|
|
Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 (1965)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 (1965)
Linkletter v. Walker No. 95 Argued March 11, 1965 Decided June 7, 1965 381 U.S. 618
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Petitioner was convicted of burglary by a Louisiana court and his conviction was affirmed by the highest state court. Thereafter, in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, this Court held that evidence illegally seized is inadmissible in a state criminal trial, and petitioner applied for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was denied by the federal District Court and by the Court of Appeals, which found the searches of petitioner’s person and property illegal but held that the Mapp exclusionary rule was not retrospective.
Held: The exclusionary rule announced in Mapp does not apply to state court convictions which had become final before its rendition. Pp. 622-640.
(a) The effect of a subsequent ruling of invalidity on prior final judgments when collaterally attacked is not automatic retroactive invalidity, but depends upon a consideration of particular relations and conduct, or rights claimed to have become vested, of status, of prior determinations deemed to have finality, and of public policy in the light of the nature of the statute and its previous application. Chicot Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371. P. 627.
(b) No distinction is drawn between civil and criminal litigation. P. 627.
(c) The Constitution neither prohibits nor requires retroactive effect, and in each case, the Court determines whether retroactive or prospective application is appropriate. This approach is particularly correct with reference to the unreasonable search and seizure prescription of the Fourth Amendment. P. 629.
(d) The primary purpose of Mapp v. Ohio was the enforcement of the Fourth Amendment through the inclusion of the exclusionary rule within its rights, and this purpose would not be advanced by making the rule retroactive. Pp. 636-637.
(e) Other areas in which rules have been applied retrospectively concerned the fairness of the trial, which is not under attack here. P. 639.
(f) The date of the seizure in Mapp (which preceded that here) is of no legal significance; the crucial date is the date of the Mapp judgment which changed the rule. P. 639.
323 F.2d 11, affirmed.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 (1965) in 381 U.S. 618 381 U.S. 619. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=G74WWAEWVHKWU8P.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 (1965), in 381 U.S. 618, page 381 U.S. 619. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=G74WWAEWVHKWU8P.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 (1965). cited in 1965, 381 U.S. 618, pp.381 U.S. 619. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=G74WWAEWVHKWU8P.
|