...certain rights of the Bill of Rights. States are not given such protections as they are not in the same class as the defendant. The Bill of Rights is for all persons in these United States. Corporations also have this protection. In the time of this countries creation the Constitution was not complete without the protections of the Bill of Rights. This Bill was created to keep the governments in check in respect to the people who gave them the power to operate. Since the Bill of Rights was created in 1791 it had to be added or incorporated into the States relations with its citizenry, the original version was for the federal governments dealing with State Citizens. Knowing that tyranny was only a step away from that in power or in commerce this Bill has the power to keep the authorities in their respective place and adhere to the rules of procedure. Criminals have certain protections of the bill of Rights also, as they are citizens of the several States or the Federal government, being under the protection of this document it affords them a myriad of guarantees that a State cannot use. The most important right given is the right to remain silent which is the 5th Amendment. This is important because the authorities will use what is stated by a defendant against him or her with no regard as to the effect it will have on the case or whether it is prejudicial, they will use all information gathered against the defendant. Most criminals when arrested do not invoke this right and...
Words: 1212 - Pages: 5
...United States Constitution provides these criminal defendants a number of rights that limit the fashion in which the government can investigate, prosecute, and penalize criminal behavior. These include, but are not limited to, the right to a speedy trial, the right to an impartial judge, and the right to an impartial jury. Criminal defendants have the right to a public trial. This ensures that the government will not carry out any hearings in secret that may violate the individual’s constitutional rights. There are times when the court will hold a closed hearing to protect the identity of a victim, such as a minor. A criminal defendant also has the right to be tried by a jury of his or her peers. The type of jury varies from state to states but these juries are made up of members of the community that have been randomly designated by the court and chosen by attorney for both the prosecution and the defense. This leads the criminal defendant into the right to ask for a swift trial. The most intricate premises of the criminal justice system are that when justice is delayed, it is denied. The right to a swift and speedy trial is essential in a structure that places equality and integrity above all else (FindLaw, n.d.). Diligent trials promote civility within the criminal justice system. A speedy trial is one that is without any postponements. The Sixth Amendment guarantees all individuals this right after he or she is charged with a crime or arrested and confined on a...
Words: 1137 - Pages: 5
...civil tort suit against Armington for damages. Armington contended that he could not be tried again for the same crime, as that would constitute double jeopardy, which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Is he right or wrong? Armington is incorrect. Double Jeopardy is being tried for the same crime twice (Miller & Jentz, 2008). In this case Armington was tried and convicted of the crime, however the civil tort suit is something that is completely different then the armed robbery conviction, therefore this would not fall under double jeopardy. Regardless of the outcome of the criminal trial, the victim can bring a civil suit against Armington to recover any losses or damages. Armington can also be charged federally for civil rights violations for the same crime because assault and battery took place; he cannot claim double jeopardy for that either. Since Jennings was injured in the crime, he has the right to pursue a civil case for damages incurred from the injury. This can include medical bills, time off work, even mental or depression issues stemming from the incident. Armington’s rights have not been violated because these are two difference issues; one being the crime itself and the other being victims’ rights for damages from the crime. Furthermore, Double Jeopardy only precludes only subsequent criminal proceedings as handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. It does not involve civil, administrative or federal proceedings. References Miller...
Words: 307 - Pages: 2
...THE ARGUMENT FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION AT BAIL HEARINGS IN ALL CRIMINAL CASES IN STATE COURT The right to legal representation is generally accepted in the United States as a Constitutional right guaranteed to everyone. The Supreme Court promised the right to counsel to “ any person haled into court” in the infamous Gideon v Wainwright case. This case was instrumental in advancing the rights of indigent defendants through its proclamation that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in criminal proceedings should also apply to State Courts. However, Gideon’s promise to counsel has yet to completely guarantee equal access to justice when first appearing at judicial proceedings in state courts. Although defendants who can afford lawyers will usually hire one from the onset of a criminal proceeding, the right to counsel for indigent defendants (i.e. a state-provided attorney) is interpreted as attaching at varying stages of a prosecution in different states. Only eight states guarantee indigent defendants the right to legal counsel at the initial bail hearing. Representation at the initial bail hearing is critical as a lawyer’s intervention is crucial for obtaining a defendant’s release and for protecting a defendant’s due process right (guaranteed in the Fourteenth amendment) against an unreasonable denial of liberty during pretrial detention. The lack of counsel in pretrial proceedings can result in numerous consequences; some include a high number of pleas...
