Defendants'rights and Due Process: __ to remain silent, right to an attorney the disappointed crime had a right to an attorney no matter how poor. 61. Which Court decision declared that speech can only __ 60, In which case did the Court, by enforcing the 6th amendment.declared that a person accused of a rights __ producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"? __ 2. Which Supreme Court case established that evidence obtained I through unreasonable searches and seizures, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, may not be used in state courts for state law criminal prosecutions? __ 3. Which Supreme Court case involving the 8^th ang 14^th amendments considered the constitutionality __ 64. 14^th amendment & Affirmative Action: In which case did the Supreme Court give an ambiguous decision regarding Affirmative Action by saying that race could be a factor but that quotas were unconstitutional? __ Executive Privilege 6. Which Supreme Court case held that the President cannot use executive privilege to withhold evidence that is relevant in a criminal trial? __

1. The Supreme Court case that established that evidence obtained through unreasonable searches and seizures, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, may not be used in state courts for state law criminal prosecutions is Mapp v. Ohio (1961).<br /><br />2. The Supreme Court case involving the 8th and 14th amendments that considered the constitutionality of the death penalty is Furman v. Georgia (1972).<br /><br />3. The Supreme Court case that declared that a person accused of a crime had a right to an attorney no matter how poor is Gideon v. Wainwright (1963).<br /><br />4. The Supreme Court case that declared that speech can only be limited if it is producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action is Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).<br /><br />5. The Supreme Court case that gave an ambiguous decision regarding Affirmative Action by saying that race could be a factor but that quotas were unconstitutional is Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978).<br /><br />6. The Supreme Court case that held that the President cannot use executive privilege to withhold evidence that is relevant in a criminal trial is United States v. Nixon (1974).