Homework: RoA RQs due
Friday
FrontPage: Respond to this statement: it is better to let ten
guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent person..
Inane Baby Products For Questionable
Parents
THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
The Rights of the Accused Have you ever been falsely accused of a
crime? Why is it important to give rights to accused
persons?
Homework: RoA RQs -
Friday
FrontPage: NNIGNBest
Yearbook Quotes
The 5th Amendment (abridged)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital…crime…unless on indictment by a
grand jury; nor shall any person be subject for the same
offence to be twice put in jeopardy…; nor…in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken…, without
just compensation.
Protections in the 5th Amendment
Grand jury necessary to bring indictment (charges) against a person in a capital (serious) federal crime
Protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy
Prosecutor also cannot make an argument based on this fact
“Due Process” Requires the government to
follow all rules of procedure before they can take a person’s life, liberty or property.
Just compensation
The 6th Amendment…the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial
jury …, 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 defense.
The Right to Trial Before the jury trial, accused parties
were sometimes tried by ordeal. Think of the trial by water in which
accused witches were tried. After being thrown into water, if they
floated, God had rejected them and they were guilty of the crime if they drowned, then God had accepted them as innocent.
The concept of earthly justice did not come about until the jury trial was instituted by King Henry II in the 12th Century.
Doe vs. Arizona John Doe was arrested and questioned by police officers regarding the rape and kidnapping of an Arizona woman. Police immediately questioned him and eventually, Doe confessed to the rape.
Police officers used this confession at his trial and Doe was convicted.
Miranda vs. Arizona
Result/Impact: The Court rules that suspects MUST be
informed of their rights upon arrest or before questioning.
Is this interpretation of the Bill of Rights controversial?
http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,86387189001_1990132,00.html
Escobedo vs. IllinoisThe Chicago police brought in Danny Escobedo on suspicion that he had shot and killed his brother-in-law and proceeded to question him at length. Escobedo repeatedly asked to see his lawyer, but his requests were denied. After a long night at police HQ, he made some incriminating statements and
was eventually convicted with the help of these statements.
Result/Impact: The Supreme Court rules that if a suspect’s rights
are violated, any evidence gained as a result can be thrown out In effect, creates an “Exclusionary rule” for the
5th amendment
Gideon vs. WainwrightGideon was charged with breaking into a pool
hall with the intent to commit a crime. He requested an attorney (paid for by the state), but the court denied the request. Gideon was convicted and sentenced to a 5-year jail term.
Result/Impact: The Supreme Court rules that if a person cannot
afford an attorney, the court MUST appoint them one. This expanded on earlier rulings that in death
penalty cases or certain other specific situations, an attorney could be provided to a defendant
