Use our essay title generator to get ideas and recommendations instantly
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the prosecution may not use statements without the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination (Summary pp). The decision reads, "the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him" (Summary pp). If the individual indicates that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease, until an attorney is present, and if an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney, the burden rests on the Government to show that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel (Summary pp).
Since the 1966 decision, many exceptions to the Miranda exclusionary rule have been made, and a violation of the Miranda…… [Read More]
To most people, the case Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), is synonymous with the Miranda warnings given to accused criminals. People understand that Miranda means that a criminal defendant has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Although Miranda warnings do inform defendants of those rights, the Miranda decision is not what created those rights. In fact, under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, defendants already had those rights. However, many defendants were either ignorant of their rights or unsure how to exercise them. hat Miranda did was require the police to inform suspects of their rights prior to interrogation. hat post-Miranda case law has established is that failure by the police to follow the procedures established in Miranda can invalidate the results of otherwise legal confessions.
To truly understand the Miranda decision, it is important to understand pre-Miranda criminal law. To do…… [Read More]
The Court also stated that if an individual indicates at any time that he wants to remain silent, the interrogation must stop; any statement taken after this time is the product of compulsion. Silence can never constitute a valid waiver.
Dissent: Justice Clark's dissented in three of the decisions, but concurred in one. He found that police coercion was not sufficiently established to justify the extent of the majority's decision. Clark would continue to evaluate Fifth Amendment waivers under a totality of the circumstances approach.
Justices Harlan, Stewart, and White dissented. They found that the majority's required warnings would not prevent coercion, because officers could still lie about waivers, but to seek a Utopian "voluntariness" for confessions, which is impractical in the real world. They believed that the Court had already established an "elaborate, sophisticated, and sensitive approach to admissibility of confessions." (384 U.S. 436, 509). They believed that the…… [Read More]
Miranda v. Arizona. 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
This case was first brought in district court against Ernest Miranda after a rape investigation led authorities to question him. Under questioning, Miranda admitted to raping a young girl and signed a written confession. The case was heard in Phoenix district court and Miranda was adjudicated as guilty. The Arizona Supreme Court rejected Miranda's appeal, finding him guilty once again. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed.
Ernesto Miranda was accused of raping a young woman. The woman described her assailant and his vehicle, and using this information, the police traced the vehicle description to Miranda. Miranda also fit the physical description of the attacker, and was arrested and questioned. Under questioning, Miranda signed a written confession. His district trial summarily convicted him and he was sentenced to thirty to forty years in prison.
Miranda's lawyer appealed to the state supreme court on the grounds…… [Read More]
Corruption exists within all aspects of government, and has since early civilization. While many steps have been taken to prevent such corruption in other areas of the world, the United States has recently introduced legislation that has the potential to actually increase the amount of possible corruption, particularly in reference to police officers "enforcing" the law. This paper will discuss the U.S.A. Patriot Act and its follow-up legislation, the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, nicknamed Patriot II, and will discuss why these legislative measures actually serve to increase corruption. Additionally, this paper will discuss the 9/11 Commission's recommendations for limiting the corruption issues made possible by the Patriot Acts.
One of the sections of the Patriot Act that has potential problems in relation to overzealous law enforcement is Section 215, which modified the previous rules on record searches. Under the Patriot Act, law enforcement no longer needs an individual's consent, nor…… [Read More]
Case Facts: Ernesto Miranda was arrested and locked up in a Phoenix police station on March 13, 1963 where he was identified by a complaining witness (Samaha, 2012). Law enforcement officers took him to an Investigation Room where he was questioned before the two officers came out with a written confession that he signed. During the questioning, Miranda was not notified that he had a right to an attorney and was notified of the need for voluntary confession after making his oral confession. The written confession was then admitted into evidence at his trial before a jury despite objections from the defense counsel. The court then found him guilty of kidnapping and rape and sentenced him to 20 to 30 years in prison for each count, with these sentences running simultaneously. This ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court of Arizona following Mirandas appeal on the basis that his constitutional…… [Read More]
In 1966 the Miranda v. Arizona case ushered in the era of police informing suspects of their constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. This case is universally accepted as critical to protecting the rights of suspects while in the custody of the police, however, the impact on the effectiveness of the police is not usually discussed. In a 1998 study John Donohoe discussed the empirical evidence which supported the argument that the imposition of Miranda rights significantly hampered the effectiveness of the police to clear cases. But while he admitted that there were statistical drops in the clearing of cases by police, he could not make a direct connection between that and Miranda. (Donohoe, 1998) In effect, the imposing of the Miranda rights warning does not impede the police and their attempts to catch criminals.
