In state court proceedings all issues of error should be
raised to a federal constitutional level, for issues raised to
a federal constitutional level can later be litigated in the
federal courts either by petition for writ of certiorari after
direct appeal or federal habeas corpus.
There are two essential reasons why the state constitution as
well as the federal constitution should be interpreted and
invoked in the process of determining an accused's rights. |
The
state constitution should always be studied carefully because
it will frequently contain guarantees of a person's rights and
restrictions upon the state that do not exist in the federal
constitution, or even in other state constitutions.
|
The state
constitution should also be consulted in conjunction with the
federal constitution because there are instances in which
constitutional provisions as interpreted by the state might
actually afford an accused person more rights than do the
identical words as interpreted by the United States Supreme
Court. In Texas v. White, 423 U.S. 65 (1975), the
Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals concerning a warrantless station-house search
of a vehicle [White v. State (Tex. Cr. App. 1975), 521
S.W.2d 244] and remanded the case to that court over the
dissenting admonitions of Justices Marshall and Brennan that:
"[i]t should be clear to the court below that nothing this
court does today precludes it from reaching the result it did
under applicable state law." Texas v. White, at 72.
However, on remand, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
refused to reach the state law question because trial counsel
had failed to raise the state constitutional ground at the
trial level. |
Our legal education indoctrinates us to frame our
constitutional arguments in terms of federal constitutional
rights. When a state court is deciding an issue on state
constitutional grounds, the basis of the decision must clearly
show that it was decided on state grounds or federal courts may
assume it was decided on federal constitutional grounds. Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983). |
|
|
|
|
Examples of the State and Federal Constitutional Element |
|
Opportunity for representatives of the Accused to inspect physical
evidence in this case is necessary to preserve the Accused's right
to a fair trial, to effective assistance of counsel, to equal
protection and due process of law as guaranteed by Art. 3, Secs. 26,
24 and 14 respectively of the Mississippi Constitution and the
Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States. |
|
Motions should even attack and challenge areas of the law that
seem to be absolutely written in stone against your client, for example..
|
(b) The Florida death penalty statute on its
face, as applied in the State of Florida and as applied in Duval County,
violates the protection against cruel and unusual punishment, the right
to a fair trial by a jury representing a fair cross section of the
community, the protection against double jeopardy, due process and equal
protection under the law as guaranteed by Art. I, Secs. 9, 16 and 17 of
the Florida Constitution and the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
|
|
|