Differently Worded Provisions
But first, let’s finish with…
Similarly Worded Provisions
—
Blum v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.
626 A.2d 537 (Penn. 1993)
—
U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Pennsylvania Constitution, Article I, §6
Trial by jury shall be as heretofore, and the right thereof remain inviolate. The General Assembly may provide, however, by law, that a verdict may be rendered by not less than five-sixths of the jury in any civil case. Furthermore, in criminal cases the Commonwealth shall have the same right to trial by jury as does the accused.
—
Four-Part Test
- text of the Pennsylvania Constitutional provision;
- history of the provision, including Pennsylvania case law;
- related case law from other states;
- policy considerations, including unique issues of state and local concern, and applicability within modern Pennsylvania jurisprudence.
—
Recap
—
Reasons to follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of a similarly worded provision?
Reasons not to follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of a similarly worded provision?
—
Cases - Similarly Worded Provisions
Sitz v. Department of State Police
506 N.W.2d 209 (Mich. 1993)
State v. Hempele
576 A.2d 793 (N.J. 1990)
State v. Wright
961 N.W.2d 396 (Iowa 2021)
Blum v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.
626 A.2d 537 (Penn. 1993)
—
Cases - Differently Worded Provisions
Racing Association of Central Iowa v. Fitzgerald
675 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2004)
State v. Jorden
156 P.3d 893 (Wash. 2007)
State v. Mixton
478 P.3d 1227 (Ariz. 2021)
State v. Scottize Danyelle Brown
930 N.W.2d 840 (Iowa 2019)
—
Racing Association of Central Iowa v. Fitzgerald
675 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2004)
—
U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Iowa Constitution, Article 1, § 6
All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not apply equally to all citizens.
—
State v. Jorden
156 P.3d 893 (Wash. 2007)
State v. Mixton
478 P.3d 1227 (Ariz. 2021)
—
U.S. Constitution, Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Washington Constitution, Article 1, § 7
No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.
Arizona Constitution, Article 2, §8
No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.
—
State v. Scottize Danyelle Brown
930 N.W.2d 840 (Iowa 2019)
—
State court rulings that address both federal and state bases for decision
—
Ohio v. Robinette
653 N.E.2d 695 (Ohio 1995)
519 U.S. 33 (1996)
685 N.E.2d 762 (Ohio 1997)
Important Precedent:
Michigan v. Long
463 U.S. 1032 (1982)
—