What the Miranda rights warning does is lessen…… [Read More]
Miranda ule's effectiveness in America today [...] why the Miranda is well tailored to guard against constitutional violations, and will present an argument for the Miranda rule. The Miranda ule, first adopted in 1966, is still a contentious ruling in today's criminal justice system. While some critics of the rule feel it is not a deterrent to coercion of information from a suspect, most experts believe the Miranda ule was created with a solid foundation to help ensure a suspect's rights are not violated and the information from any suspect is admissible in court. The Miranda ule guards the criminal justice system just as well as it guards against rights violations and because of this, it is vital to the quick and efficient trying of cases. The Miranda ule is controversial, but it is a necessity in modern policing, and it helps both the suspect and the police.
The Miranda…… [Read More]
Dershowitz and others have pointed out, rightfully, that Miranda principles were designed to prevent the use at trial of evidence obtained improperly and that the prevention of mass casualties may constitute a sufficiently important goal to suspend certain constitutional issues. In that regard, even the terrorist is entitled to the same protections against self-incrimination and prosecution using illegally-obtained evidence of guilt. However, the legitimate need to protect the public from wide-scale death and destruction may be another matter entirely.
Dershowitz (2002) outlined the principles for designing a "torture warrant" in connection with which authorities may interrogate suspects known to possess information necessary to prevent mass casualties and loss of innocent life in imminent terrorist attacks through means ordinarily strictly prohibited by the Constitution and the laws applicable to all fifty American states. The fundamental distinction is that those efforts would relate to securing information for the purposes of preventing mass…… [Read More]
The fact that Fred was eventually allowed to leave is less important in that determination than Fred's state of mind and reasonable belief about whether or not he was still free to leave once the police informed him that he was actually a suspect in Wilma's murder (Dershowitz, 2002; Zalman, 2008).
Search and Seizure and Unlawful Arrest Issues:
The fact pattern does not make clear whether or not the police actually conducted a search of Fred's home or were merely "bluffing" to induce cooperation from Fred. Assuming that no such unwarranted search was actually being conducted, there was no impermissible search and seizure of Fred's home. Provided Fred still (reasonably) believed that he was free to terminate the interview and leave when he volunteered the confession, that evidence should not be excluded under Miranda (and related) doctrine and principles.
However, the police did seize Fred's vehicle, which was an impermissible…… [Read More]
Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778, 129 S. Ct. 2079, 173 L. Ed. 2D 955
Jesse Montejo and Jerry Moore were interrupted during a burglary by the owner of the residence, Lewis Ferrari (U.S. Supreme Court, 2009). Montejo was picked up for questioning the next day and after waiving his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436, 1966), admitted to shooting and killing Lewis Ferrari during the burglary. When Montejo was arraigned two days later in court, he stood mute as the court appointed counsel.
A few hours after the arraignment, police detectives visited Montejo at the jail (U.S. Supreme Court, 2009). During the end of the ensuing discussion, Montejo waved his Miranda rights and agreed to take them to the murder weapon. During the trip to locate the murder weapon, Montejo wrote a letter of apology to the victim's widow.
The defense attempted to suppress the letter of…… [Read More]
Under U.S. v. Butler, the courts can make interpretations as to if a suspect has invoked these rights based upon their reactions to the questions and body language they are using. ("Berghuis v. Thompkins" 2009) ("Berghuis v. Thompkins," 2012) ("Miranda v. Arizona," 1966) (Dempsey, 2010)
In real world situations, this means that the basic rights are continually evolving based upon the questions and answers that are provided to law enforcement. The moment the suspect does not say anything, is the point when implied protections are being utilized. Once they begin answering questions is when they will have revoked these protections. This is because they decided to respond to one question. The fact that they chose to do this, is illustrating that the individual knows what is happening to them and is fully aware of their surroundings. As a result, any kind of information they provide can be used as evidence…… [Read More]
To prove either side of the argument, the sensitivity and impact needs to be assessed -- there is no blanket rule of everything being transparent, or everything being private; it is dependent upon the sensitivity and overall impact of the issue at hand.
3. ources: Hunold, C. And B. Peters. (2004). "Bureaucratic Discretion and Deliverative Democracy." Transformation in Governance. IGI Publishing; Holzer, M. And K. Yang. (April 1, 2005). "Administrative Discretion in a Turbulent Time: An Introduction. Public Administration Quarterly. Cited in: www.highbeamresearch.com.
4. How does a cost-benefit analysis used in the determination of due process?
Using, for example, Miranda v Arizona, a cost-benefit analysis is used to determine due-process in the sense of the decision's impact on law enforcement and the community needs to be taken into consideration before a ruling of using Miranda, 5th Amendment Rights, and basic procedures. The Rehnquist Court's decision in the idea of cost-benefit,…… [Read More]
2004 case of Missouri v. eibert that was appealed to the U.. upreme Court to generate a new rule prohibiting a specific practice often used by, and taught to police officers. That technique involved a two-tiered interrogation strategy expressly designed and intended to circumvent the Fifth Amendment constitutional protections guaranteed by the Miranda rule. The way the strategy worked was that police would deliberately delay reading Miranda warnings to question suspects for the purpose of acquiring information about their culpable conduct. Afterwards, they would Mirandize the same subject and then re-open the discussion, referencing that information. The suspects invariably made admissions of guilt after being Mirandized because they knew they had already provided the information and were unaware of the legal distinction of statements "inside" and "outside" of Miranda warnings.
