95 Barrels, More or Less, Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar, Douglas Packing Company, Claimant.

The Douglas Packing Company is selling a product that they have labeled as apple cider vinegar. However, the feds have an issue with the fact that sometimes the company presses fresh apples, and at other times they press dehydrated and rehydrated apples without informing consumers of the difference. Does this still count as “apple cider vinegar”? Neither the company, the feds, nor the lower courts can agree.

The question before the court: was the apple cider vinegar misbranded under the provisions of the Pure Food and Drug Act?

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio.

One evening the police arrived at the home of DM demanding to be let in to conduct a search. They believed a suspect wanted for a bombing incident was inside. DM called her lawyer and prevented the police from entering her home until they produced a search warrant, which they did not have. After several hours, and the arrival of several more officers, the police broke down DM’s door when she did not answer a knock quickly enough. They met DM as they ascended her stairs and she again demanded they produce a search warrant. The police claimed to have one, and held up a piece of paper, but in reality, they did not, and the paper was fake. DM grabbed the paper away and put it in her shirt, and the police wrestled with her, reaching into her shirt to regain possession of the paper. Once the scuffle concluded, they handcuffed DM and searched her house, finding evidence of an illegal lottery and a book of pornographic imagery, though it was unclear who the items belonged to since DM was a landlord and had tenants.

DM was tried for possession of illegal gambling material, but was acquitted, so a year later she was tried for possession of obscene material and found guilty. DM appealed her conviction to the Ohio Supreme Court on the grounds that the search was illegal and the obscenity law unconstitutional, but the Ohio Supreme Court upheld her conviction. With nowhere else to turn, DM appealed her case to the United States Supreme Court.

The question before the court: following the decision in Wolf v. Colorado, where it was decided that state courts, unlike federal courts, could allow illegally seized evidence to be used in a court of law, should this precedent be overturned to preserve the 4th and 5thAmendments? Should state courts have to follow the same rules as federal courts?

Bonus question: is the Ohio obscenity law a violation of the 1st Amendment?

This is episode 3 of a 3-part series on the development of the Exclusionary Rule.

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Wolf v. Colorado.

One evening the police received a call about an ill woman in a hotel room. They arrived to find a woman who admitted to receiving an illegal abortion and shared the names of her doctors. Without first obtaining a search warrant, the police searched their offices and took a book of patients and care provided maintained by one of the doctors, JW. After interviewing JW's patients, they arrested him, along with some of his colleagues. At their trials, the book that the police took without a search warrant, and the interviews they conducted from the information in the book, were used to convict JW and the other doctors. JW appealed his conviction to the Colorado Supreme Court, arguing that the use of evidence seized without a search warrant violated his 4th and 5th Amendment rights, but the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained without a search warrant was not automatically excluded from trial in state courts. JW then appealed this decision to the United States Supreme Court.

The question before the court: while federal trials require evidence obtained without a search warrant to be excluded to protect a defendent's 4th and 5th Amendments rights in accordance with the ruling in Weeks v. United States, does the same apply to state courts, or do they get to make their own rules?

This is episode 2 of a 3-part series on the development of the Exclusionary Rule.