PS 145E FINAL STUDY GUIDE EXAM
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 100% PASS
Monroe v. Pape (1961) - ANS Facts: petitioner was strip-searched and offers had entered his
home without a warrant; sued officers and city of Chicago under statute 1983
Holding: ability to sue officers under 1983 was upheld - but did not extend to cities
Dissent: There was already a remedy in place, so there is no need to extend 1983
Anderson v. Creighton (1987) - ANS Facts: warrantless search of a home to find a man
suspected of robbing a bank earlier that day
Holding: extended concept of qualified immunity to officers: (1) determine whether a law was
broken; (2) determine whether the officer knowingly broke the law (reasonableness)
Dissent: Extension of qualified immunity is too much power to law enforcement
Heck v. Humphrey (1994) - ANS Facts: convicted voluntary manslaughter and sought damages
compensation without seeking the overturn of his conviction
Holding: Must show that one has overturned conviction (exhausted other avenues for remedy)
before seeking 1983 action
Connick v. Thompson (2011) - ANS Facts: man sat on death row because evidence proving his
innocence was withheld
Holding: Must prove systemic Brady violations to receive 1983 relief (practicality exception)
Dissent: but there WERE several violations
1 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
, Ziglar v. Abbasi (2017) - ANS Facts: sued for being wrongfully detained and subsequently
deported
Holding: The context of 9/11 and lack of clearly-established law meant that the officers in
question were entitled to qualified immunity since they couldn't know otherwise
Dissent: The lack of existing, alternative processes for remedy meant Bivens should still be
viable
Buck v. Davis (2017) - ANS Facts: Defendant counsel brings in testimony which claims because
defendant is black, he is more likely to commit crimes
Holding: defendant entitled to habeas corpus relief because of reasonable probability that he
was convicted based on his race
Dissent: the law was misapplied
Lafler v. Cooper (2012) - ANS Facts: Rejected a plea deal for a lesser sentence because
counsel advised the state would not be able to prove a harsher sentence was warranted
Holding: If high probability that counsel advice relating to a plea bargain resulted in a worse
sentence for the defendant, then defendant is entitled to relief
Dissent: A constitutional right to a plea bargain had been invented by the court
McCoy v. Louisiana (2018) - ANS Facts: defense disclosed defendant was guilty to jury despite
protests from defendant
Holding: recognized some decisions were the exclusive right of defendant, including declaring
whether they were guilty or innocent (6th Amend. protection of choosing their own defense
objective), hence client autonomy is at issue, so structural error, rather than harmless error
(faulting the court, not the defense)
Dissent: arbitrary distinction between defense and defendant rights
Murray v. Giarratano (1989) - ANS Facts: Virginia death row inmates sue for counsel to
challenge convictions
Holding: Death row inmates do not have a right to counsel for post-conviction relief (habeas
corpus)
Dissent: The procedure Virginia has in place for this is inadequate
2 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 100% PASS
Monroe v. Pape (1961) - ANS Facts: petitioner was strip-searched and offers had entered his
home without a warrant; sued officers and city of Chicago under statute 1983
Holding: ability to sue officers under 1983 was upheld - but did not extend to cities
Dissent: There was already a remedy in place, so there is no need to extend 1983
Anderson v. Creighton (1987) - ANS Facts: warrantless search of a home to find a man
suspected of robbing a bank earlier that day
Holding: extended concept of qualified immunity to officers: (1) determine whether a law was
broken; (2) determine whether the officer knowingly broke the law (reasonableness)
Dissent: Extension of qualified immunity is too much power to law enforcement
Heck v. Humphrey (1994) - ANS Facts: convicted voluntary manslaughter and sought damages
compensation without seeking the overturn of his conviction
Holding: Must show that one has overturned conviction (exhausted other avenues for remedy)
before seeking 1983 action
Connick v. Thompson (2011) - ANS Facts: man sat on death row because evidence proving his
innocence was withheld
Holding: Must prove systemic Brady violations to receive 1983 relief (practicality exception)
Dissent: but there WERE several violations
1 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
, Ziglar v. Abbasi (2017) - ANS Facts: sued for being wrongfully detained and subsequently
deported
Holding: The context of 9/11 and lack of clearly-established law meant that the officers in
question were entitled to qualified immunity since they couldn't know otherwise
Dissent: The lack of existing, alternative processes for remedy meant Bivens should still be
viable
Buck v. Davis (2017) - ANS Facts: Defendant counsel brings in testimony which claims because
defendant is black, he is more likely to commit crimes
Holding: defendant entitled to habeas corpus relief because of reasonable probability that he
was convicted based on his race
Dissent: the law was misapplied
Lafler v. Cooper (2012) - ANS Facts: Rejected a plea deal for a lesser sentence because
counsel advised the state would not be able to prove a harsher sentence was warranted
Holding: If high probability that counsel advice relating to a plea bargain resulted in a worse
sentence for the defendant, then defendant is entitled to relief
Dissent: A constitutional right to a plea bargain had been invented by the court
McCoy v. Louisiana (2018) - ANS Facts: defense disclosed defendant was guilty to jury despite
protests from defendant
Holding: recognized some decisions were the exclusive right of defendant, including declaring
whether they were guilty or innocent (6th Amend. protection of choosing their own defense
objective), hence client autonomy is at issue, so structural error, rather than harmless error
(faulting the court, not the defense)
Dissent: arbitrary distinction between defense and defendant rights
Murray v. Giarratano (1989) - ANS Facts: Virginia death row inmates sue for counsel to
challenge convictions
Holding: Death row inmates do not have a right to counsel for post-conviction relief (habeas
corpus)
Dissent: The procedure Virginia has in place for this is inadequate
2 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