The first admission is absolutely inadmissible. At the time it was made, the suspect was already participating in a custodial…… [Read More]
(Duncan v. Louisiana, 1968)
Duncan clearly had his rights violated when he asked for a jury trial and did not receive one. Especially given that the conviction was held on conflicting and limited witness testimony that was likely highly charged and differential. In the end is it possible that battery occurred simply because the defendant touched the other individual and yet it is unlikely that intent to do harm, an aspect of battery could have been proven in a court of law without a reasonable doubt.
The outcomes of this case are argued in favor and against where some state that the ruling required states to reduce minimum mandatory sentencing in petty crimes while others argue that it establishes the federal minimum of petty designation across the states. In general it is true that this ruling was conservative in that the Supreme Court waived the right and desire to strictly…… [Read More]
Criminal Justice & Criminology
Has the Miranda vs. Arizona ruling decreased the percentage of arresting official violations of defendant Fifth Amendment rights?
CJ327W esearch Methods in Criminal Justice
The Miranda vs. Arizona ruling has attracted notable attention to the treatment of the accused in the hands of the law. Specifically, the ruling affirmed the rights to the accused under the law and to the legal rights of the accused. The research was to reveal the degree of law enforcement lack of enforcing the Miranda rights to the accused. A questionnaire presented to four group types that have a stakeholder interest in the law enforcement and legal rights aspect of the case was distributed to determine the activity relevant to Miranda enforcement process. The findings are expected to reveal abuse within the system and a notable increase in the Miranda violations for the accused.
Purpose & Audience
The Miranda vs.…… [Read More]
Miranda v. Arizona
In the original case involving Miranda v. Arizona, 22-year-old Ernesto Miranda
stood accused of the rape of an 18-year-old female (and kidnapping and robbery).
The arrest happened on March 18, 1963. Miranda was arrested in his home and taken to a Phoenix police station, where he was interrogated and given a confession to sign -- which he did sign. On that confession, the police had typed in that Miranda fully understood his legal rights even though he was not notified that he had the right to remain silent (by not incriminating himself) and he had the right to legal counsel. Miranda was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. This was an example of a heavy-handed strategy used by Phoenix police against a Latino man who was not fully mentally sound, according to the literature on the case.
Miranda v. Arizona -- the broader implications and…… [Read More]
On appeal, Terry argued that the conviction should be thrown out because the search that produced the evidence of the weapon in his possession was improper because it was an impermissible search of his person without a warrant or probable cause as required by the 4th Amendment (Schmalleger, 2009).
The Supreme Court decided that the type of search the police officer conducted was not prohibited by the 4th Amendment. Instead, it was a reasonable and appropriate means of ensuring the safety of the officer from concealed weapons in a tactical situation in which that concern was appropriate in light of the totality of the circumstances in which it occurred. While the 4th Amendment does prohibit more invasive searches with the intention of finding evidence of crimes, (such as for concealed contraband or of small containers), it does not prelude an external frisk now known as a Terry frisk or Terry…… [Read More]
Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040 (1983)) since the independence of a state court's state-law judgment is not clear.
Furthermore the Court stated that the Florida Supreme Court treated state and federal law as interchangeable and interwoven and therefore would give jurisdiction to the U.S. Supreme Court based on a ruling made in the Michigan v. Long case.
he most weight was obviously put on the wording used and how it can be interpreted and how it was interpreted. Since there are grammatical differences between "before" and "during," the decision cannot be upheld. It is clear that if the interrogator used the phrase: ".. An attorney will be presented to you before questioning" it is not the same as if it would read: ".. And attorney will be presented to you before and during questioning." his is misleading and can be interpreted as if the defendant would have the right to…… [Read More]
The Court rejected Medellin's argument that the President's 2005 Memorandum was binding on state courts. The Court accused the President of attempting to unilaterally converting a non-self-executing treaty into a self-executing one." The government had also claimed that the Memorandum was an exercise of the President's authority to resolve international claims under his executive authority. The Court recognized that this was a long-standing practice, but prior uses of executive authority to settle international disputes had occurred in narrow circumstances, and did not involve the complete setting aside of state law, as the Medellin sought.
