U.S. v LeonKerianne O'Dwyer and Steve Tringali

Accused: U.S. Plantiff: Leon

Brief Summary

The case was to decide, whether or not, there is a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule states that all illegally obtained evidence must be blocked from criminal trials. The term of this case lasted from 1980 to 1989.

Arguements

The US believed that it was it was reasonable for the police to receive the search warrant from a judge, although reason was given from an annoymous source. The warrant allowed the police to find illegal substances within Leon's household.The U.S. wished to deem evidence valid for Leon's trial.

Leon was invicted for violating drug laws. Due to the way the evidence was obtained, he stated that the information should be made invalid. With the information from an annoymous source, he believed that the search warrant was given because of insufficient information.

AccusedPlantiff

Supreme Court Decision

6 votes for United States, 3 votes against Yes, there is an exception. A revision to the Exclusionary Rule was made. Admissibility of evidence allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment was allowed to be introduced in trial and used against Leon. In order to maintain respect for the law, they did find him guilty in the courts.  

United States v. Nixon

Plaintiff:     United States

Accused:   

President Richard Nixon   

The Case:

    In 1972, five burglars broke into the Democratic National Headquarters in Washing D.C.  The burglars, who are connected to the White House, were used to help in the re-election of Nixon, but also revealed that the president had kept a tape recorder in the oval office.      The congressional court wanted the tapes to prove Nixon had abused his power and broken the law.  President Nixon didn't comply with the release of the tapes moving the hearing to the Supreme Court.      The court ruled that executive privalage was not allowed in this case and in result, the tapes were released.

The Arguments:    The United States special prosecutor wanted the tapes to help prove Nixon had abused his power and broken the law.        In defense,Nixon's lawyer argued that the tapes could not be used in court because they involved a dispute with the executive branch.        Also argued, Nixon's executive immunity meant the tapes should be protected.    In response, the prosecutor of the Supreme Court argued that executive immunity is not absolute in this case.  Executive immunity is usually given but because of the issue it would result in an unchecked power.

Supreme Court Decision:

 The Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege is not allowed in this case, in result, having Nixon release the tapes.     

The tampered tapes that had missing pieces of information became known as The Watergate Scandal.