Resources and Discussion Questions
- What were the facts in the case of Vermont v. Brillon (2009)?
Brillion was accused and convicted of domestic assault. His case took three years to come to trial. During those three years, Brillion had six different public defenders, including two he fired and one who quit after Brillon threatened his life. The Vermont Supreme Court overturned his conviction because he had been denied his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
- How did the Supreme Court rule?
The Supreme Court ruled on March 9, 2009, that state governments are not responsible when public defenders cause delays in bringing criminal cases to trial. The individual public defender represents his or her client, even though his or her salary is paid by taxpayers. Therefore, a state is not responsible for a public defender’s delays in bringing a case to trial: “Assigned counsel [public defenders], just as retained counsel [private attorneys], act on behalf of their clients, and delays sought by counsel are ordinarily attributable to the defendants they represent.”
- What are the facts of the case of Kansas v. Ventris, and what is the constitutional question?
Ventris, jailed while awaiting trial for killing his girlfriend, admitted the crime to an informant posing as another inmate. Kansas admits obtaining a confession this way violated Ventris’s Sixth Amendment right to have the assistance of counsel. However, the confession was not going to be used as evidence of his guilt, but as evidence that his testimony can’t be trusted. The constitutional question is: Can his voluntary statements to the jailhouse informant be used at trial for purposes of impeachment [showing the jury he is not credible]?
- At oral arguments, what were the points of view on each side?
Kansas argued that voluntary statements should be allowed to be introduced to stop the defendant from engaging in perjury. Kansas also argued that statements obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel should be treated the same as evidence obtained in violation of similar provisions in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Court has allowed them for impeachment—again, not as evidence of guilt, but as evidence that someone’s testimony cannot be trusted.
Ventris argued that the right to counsel was a “core enumerated trial right.” The right to counsel was like the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He argued that since the Court has totally excluded the presentation of evidence in Fifth Amendment self-incrimination cases, that exclusion should apply to Ventris’s case.
- Why did Fox Television Stations, Inc. file suit in this case?
Fox argues that the FCC’s rule that any use of the “f-word” on television can result in networks being fined is unclear and violates free speech rights.
- At oral arguments, what were the points of view on each side?
FOX argued that a federal law with criminal penalties for uttering certain words in isolation violated the First Amendment. The FCC defended its policy, saying that most people get their information from broadcasting, and if the Court struck the policy down, Americans may have to get used to hearing “the F-word 24 hours a day,” on any type of programming.
Extensions
A. Have students research the 1978 case FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not prevent the government from banning the broadcast of vulgar words that were indecent, though not obscene. In an oral report or PowerPoint presentation, students should:
- Compare and contrast the facts of FCC v. Pacifica Foundation with those of FCC v. Fox Television Stations.
- Analyze how the evolution of technology since 1978 has affected the broadcast of information.
- Present their opinion on whether the Court ruled correctly in 1978, and how it should rule in 2009.
B. The Court recently decided the First Amendment case of Pleasant Grove v. Summum (2009). Students can complete an activity on this case here.