In the Medellin v. Texas oral argument, Justice Scalia says, "Usually when we have treaties that are not self-enforcing, the judgment of whether that international law obligation shall be made domestic law is a judgment for the Congress. Congress passes a law to enforce the treaty. " the United States must abide by its international commitments…… [Read More]
The Burger Court held that the prosecution simply needed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the evidence illegally obtained would have been lawfully and inevitably discovered. The Burger Court did not think that a police officer would act illegally on the 'off' chance that the evidence might be admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine, and could not reasonably calculate if the evidence would inevitably be discovered (Hendrie 1997:2).
The Nix v. illiams finding is an important counterweight to the restrictions the exclusionary rule imposes upon law enforcement officials. In contrast to the arren Court, the Burger Court accepted that, although protecting constitutional rights is important, the exclusionary rule is often a "drastic and socially costly remedy" because it often results in obviously guilty people going free, meaning that the cost of releasing illiams back into the world would have been high, while the gain to society of…… [Read More]
Many states, such as Virginia, are training private security officers in order to ensure smooth cooperation and coordination between security companies without police powers and the police and sheriff's departments. In Washington D.C., the municipal police department requires private security officers to be licensed as "special police" officers in order to legally search or arrest people. Cooperation can reach significant proportions, as in the case of the Minneapolis Police Department's "SafeZone" program, which place private security officers downtown who now outnumber Minneapolis Police Department officers there 13 to 1.
4. Industries and organizations that use special and/or commissioned officers and for what purposes
a. There is a truly broad range of industries and organizations which use special police officers. These organizations tend to have significant financial resources, large premises, and sensitive security needs which they believe cannot be met by the existing public police force. These often involve the need…… [Read More]
Examples of offenses that are based on constitutional endowments of right contain tax evasion, possessing illegal substances and conspiring to violate civil rights. Courts have specified on the whole a wide explanation to the Commerce Clause authority, allowing Congress to create a federal offense of many widespread law crimes such as kidnapping or murder if state outline are fractious during commission of the crime and such as misappropriation and blackmail using instrumentalities of trade such as telephone lines or the U.S. post. Examples of offenses that are based on regions owned by or under the restricted power of the federal government contain crimes committed in the District of Columbia, in U.S. Territories, in U.S. National Parks, in federal courthouses and federal jails plus on board airplanes and ocean going ships. The United States armed force has its own immoral justice system applicable to its members, but civilians might be accused…… [Read More]
Crime Control and Due Process Models
Earl arren's involvement in the American Justice system played an important role in shaping American history as a whole. arren was Chief Justice of the U.S. between 1953 and 1969 -- a period filled with significant events in the country's history. As a consequence, arren was provided with the mission to play an active role in many of these respective events that was responsible for making decisions that would reflect on the whole country rather than just on the individuals who took part in the trial.
Connection between the Due Process Model and arren's decisions
The Due Process Model is characteristic to arren's decisions, considering that the American Chief Justice focused on fighting for people's rights. Initially thought to be a moderate conservative and to thus act in agreement with Eisenhower's thinking in general, arren gradually proved to be a determined liberal. Eisenhower actually…… [Read More]
Rule: Any out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is generally inadmissible as hearsay. (801-802) However, hearsay may be admitted, in a prosecution for homicide or in a civil case, if the declarant, while believing the declarant's death to be imminent, made the statement about its cause or circumstances. (804(b)(2).
Application: Here, the defense attorney's objection is premised on the fact that the deceased Sam's statements are I inadmissible as hearsay, as an out-of-court statement by a person unavailable for trial, offered to prove that the other driver was driving on the wrong side of the road. However, Trooper Jones may offer this statement because it falls under the (804(b)(2) hearsay exception, as a statement in a civil case that the declarant made while his death was imminent.
Conclusion: The basis for the defense attorney's objection is hearsay because the deceased Sam's statement is an out-of-court…… [Read More]
Decisions of ehnquist & Warren
The field of constitutional law, at least in the area of criminal procedure, has been an interesting study for the past fifty years. Unlike other areas of the law, the study of criminal procedure has undergone major transformations as a result of the decisions of the last three courts, the Warren, Burger and ehnquist courts. These three courts have changed the legal landscape in the cases involving criminal procedure and, in the process; have created a great deal of controversy (Bloom, 2010).
The application of the Bill or ights to the states has been an acrimonious issue in the U.S. Supreme Court for a number of years. It all began when the Warren Court began applying the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments directly against the states, under a doctrine that became to be known as selective incorporation. The Warren Court used the selective incorporation method…… [Read More]
Troy Stone is showing how the police engaged in questionable tactics. This is based upon the fact that they have a witness who identified him. Yet, they were not able to come up with any corroborating evidence to directly link him to the murder. To make matters worse, they violated his constitutional rights in the process. These issues are highlighting how there were questionable tactics used to obtain the confession. To fully understand what is occurring requires focusing on: possible arguments which can be raised on Stone's behalf, if there was a violation of his constitutional rights and case law that supports these claims. Together, these elements will illustrate how Stone's civil rights were violated during the course of the investigation.
