Gerstein V Pugh Parties Brief

Topics: Jury, Supreme Court of the United States, Court Pages: 1 (314 words) Published: April 9, 2013
Gerstein v Pugh Parties: Gerstein Petitioner, Pugh: Respondent Facts: Respondent was arrested on an information (charging documeLabeling Theory and the resulting effects on children in our societynt prepared by prosecutor, not reviewed by grand jury or judge) and held without bond at least 30 days without a determination of probable cause. History: Respondent filed a civil suit, with Petitioner, State Attorney for Dade County, as defendant. District Court found for Respondent and ordered probable cause hearings. Court of Appeals stayed the ruling while new procedures were put in place. Case was remanded to trial court, who affirmed their decision based on the new rules. Court of appeals affirmed. Petitioner petitioned US Supreme Court for review, which this case addresses. Issue(s): Is a person arrested and held for trial on an information entitled to a judicial determination of probable cause for detention; and if so, is an adversarial hearing required? Arguments: Petitioner: The prosecutor has already determined probable cause. Respondent: It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to hold someone for up to thirty days without an impartial determination of probable cause. Prolonged detention has serious negative consequences from which citizens require protection. Disposition: Affirmed in part (must have hearings) Reversed in part (not necessarily adversarial) and Remanded. Holding: The 4th amendment requires a timely judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to detention. It does not require a full blown adversarial hearing. Rationale: Prosecutorial judgement alone does not meet the standard of the 4th amendment, however a full blown hearing will require counsel, witness attendance, and other things that would delay what is required to be a speedy process. Further, the actual standard of probable cause is low, and a full hearing is not required to meet it. States should be allowed flexibility within the requirements of a timely judicial...
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Case Brief of Terry v Essay
  • Essay about Democratic Party V Republican Party
  • Ring V. Arizona Case Brief Essay
  • Mcculloch V Maryland Brief Essay
  • Regina V. G and Another Case Brief Research Paper
  • Essay about Mckleskey V. Kemp Law Brief
  • History Brief Windsor V. Us Research Paper

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free