Source: https://stus.com/Downum-v-United-States-cartoon-cpr0223
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 12:19:18+00:00

Document:
If an impaneled jury is discharged because the prosecution witness is unavailable, double jeopardy applies to bar the impaneling of a second jury and a new trial. Impanel.
When a non-testifying codefendant confession incriminating defendant is not directly admissible against defendant, the confrontation clause bars its admission at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed not to consider it against the defendant.
The per se exclusion of evidence knowingly disclosed in violation of discovery rules does not violate the compulsory process clause. subpoena; offer of proof.
Herring v. United States; The exclusionary rule is not an individual right and applies only where it results in appreciable police deterrence; respondeat superior.
Fellers v. United States; the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment have different tests for admissibility. Missouri v. Frye.
Hurrell-Harring v. State of New York; class action permitted as state must provide legal representation to indigent criminal defendants at all critical stages of the proceedings against them.
Florida v. Jardines; The curtilage of the house enjoys the same protection from unreasonable searches as the home itself; drug sniffing dogs are agents of the state for Fourth Amendment analysis.
Florida v. Powell; Although the four warnings Miranda requires are invariable, there are no specific words that must be used to adequately convey them.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.