Discuss the arguments you think Taylor will raise on Stone's behalf regarding the lineup, interrogation, and confession.
There are a number of arguments which can be raised that will…… [Read More]
S. Supreme Court's decisions in Escobedo v. Illinois (Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964) and Miranda v. Arizona (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). These two cases dramatically altered how police treated criminal defendants subsequent to their arrests and forced police agencies throughout the United States to develop new procedures. The reading of what have become to be popularly known as Miranda rights has become a routine part of every arrest. Like it has in many areas of criminal procedure, the U.S. Supreme Court has narrowed the application of Miranda and gradually chipped away at the rights originally granted by the Court that decided the case. Two of the more significant cases were decided in 1984 when the Court allowed an exception to Miranda in the case of New York v. Quarles (New York v. Quarles, 1984) so that police can use Miranda statements in situations involving public safety. Additionally, in a companion case…… [Read More]
The security industry has in the recent past experienced a shift towards the Hybrid approach in which contractual agency and the client create a synergy. This approach has gained considerable attention in the recent past and is commonly known as engaged liaison. Engaged liaison is defined as a security system in which the client company and the contractual agency work in collaboration to meet specific security goals and objectives (Fischer, Halibozek & Walters, 2013). Through this process, the engaged liaison creates a hybrid security system in which each of these parties have some responsibilities relating to security activities and objectives. Security managers believe that an engaged liaison is the answer to modern security challenges because it enables relevant agencies to work together toward accomplishing specific security-related objectives.
The significance of this approach is also evidenced in its creation of an organizational structure with enhanced capabilities to hire specific expertise.…… [Read More]
Supreme Court Chief Justices Warren and ehnquist
Compare and contrast approaches to criminal procedures by U.S. Supreme Courts:
The Warren vs. The ehnquist Court
A common philosophical debate within the legal community is when the approach advocated by so-called 'conservative' justices (often called strict constructionism) is pitted against more 'liberal' and freer interpretations of constitutional words and history. Throughout much of the 20th century, it was often said that the more liberal interpreters of the Constitution were 'winning the war' in regards to this issue, thanks to the presiding intelligence of Chief Justice Earl Warren. "Following his appointment in 1953 Chief Justice Earl Warren led the Court into a series of decisions that drastically affected sexual freedom, the rights of criminals, the practice of religion, civil rights, and the structure of political representation. The decisions of the Warren Court reflected its deep concern for the individual, no matter how lowly"…… [Read More]
Finally, a lot of defense lawyers assist in helping men and women go free because of a technicality. On the whole however, it is a better system after the Gideon case because less innocent people are being convicted of crimes they did not commit.
In the Case of Miranda v. rizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the Court ruled that a defendant's admission was only admissible provided he had been properly advised of his right to counsel and of his right to remain silent, and if he waived these rights, the waiver had to be voluntary and knowingly. This case involved a burglary suspected who admitted to rape and kidnapping while in police custody. The defendant, Ernesto Miranda was sentenced to concurrent 20-30-year sentences for the two crimes he confessed to.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that due to the coercive nature of questioning by the police involved, there is no…… [Read More]
Organizational Issues and Criminology
Introduction- When we think of the criminal justice system in the United States, we are referring to a broad collection of federal, state, and local agencies that are focused on crime prevention and upholding the law. In general, these agencies uphold the law at various levels, investigate crime, process the accused, compile evidence, work with the district attorney, and develop profiles and crime prevention techniques. The process of the criminal justice organization is designed to work in conjunction with the three branches of the U.S. government, and to uphold the Constitution. Organizationally, because there are so many agencies, personalities, interpretations and goals, there tends to be either a crime control model or a due process model. Many scholars see that this is one of the downfalls of the organization, because the tension and competition between the two viewpoints tends to cause negative issues within the system…… [Read More]
Some of these methods include plea agreements and the disclosure of incriminating evidence, along with witness testimony. Thus, defendants' rights do not tie the hands of officers and the courts because officers and the courts have an arsenal of ways to manage these rights and still perform their jobs.
While the myriad of rights offered to defendants in the United States may sometimes seem like ways to protect the guilty and harm the innocent, this is far from the case. Not only are these rights necessary for protecting the defendant, along with the rest of the democratic society of the United States, but the rights can also be managed through a plethora of legal tactics on the part of the courts and police officers. Established through the Constitution and landmark court cases, primarily, defendants' rights honor the intent of the constitution. Though it is true that some guilty defendants may…… [Read More]
Americans are aware that they are entitled to "their day in court" but may not fully understand the full range of due process protections that are contained in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. To determine the facts, this paper reviews the relevant literature to provide a discussion concerning the meaning, history and importance of the constitutional concept of "due process" as contained in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. A brief discussion analyzing the conflicting positions of Justices Hugo Black and Felix Frankfurter with respect to the incorporation of American citizens' rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and how these Justices' positions helped develop the concept of due process is followed by a summary of the research and important findings concerning due process in the conclusion.
