# data[].attributes.body
Melvin Smith was tried for illegal possession (firearm), The state did not introduce direct evidence of the gun length. So originally he was not guilty. However a witness testified against him claiming that it was a pistol. So the case was there overturned and Smith was found guilty. Smith appealed it because he claimed it was a violation of his fifth amendment rights (double jeopardy). It was claimed to be a violation due to there not being a second proceeding. The question was as stated  "Is the double jeopardy clause's prohibition against successive prosecutions, found in the Fifth Amendment, violated when a judge rules that the defendant is not guilty because the government's evidence is insufficient but later in the trial reverses her finding of not guilty?". The Supreme Court reviewed the case, and voted in favor of Melvin Smith. So Smith could not be tried for the same crime, regarding of the proceedings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2. The Double Jeopardy Clause forbade the judge to reconsider the acquittal later in the trial. While the Clause may permit States to create a procedure for reconsidering a midtrial determination of insufficiency of proof, Massachusetts had no such procedure at the time of petitioner's trial.

# data[].attributes.body
Terry was with 2 other friends when he was arrested for possession/carrying an armed weapon. The cop was in plain street clothes instead of his regular uniform, supposedly 'patrolling'. The question brought to the Supreme court was whether or not Terry's fourth amendment was violated by the police officer. If this was not brought to court, terry would remain in jail for three years. The decision decided that Police Officers do not need a probable cause when they have reasonable suspicion. That and the officer could be at risk due the firearm.

# data[].attributes.headline
New York Times Company v. United States (1971)

# data[].attributes.subject
New York Times Company v. United States (1971)

# data[].attributes.body
The Washington Post and the New York Times were two major newspaper companies in the US. When Richard Nixon was in office, was the same time the US was at war with Vietnam. And the Newspaper companies were trying to leak what was told to be "Classified information'. The President argued, the reason the information should not be published. It was more to protect national security at the time. The question brought to Supreme Court was if the efforts made by the Nixon Administration were a violation of the newspapers 1st amendment rights (press). Instead of a majority decision, it was decided by Per Curiam opinion. the decision was ruled in favor of the United States, citizens did not view the Pentagon Papers until 2011.

# data[].attributes.body
Clarence E. Gideon from the state of Florida was arrested and charged with breaking in and entering and robbery. At the time he could not afford a lawyer, and asked for the court to appoint a attorney for his case. However Gideon was denied the appointment of a lawyer. He had little evidence to prove that he was not guilty, while the plaintiff had much evidence claiming that he did commit the crimes. During his time in jail, Gideon mailed a petition for a writ of certiorari. Thus getting a case saying he was not guilty. When heard by the Supreme Court, it was unanimous in favor of Clarence E. Gideon. Regardless of the court case, everybody should be granted an attorney at the request of the court. The question presented to the Justices of the Supreme Court was "does the Sixth Amendment'right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts?".

# data[].attributes.body
Ernesto Miranda had committed several crimes during his lifetime. However in this particular case, he was being interrogated. Miranda was forced to admit the rape he had committed. However Miranda claimed his 5th amendment rights were being violated by the state of Arizona. He was not being protected by the fifth amendment, because the state of Arizona made him self incriminated for the crime he confessed. The verdict by the Supreme Court was in a 5-4 favor of Miranda. That is why when you are being arrested cops are required to say the following.

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning"

The question the Supreme Court in deciding this decision was "Does the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?

# data[].attributes.body
T.L.O or known as Tracy Lois Odom was a high school freshman in New Jersey. A high school teacher walked in to catch her and a senior smoking a cigarette. The administration searched her bag without a probable cause or warrant, in which T.L.O thought was unconstitutional. The Administration found cigarillos (commonly associated with Marijuana), under the table drugs, and cigarettes as well. The case was heard in Supreme Court debating whether or not the school violated T.L.O's 4th amendment rights. The verdict stood by the School itself, principles need probable suspicion to search. It is important because school is a place of moral, respect, and differences. The 6-3 decision was a result of the question regarding the court case. "Does the exclusionary rule apply to searches conducted by school officials in public schools?"

# data[].attributes.body
Some students wore bands around their arms to protest the Vietnam War. However the school claims it was a distraction to other students. They said they would punish students that continued to wear them. The students arrived at school the next day, then told that they were being suspended. The family of the student brought this to court, all the way up to the Supreme Court in Washington DC. The final verdict was the 1st amendment rights of the students were violated. The school could not discipline a student that is symbolically represented a cause. The Supreme Court voted 7-2 in favor of Tinker. It came to the question being "Does a rule against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the student's' FOS protections guaranteed by the First Amendment?