GVPT 331 Final Exam 2023 with complete solution
Judiciary Act of 1789 Section 13
Supreme Court has the original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus
Constitution conflicting with 1789 Act
original jurisdiction applies to:
ambassadors
public ministers
consuls
where the state shall be pa...
GVPT 331 Final Exam 2023 with complete solution
Judiciary Act of 1789 Section 13
Supreme Court has the original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus
Constitution conflicting with 1789 Act
original jurisdiction applies to:
ambassadors
public ministers
consuls
where the state shall be party
Judicial review
the ability of the supreme court to determine the constitutionality of a law or bill
writ of mandamus
order from a court to an inferior gov official ordering them to do something
Holding of Marbury vs. Madison
Supreme court could not issue writ of mandamus because Judiciary Act of 1789 was
unconstitutional- congress could not extend power of supreme court under this case to
exercise original jurisdiction (not a case involving "public ambassadors, ministers,
consuls" or where "a state is a party")
Holding of Terry v. Ohio
An officer can perform a search without a warrant or probable cause when he
reasonably believes a person may be armed- unduly burdened by being prohibited by
searching suspects he thought was armed
Issue of Terry v. Ohio
Is a search for weapons without probable cause against the 4th amendment?
Issue in Miranda v. Arizona
Is the government required to notify arrested defendants of their 5th amendment rights
before interrogating them?
Holding in Miranda v. Arizona
The government has to notify individuals of their rights against self incrimination before
interrogation
- if they do not, they cant use the info issued during the interrogation in court
- person can stop the interrogation at any time
- interrogation stops when person remains silent or asks for lawyer first
Kansas v. Dinh Loc Ta Holding
- trial court said that he was guilty of "aggravated indecent liberties with a child"
(arrested and prosecuted)
- appellate court reversed the ruling and said there was insufficient evidence for
"aggravated indecent liberties with a child"/ breaking law
- did not meet the standards for lewd touching/fondling
"lewd touching/fondling"
undermines the morals of a victim and is clearly offensive according to the moral values
of a reasonable person
Criminal Cases
Miranda v. Arizona
Vermont v. Tran
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller LECTMAGGY. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $10.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