.eview and Discussion
According to Black's Law Dictionary, "due process of law" means…… [Read More]
Custodial Interrogation vs. Voluntary Statements
In legal and criminal justice terms, as well as in their application in everyday life, there is a considerable degree of distinction between a voluntary statement and custodial interrogation. Nonetheless, there are a number of key similarities between these terms. Both of these proceedings (the issuing of a statement and an interrogation while in custody) can incriminate. Moreover, it is also possible for what begins as an opportunity to issue a voluntary statement to end as an instance of custodial interrogation. One of the key differences between these proceedings is the liberty of the person issuing administration to either federal, state or local authorities.
A voluntary statement is made to the aforementioned authorities without an individual being compelled to make a statement. Frequently, voluntary statements are made at will on the part of the person making them. Individuals may choose to go to a police…… [Read More]
Right to Counsel
In the United States, the right to counsel is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment to the Constitution. Right to counsel is the civil right of an accused person to seek the aid of an individual who is an expert in the law of the land. Often when a person finds him or herself in a position where they are a defendant in either a civil or criminal court, they need to utilize the skills of someone who understands the law. ithout this right, the accused would be at a decided disadvantage against prosecution who are trained and employed in the field of the law. The present law of the United States is that a person may employ an attorney to represent him or her in a court. If a person is unable to afford an attorney, then counsel will be appointed to that person and paid for…… [Read More]
Murder Trial of Nicholas Lindsey, March 2012
Factual and Procedural Background
On the evening of February 21, 2011, Police Officer David Crawford of the St. Petersburg, Florida police department was fatally shot while investigating a report of a suspicious person or prowler in a residential neighborhood. After a 24-hour search expedition, police arrested and booked 16-year-old Nicolas Lindsey on charges of first-degree murder. Lindsey confessed to the killing in a taped statement to police shortly thereafter.[footnoteRef:-1] [-1: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-23/justice/florida.officer.shot_1_police-officer-fatal-shooting-petersburg-police-maj?_s=PM:CRIME]
Lindsey was arraigned in court the next day, and the judge ordered that he be held in custody without bail. A grand jury which convened the following week indicted Lindsey on first-degree murder of a police officer, whereupon the state Attorney General charged Lindsey as an adult based on the seriousness of the offense and that he was over age 14.
Jury selection began on March 19, 2012 and the jury heard…… [Read More]
" Despite the stated expansion, habeas protection continued to be applied only to cases in which the defendant alleged that the sentencing court lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction. The Court extended the reach of federal habeas review during the later part of the nineteenth century, however, by changing the circumstances under which the lack of state court jurisdiction could be found. Even after this shift, federal habeas courts sat not as fact finders but as guarantors of fundamental constitutional rights. (Breuer, 1994)
In 1915, the Court dramatically increased the scope of habeas corpus in Frank v. Mangum, in which the Court held that habeas relief is available whenever the state, "supplying no corrective process,... deprives the accused of his life or liberty without due process of law." The Warren Court continued this shift toward increased availability of habeas corpus in the next phase of habeas litigation after World War…… [Read More]
' Schmerber, 384 U.S. At 772, 769-70. In other words, the burden on law enforcement officers is high if they want to perform a search within the Fourth Amendments' protections.
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no American "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Confessions are inherently suspect, and methods of getting confessions have not always been reliable. In modern times, police forces have professional standards produced by respect for the Constitution. Police realize that society in general abhors the use of involuntary confessions and wants to limit police power against individual citizens. The Fifth Amendment also reinforces the idea that while police officers are enforcing the law they also need to follow the law and play fair. "In the end, life and liberty can be as much endangered from illegal methods used to convict those thought to be criminals as from the actual…… [Read More]
Protections Against Improper Police Behavior
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is important to note that in seeking to detect and prevent crime as well as when it comes to the apprehension of lawbreakers, you need to be mindful of the various protections accorded to the citizens of this country against improper police behavior.
To begin with, you need to be aware of the various protections the Federal Constitution accords the citizens of this country against any police behavior regarded improper. A good example of the said protections can be found in the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment according to Travis III (2011) "protects the homes, papers, and possessions of the citizenry from unreasonable searches." Towards that end, in addition to being judicially suctioned, any warrant should be supported by what is referred to as probable cause.
Further, still on the protections accorded to citizens by the constitution against improper police behavior,…… [Read More]
American Government Politics. Discussed is the fourth amendment and the current policies of searches and seizures. Four sources used. Footnotes.