Words: 7110 - Pages: 29
...Crime victims rights Advocates for victims' rights have long complained that they have been sidelined by a criminal justice system that is focused on the interplay between the state and the defendant. With the enactment of the Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008, that is changing. The authors examine the current state of victims' rights, the evolution of the enforcement mechanisms, and the emerging role of the criminal practitioner in regards to these rights. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT] Advocates for victims' rights have long complained that they have been sidelined by a criminal justice system that is focused on the interplay between the state and the defendant. With the enactment of the Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008, that is changing. The authors examine the current state of victims' rights, the evolution of the enforcement mechanisms, and the emerging role of the criminal practitioner in regards to these rights. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT] You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING...
Words: 5571 - Pages: 23
...Accused Versus Victim’s Rights The United States of America relies on due process of law to ensure equal protection of life, liberty and property to all citizens. Police officers work tirelessly to accommodate regulations adopted to ensure only criminals are convicted. These restrictions have been part of the United States since the Bill of Rights was generated in 1791, but in the 1960s, as “Law and Order,” the view that crime must be dealt with harshly to deter citizens from breaking the law, the Supreme Court was forced to decide the constitutionality of the rules of interrogation. In the Sixties, crime was escalating and public safety was becoming a growing concern; police began to treat suspects harsher in an effort to raise conviction rates and promote public safety. In 1966, however, the jurisprudence of the entire US justice system changed when the court of Chief Justice Earl Warren was presented with the case Miranda v Arizona. In this case, the majority decision ruled to protect suspects’ rights, extending equality of protection regardless of legal knowledge or background, not only highlighting the trends of human rights and equality in the Sixties, but also the tensions between criminal rights versus public safety, demonstrating a shift from the conservative ‘law and order’ jurisprudence to more liberal methods of interrogation and conviction. On March 2, 1963, Ernesto Miranda kidnapped a woman (whose name was not released to the press for her safety), drove her into...
Words: 1921 - Pages: 8
...an interview with Justice Tom C. Clark one of the nine Justices for the United States Supreme Court. The case Miranda v. Arizona was argued February 28, March 1st, and 2nd 1966 the decision was June 13th, 1966. The vote was 5 to 4 in favor of Miranda v. Arizona. Q. Where did this case originate? Mr. Justice Clark Miranda v. Arizona originated in Phoenix Arizona, when Ernesto Miranda an immigrant was arrested for kidnapping and rape, he was taken into custody and question for two hours by police until he confessed. What the police did was not inform Mr. Miranda of two rights he is entitled to. The 5th and 6th Amendment, the right to protect himself against self-incrimination and the right to have counseling. The case went to court, the prosecutor used his confession as evidence along with other evidence. Miranda was convicted and sentenced for 20 to 30 years in prison. Q. Were there any other cases similar to this being considered by the United States Supreme Court? Mr. Justice Clark Yes three others Virgira v. New York, Westover v. United States, California v. Stewart, all three of these cases were based on the accused were not informed of their 5th and 6th amendment rights of remaining silent, and the right to counsel. Q. Just how did the case of Miranda v. Arizona get to the U.S. Supreme Court? Mr. Justice Clark Anyone convicted of a crime has the right to appeal the conviction if they believe a legal error occurred. Usually there are only two challenges where legal...
Words: 1127 - Pages: 5
...March 1963, Ernesto Miranda, of Phoenix, Arizona, was arrested in connection with the rape and kidnapping of women. While in custody and after 2 hours of interrogation, he confessed of robbery and attempted rape. His confession and the testimony of the victim were used in the trial. The judge of the Superior Court allowed the confession was used and Miranda was convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison Miranda appealed the case to the Arizona Supreme Court; His lawyer argues that his confession should not be used in court because he had not been informed of their rights. Arizona Supreme Court rejected his appeal and upheld his conviction. Miranda then petitioned for the case to be heard by the United States Supreme Court. Intimidation deprives suspects of their basic freedom and may lead to false confessions. The defendant's right to a lawyer is during interrogation allows the offender to tell their story without fear, effectively, and in a way that all his rights will be protected. Issue: Legal issue The issue of this case is if the government is required to notify the accused detainees of their constitutional rights of the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination before questioning the accused. The government has to notify detainees of their constitutional rights of the Fifth Amendment. The Amendment explain “the right to remain silent, it just mean all that they confess could be used against them in court, his right to counsel and their right to have a lawyer...
Words: 510 - Pages: 3
...“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney…” This is what you hear on all your favorite cop shows. But where did this saying come from? Throughout history, the U.S criminal justice system has always relied on the due process of law to ensure fair treatment in the judicial system. Authority figures work tirelessly and endless hours to follow regulations to assure only criminals are convicted. These regulations, have been a part of the justice system since its creation in 1791, which ensures the equal protection of life, liberty, and property to all citizens -- a citizen’s entitlement. However, in the 1960s, the view that crime must be...
