Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
9. In this case, the United States Supreme Court should
The United States Supreme Court grants a writ of certiorari to review this decision of the state supreme court.
For his conduct, the fan was charged with inciting to riot and was convicted in a jury trial in state court. He appealed. The state supreme court reversed his conviction. In its opinion, the court discussed in detail decisions of the United States Supreme Court dealing with the First Amendment Free Speech Clause as incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. At the end of that discussion, however, the court stated that it «need not resolve how, on the basis of these cases,» the United States Supreme Court would decide the fan's case. Instead, the court stated, «this court has always given the free-speech guarantee of the state's constitution the broadest possible interpretation. As a result, we hold that in this case, where no riot or other violence actually occurred, the state constitution does not permit this conviction for incitement to riot to stand.»
The home team lost the game. Although no violence ensued, spectators crowded menacingly around the umpires after the game. As a result, the umpires were able to leave the field and stadium only with the help of a massive police escort.
A baseball fan has a fierce temper and an extremely loud voice. Attending a baseball game in which a number of calls went against the home team, the fan repeatedly stood up, brandished his fist, and angrily shouted, «Kill the umpires.» The fourth time he engaged in this conduct, many other spectators followed the fan in rising from their seats, brandishing fists, and shouting, «Kill the umpires.»
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
The Court may determine whether a state court has reached a decision that is not in conformity with the U.S. Constitution, but it may not review state court decisions that merely adjudicate questions of state law because the Court's review of state court judgments is limited to questions of federal law.
The state court may hold that a state statute violates both state and federal constitutional provisions. However, the holding that the state constitution is violated may be achieved in one of two ways: (i) the state court may have independently interpreted the state constitutional provision, without relying directly on federal cases construing the federal constitutional provision; or (ii) the state court may have interpreted the state constitutional provision as being co-extensive with the comparable federal constitutional provision, and then attempted to follow the relevant federal case law. The mere fact that a federal question is involved in a case is not sufficient to entitle the Court to review it.
Even if there is a federal question in a state court case, the Court may not review it if there is an «independent and adequate» state ground for the state court's decision. That is, if the same result would be reached even had the state court made a different decision on the federal question, the Court may not decide the case. This is because its opinion would in effect be an «advisory» one.
C is correct. Here, the state court specifically found that its own constitution protected the fan's right to speak and that his conviction should be reversed. The state court did analyze federal case law, but then stated that it «need not resolve how, on the basis of these cases,» the Court would decide the fan's case. The opinion then said that it would give the state constitutional provision «the broadest possible interpretation» and that it «does not permit this conviction for incitement to riot to stand.» (emphasis added). The state court's application of its own constitution thus afforded an independent and adequate state ground for its decision, and the writ should be dismissed.
A is incorrect. It is not necessary to determine whether the speech in question would have been protected under the U.S. Constitution because an independent and adequate state-law ground existed for the state court decision. However, it is possible that the statement «kill the umpires» amounted to «fighting words» or even posed a «clear and present danger» of inciting criminal acts under federal law, which means the speech would be considered unprotected.
B is incorrect. There is no need to remand the case to the state court for adjudication on the federal issue because the state supreme court decision rested on an independent and adequate state-law ground, as stated above.
D is incorrect. It is also not necessary to determine whether the speech would have been unprotected by the U.S. Constitution because there was an independent and adequate state-law ground for the state court decision. However, it is still possible that the speech would have been protected federally given that there was a delay between the speech and the crowd surrounding the umpires, and there was no actual violence.