Americans hold very dear the Bill of Rights. Among the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights is the Fourth, one many refer to as the most ambiguous of the all the amendments. Search and seizure law is drawn from the Fourth and over the years the Supreme Court has come to view that its main purpose is the protection of a citizen's property and privacy. However, according to the conclusion of the Court, the Fourth Amendment does not "protect all property interests or apply to all situations where people might wish to protect their privacy." Perhaps, never has this amendment felt more threatened than today. The attacks on the orld Trade Center on September 11th, spurred the hite House Administration to create the office of…… [Read More]
.....controversy of establishing a court system at the creation of the U.S. Constitution centered on the power struggle between states and the creation of a federal, central government with its own court and ability to overrule state court decisions. The Constitution pitted Federalists against Anti-Federalists. The former wanted a central government that acted as the top force over all the states; the latter wanted no central government -- because, after all, the Revolutionaries had just fought a war against a king -- why should they turn around and elect a new one? The idea of sovereign states was such that each state was its own master and local citizens could have more say in their government at a localized, grassroots level. The passing of the Constitution essentially tipped the scales towards the centralized federal government having power over all the states (Brutus No. 1, 1787).
UNIT 1 DISCUSSION (2)
Feld's…… [Read More]
The idea of remaining silent when faced with accusation has historical religious and legal roots. Moses teachings', transformed to written form by the ancient Talmudic law had a complete ban on self-incrimination. The self-incrimination law could not be changed because it was viewed to contravene the natural instinct for survival. The ancient common law rule also had it that confusions must be voluntary. When the right to remain silent was included in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. constitution, it was tied to a complicated and controversial history. The Supreme Court has applied three tenets in the constitution to evolve rules that govern police interrogation and the confession process. These three include the Sixth Amendment on the Right to Counsel, the Fourteenth Amendment clause on due process and the Fifth Amendment on Self-incrimination clauses. Each of these provisions has led the police to handle interrogation and confessions in varying ways…… [Read More]
They also had the power to decide the merits of evidence and arguments. In the 19th century, judges gained greater control over juries and the role of juries became what it is currently; hearing evidence presented on both sides and determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.
The advantages of the jury system lie in the foundational elements articulated and supported by amendments and the Supreme Court. The Sixth Amendment provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial" (Landsman & Hastings 1992). A speedy trial was emphasized to avoid the accused languishing in prison for extended periods of time prior to a trial, or have the accused fate put off for an indeterminate amount of time. Further, the Sixth Amendment guarantees every citizens right to an impartial jury. The intent is that the prospective juries not enter into the…… [Read More]
Individual Researc Task. Individual Researc: Overview
Medina vs. California, 505 U.S. 437 (1992). Retrieved from Findlaw at:
Competency to stand trial (CST)
Medina was convicted of first-degree murder and in te state of California a person must establis is mental incompetency by te standard of a 'preponderance of evidence.' Te U.S. Supreme Court affirmed tis standard of a burden of proof, denying it violated te petitioner Medina's rigt to due process.
Dean v. United States (08-5274). (2009). Retrieved from Cornell University Law Scool at:
Criminal responsibility (mens rea)
Dean was convicted under a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence requirement for firing a andgun during a robbery; Dean argued tat because e did not intend to fire te gun te mandatory minimum did not apply, owever te U.S. Supreme Court eld tat even if te gun went off accidentally, Dean was still liable to te mandatory minimum.
Pennurst State Scool…… [Read More]
Ferguson required that the decision of the lower court be affirmed. The Court agreed with Mr. Sweatt. While the University of Texas School of Law "may properly be considered one of the nation's ranking law schools," Justice Vinson wrote for the Court, such could not be said for either version of the law school for African-American students (d. At 633). "n terms of number of the faculty, variety of courses and opportunity for specialization, size of the student body, scope of the library, availability of law review and similar activities, the University of Texas Law School is superior, " noted the Court (d. At 633-634). Moreover, Justice Vinson continued, in no way could the new institution compare with the University of Texas School of law in terms of more intangible measures, either (d. At 634).
Although the decision in Sweatt was a vitally important step in the creation of justice…… [Read More]
The US constitution is a supreme law guiding the conducts of government, people, and organizations in the United States. The U.S. constitution comprises of seven articles that delineates the form of government. However, before the constitution came into force in 1789, there were philosophical thinking that influenced the compilation of the American constitution.
The objective of this essay is to discuss the philosophical influences on the U.S. Constitution.