Words: 875 - Pages: 4
...our rights as an individual of our country. Included in our Constitution is the right to a speedy trial and the right to due process. Everyone has a different opinion of what due process is. Our founding fathers gave us the right from the federal government to interfere with the state government. They also gave us the answer to what due process is all about, we just need to learn and identify with it. Our legal system is an adversarial system, that is it reflects the theory that truth and justice can be found when the legal teams battle in court to determine the facts of the case and find solutions, Meyer, J and Grant, D, (2003). A concept of the adversarial system is the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In an adversarial courtroom the state (prosecutor) and defense advance their case with the court (judge) who enforces the rules. Even though the state and defense advance their position, they are still fair. The courtroom parties all share a need to handle cases as fast as possible to try to clear the crowded court docket. In 1791 the fifth amendment was enacted and it states: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property. Nobody really knows what due process is and if asked each person will give a different answer. What was our founders really trying to tell about due process? The concept of due process has evolved with time. The courts interprets and apply the principles accordingly. Originally the Bill of Rights was...
Words: 1075 - Pages: 5
...situations possible. The amendments are there to support the people from any corruption from the government. The purpose of this paper is to talk about the case of Brown v. Mississippi and Miranda v. Arizona. Also, to explain the effect these cases made in the police work today. In 1936, the case of Brown v. Mississippi was argued in the Supreme Court. Raymond Stewart, is a 60-year-old who was a white male (Tokarev, 2012). Stewart was discovered in the cotton seed room. Unfortunately, the people...
Words: 989 - Pages: 4
...The Warren Court left an unprecedented legacy of judicial activism in the area of civil rights law as well as in the area of civil liberties—specifically, the rights of the accused as addressed in Amendments 4 through 8. In the period from 1961 to 1969, the Warren Court examined almost every aspect of the criminal justice system in the United States, using the 14th Amendment to extend constitutional protections to all courts in every State. This process became known as the “nationalization” of the Bill of Rights. During those years, cases concerning the right to legal counsel, confessions, searches, and the treatment of juvenile criminals all appeared on the Court's docket. The Warren Court's began with the case of Mapp v. Ohio, which was the first of several significant cases that re-evaluated the role of the 14th Amendment as it applied to state judicial systems. In a 6-3 decision, the Court overturne the conviction, and five justices found that the States were bound to exclude evidence seized in violation of the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment sets the standards for searches and seizures by law enforcement officials in the United States, the Court noted, and the 14th Amendment requires judges to uphold those standards in every State. Evidence gained by an illegal search became inadmissible in State courts as a result of the decision. The “Mapp Rule” has since been modified, so the exclusionary rule is no longer as absolute as when first handed down in Mapp. Critics of...
Words: 2336 - Pages: 10
...The 5th amendment rights protect a person from incriminating themselves in a court of law or during interrogation. I According to Purpura (1997), the Fifth Amendment states : You have the right to remain silent. If you say anything, what you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and having the attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Reason for existence The police debated if a accused person confessed to a crime without knowledge of the 5th amendment right, it was the defendant’s fault for not invoking it. These rights were originally passed into law to prevent the police from manipulating citizens who were not well aware of their rights,...
Words: 624 - Pages: 3
... |Legal requirements |Precedent |Other | |Arizona |The legal requirements for |Brown v. Illinois takes |The Private Safety Exception | | |obtaining admissible statements |precedent over the admissibility|states that when a suspect is in| | |under the Arizona law, according|of a statement, if the Fourth |need of medical help statements | | |to (Arizona Revised Statues, |Amendment is violated, then any |may be admitted even if the | | |Rules of Criminal Procedure, |material or evidence, which was |Miranda law was violated in | | |Rules of Evidence & More, n.d.),|gained from the violation of the|order to save that person’s | | |“admissibility statements under |Fourth Amendment, is also |life. | | |oath by a party or witness |inadmissible. | | | |during a previous judicial | | | | |proceeding or a deposition under| | | | |Rule 15.3 shall...
Words: 1519 - Pages: 7
...Miranda v Arizona Westwood College Miranda v. Arizona Every time someone is arrested the police officer reads them their right, which was not always the case. They read as followed "you have the right to remain silent anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to an attorney, if you can't afford one, one will be provided to you." But why do the officers have to remind the people of their rights, because of the Miranda v. Arizona case. Before the Miranda v. Arizona case people were not reminded or even aware that they had such rights. In the 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnap and rape. He was accused of kidnapping and raping a young girl and when the officers arrested Miranda and then the victim identified him. After the trial was done Miranda was found guilty because after being interrogated for a couple hours he confessed to the crime not knowing that the 5th amendment states you don't have to plead guilty if you do not want to. That is what self incrimination is, for example when Miranda was being asked about the crime he did not have to answer he could of just said he plead the 5th and said he wanted to wait for an attorney to both consult him and be with him while he was being interrogated. If Miranda would have known that he had that right he probably would not have incriminated himself. Miranda was also known to have some mental problems and...
Words: 1127 - Pages: 5
