GEORGIA v. RANDOLPH, 2006

GEORGIA v RANDOLPH

What is taken into consideration in the marking scheme:

-      the student's understanding of the case

-      his/her knowledge of the course

-      his/her command of English in general + legal English and in particular his/her ability to express him/herself WITHOUT QUOTING the case

-      the fact that this is an English exam as opposed to a law one, which means that you should take into account students' efforts at giving a detailed answer even if it is not totally accurate from a legal point of view.

From a legal point of view, students are expected to show their understanding of the US legal system including the difference between state and federal jurisdiction, have a good knowledge of the contents of the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights, understand the concepts of selective incorporation, judicial review, the specificity of the certiorari procedure etc.

From a legal English point of view, students should be familiar with & able to use words/expressions such as: to render/hand down a ruling/decision, file/lodge, indict, prosecute, convict/sentence, appeal, uphold/affirm, reverse/overturn, remand, appellant/respondent, petitioner/respondent, joining/concurring/dissenting opinion, to hold (court), to argue/contend/allege (parties to the litigation) etc.

Who are the parties involved in this case?

Present the parties to the case, give some factual & legal background, explain what legal issue is at stake in the case and which court has jurisdiction.

The ruling was handed down by the federal Supreme Court and the two parties are the state of Georgia & Randolph.

The State of Georgia is the petitioner – which filed the petition for a writ of certiorari with the state supreme court)

Randolph is the respondent.

The federal SC has jurisdiction over this case as it raises a federal legal issue (here, the 4^th amendment of the BR which has constitutional value).

Facts: The respondent was suspected of being involved in drug use (possession of cocaine) & the state police decided to carry out a search / to conduct a search.

The 4^th amendment of the federal BR (incorporated into state law through the selective incorporation process) provides that a prior warrant is required subject to certain exceptions like the alleged criminal's consent.

Here, Randolph's wife consented to the search of the marital home but Randolph, who was also present, objected to it. The police ignored his objection, searched the house & we can suspect that they seized evidence.

VOCAB: Evidence is: (uncountable) / The Police: are

Which previous courts had jurisdiction and what were their respective rulings?

  

The Georgia trial court – which was the state's first instance court exercising criminal jurisdiction – found in favour of the state of Georgia.

An appeal was lodged by Randolph (who was the appellant) and the appellate court reversed the trial court decision.

A further appeal was lodged, this time by the Georgia state (which thus became the appellant there).

The state SC affirmed the state Court of Appeals’ ruling.

This led the Georgia state to lodge the petition for a writ of certiorari to the federal SC (thus becoming the petitioner).

Vocab: To find for the plaintiff / to find for the defendant / To lodge an appeal / to life a petition / To allow an appeal / to dismiss an appeal / To affirm a decision / to uphold (upheld / upheld), ≠ to reverse / Distinction between reverse and overturn.

What were the respondent's arguments? What specific motion did he file?

The respondent is Randolph. Before the state courts he filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized by the police whilst the warrantless search was carried out.

Students here should focus on the scope of the 4^th amendment and on the issue of consent to a warrantless search being given by a spouse (they should use the verbs argue/contend etc).

What decision was handed down by the court? Was the decision reached unanimously? 

The federal SC held that the wife's consent (or any person's other than the person concerned by the search, if he is also in the house and objects to the search) is not sufficient to justify a warrantless search and seizure.

In practical terms, this means that the court agreed that the evidence seized is inadmissible at trial.