John Locke was an English Philosopher and his thinking had the great impact on the American constitution. John Locke believed that all people has alienated rights and they are created equal. John Locke was political philosopher was the early proponent of social contract theory believing that there were certain inalienable rights that people should enjoy. Locke believed that it was people who created the government, and people could overthrow the government if they failed to protect their rights. In his philosophical thinking,…… [Read More]
As healthcare legislation continues to be debated in the House and Senate, I would like to express my support for the continuation of one, significant policy that was instituted under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), namely the idea that young people under the age of 26 should be permitted to remain on their family's health insurance policies. The current generation of young people is graduating with more college debt than ever before and many new graduates are forced to take jobs that do not offer full benefits. The rise of freelance employment also means that many young persons may be forced to forgo jobs with health insurance.
Buying independent insurance is a significant cost, even though ensuring that young and healthy people are in the health insurance risk pool is necessary to keep overall healthcare costs low. Preventative early care can also reduce the need for more costly…… [Read More]
Terry vs. Ohio
Terry Vs Ohio
The issue of what constitutes a violation of the fourth amendment forms the basis of the argument in the case of Terry vs. Ohio. In this case the petitioner Terry was stopped and frisked by the officer on the streets. A brief description of the situation is as follows. Detective McFadden was walking his beat when he observed two individuals who in his opinion were "casing" the joint with the intention of robbing the place in the daylight hours. This opinion was based on his observation and years of experience (Terry v. Ohio 2012). The suspects moved away from the initial area and were kept under surveillance by the detective. When the men joined a third person a few blocks away the officer identified himself as a police officer, requested the men's names and proceeded to pat down the outside of the men's clothing.…… [Read More]
Supreme Court Bill of Rights Case
Terry v. Ohio introduce the Terry frisk into police procedure, allowing officers to have the right to stop and frisk or do a surface search of individuals on the street even without probable cause. All the officer would need would be to have a reasonable suspicion that the person being searched had committed, was about to commit or was in the act of committing a crime. The Supreme Court stated that the officer's suspicion had to be "specific" and able to be put into words -- that is to say, the officer could not just say he had a "hunch" that the person searched was about to violate the law: the officer would have to be able to point to a specific characteristic that made him suspect the individual in question.
However, this Supreme Court case eventually led to the allowance of the detainment…… [Read More]
Barnaby Willows owns a small boutique petting zoo in downtown Sydney. his petting zoo harbors two of each kind of local species of animal. he zoo is open to the public seven days a week for 8 hours a day. he animals are kept in cages pursuant to city ordinance and have received all of the required vaccinations mandated by public health code. he petting zoo has been in operation since January of 2000; to date no member of the public has been injured by any of the animals. Paul Hogan has been an employee of Barnaby for the past two (2) years his main job includes tending to the animals in their cages. his includes feeding the animals and making sure they are comfortable at all times.
Barnaby has recently received an import of Coyotes from the United States Southwestern Cultural Center located in Phoenix, Arizona. he…… [Read More]
The basic structure of the United States legal system comes from the Constitution. Constitutions are living documents that lay down principles and rules, as well as overall functions of how law should be used within society. Constitutions tend to be macro in scope, in that they define responsibilities between the three organs of U.S. Government (Judicial, Legislature and Executive). Laws are individual (micro) edicts that are made to define specific issues under the Constitution. The Constitution is the basic framework, or the strategic direction of law; defining relationships and allowing for reasons that are fundamental to other laws (e.g. privacy, search, etc.). Laws are the manner in which the tactics of the legal system and/or philosophy are carried out and used within society. A Constitution defines the theoretical basis of law, while laws incorporate the process of law and allow the government and its officers to use the…… [Read More]
" (AAF, nd)
The Health Maintenance Organization further should "…negotiate with both public and private payers for adequate reimbursement or direct payment to cover the expenses of interpreter services so that they can establish services without burdening physicians…" and the private industry should be "…engaged by medical organizations, including the AAF, and patient advocacy groups to consider innovative ways to provide interpreter services to both employees and the medically underserved." (AAF, nd)
One example of the community healthcare organization is the CCO model is reported as a community cancer screening center model and is stated to be an effective mechanism for facilitating the linkage of investigators and their institutions with the clinical trials network. It is reported that the minority-based CCO was approved initially by the NCI, Division of Cancer revention Board of Scientific Counselors in January 1989. The implementation began in the fall of 1990 and the program was…… [Read More]
He has already placed himself under a cloud of suspicion by the community, and while he still possess the same essential rights, he cannot be regarded deserving of the same attention as the boy. Cappa's rights must be respected to the fullest because he, in so far as anyone knows, has always respected the rights of others. Smoot has not. The temporary abridgment of Smoot's rights in order to ensure the Natural Rights of Mickey Cappa would seem to be in accord with an ideal of happiness for all. In this kind of situation, the existence of a predator or abductor in the community represents a threat to everyone's natural rights. It is a threat that should be removed. If indeed, Sylvester Smoot is innocent, his interrogation can be viewed as means both of making sure that Mickey Cappa's rights were protected, as well as away of showing to the…… [Read More]