Police Interrogation and Due Process - Research Paper Example

Contents Contents 2 5th Amendment 3 4th Amendment 4 The 14th Amendment 7 References 8 Police Interrogation and due Process 5th Amendment The U.S constitution 5th amendment enumerates five main individual freedoms namely; the right to be free from what can be termed to be multiples punishments and prosecutions for a single criminal offense, the right for a defendant to be indicted by a definable impartial grand jury before engaging to be tried in any federal criminal offense, the right for one to receive just compensation when govern comes in and takes private property for public use, right to have all individuals to be protected by DUE PROCESS OF LAW and finally, the right to be free from government bound SELF INCRIMINATION. It is evident that similarly to any freedom guaranteed by the U.S constitution, the freedom described within the Fifth Amendment has both organic and static lives. The static life is one which exists in the initial language as it was ratified in 1791 whereas the organic life is perceived to exist in the federal and growing body of state law interpreting the text. The above principles which are contained in the 5th amendment are very important to an individual accused of a crime. Although the amendment is viewed to contain various provisions, four elements widely protects an individual accused of a crime are right of protection against double jeopardy, right to due process, a right to what is known as grand jury and finally, right against self incrimination (Tomkovicz, 2002). Within courts in the United States, whenever questions arise in criminal trials whether a confession is incompetent because it is not viewed to be voluntary; this issue is mainly controlled by the 5th amendment commanding that specific individual shall at any given time be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself. Self incrimination indicates that no person accused of a particular crime may be compelled to be a witness against her/himself. Supreme Court ruled that this specific action is only available not only police interrogation but also the trial. Further, this same rule may only apply to custodial interrogation where police interrogates an individual while in custody. Grand jury is defined as a group of individuals who decide whether there is enough evidence to charge a particular suspect. However, the US Supreme Court has not ruled on this requirement to apply to the states. Double jeopardy implies that individuals may not be punished and tried twice for the same crime. This area is complex such that even Supreme Court struggle with it. Finally, based on the due process, the 5th amendment indicates that no one should at any time be deprived property, life and liberty without due process of the law. The two types of due process are substantive and procedural. Procedural type focuses on fundamental fairness whereas substantive widely extend beyond the context of criminal prosecutions (Sonneborn, 2004). 4th Amendment Clearly, it is the legal responsibility for any government to provide each and every defiant in any criminal action with legal representation which must be viewed to be effective. This is explained by the 6th amendment to the U.S that states “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right………to have the assistance of counsel for his defense”. This clause gives all defendants the right to communicate with an attorney from the specific moment the defendant was taken into police custody. Decision by U.S Supreme Court to have constructed this clause was to ensure that any defiant enjoyed the constitutional right especially during critical stages in a criminal proceeding. These critical stages are namely; preliminary hearings, custodial interrogation, trial, post indictment, first appeal conviction and sentencing (Chemerinsky, 2002). This same clause was mainly to react against English practice where assistant from an attorney was denied even in very serious criminal cases. Here, defendants required to appear before the court and defend themselves using their own words. For instance, the 1586 trial of Mart Stuart, the queen of Scott denied Mary assistance of counsel in her criminal case. As a result to this Mary was charged with treason for supposedly conspiring to assassinate the queen. From the U.S Constitutional perspective deprivation of counsel repulse basic law of any given criminal justice. According to Framers right to a counsel is a very critical element in ensuring that maintenance of accusatorial system of justice is maintained. An accusatorial system places a heavy burden to determine if the defendant is guilty. On the other hand, inquisitorial system is since within this system, guilt or innocence is determined by way of interrogation the defiant (Dressler, 2006). For 150 years, the right to assistance from an attorney was constructed to ensure that a defendant has a right to retain a private attorney. This does not indicate that an insolvent criminal defendant had a right to an appointed attorney without any given cost. In 1932, U.S Supreme Court began revising this interpretation of failing to pay in the Alabama V. Powell. In Powell nine youth were accused of raping a white girl in a train that was heading to Alabama. These youths were not given an opportunity to contact their family. On March 25 the youth were indicted and later on April 6 were tried with the assistance of a counsel who was prepared and what followed was conviction and later sentenced to death. Thereafter, they received assistance of counsel for their presented appeals where the court of Alabama affirmed the conviction. The U.S Supreme Court came in between and reversed the conviction where the case was returned to the Alabama court. Clearly, the courted asserted that the appointed of unprepared attorney by the trial court in such a capital case violates defendant due process rights (Chemerinsky, 2002). 6th Amendment The 6th amendment to the United States constitution permits the right for the accused to have and enjoy the right to have the Assistance of Counsel as a defense. All the defendants according to this amendment have it as a right to have an attorney right from the moment they are placed into custody. The counsel is to provide advice and assistance to the accused on legal matters some of which he/she might not be having an idea of. In this amendment, the accused is to enjoy the benefit to a speedy and fair public trial which is to be done by a jury that is impartial. The trial is to take place in the district jurisdiction where the crime was committed. The accused is to be informed of the cause and nature of the crime and has to be presented with witnesses that have to testify for and against him/her. The process of obtaining witnesses to testify in favor of the accused is compulsory and should have the assistance of the counsel for her/his defense (Chemerinsky, 2002). This right to counsel has also been construed by the USA Supreme Court as it holds the fact that any indigent or impoverished defendant has the right which is constitutional to appear in the presence of an attorney that is appointed by the court at any critical stages in the proceedings of a crime. These stages include the custodial interrogations, preliminary hearings, post indecent lineups, trials, arraignment, sentencing and during the first conviction appeal (Lieberman, 1999). This is different from the English practice where the subjects of serious criminal offences were denied of opportunity and the right to have or be represented by an attorney even in the onset of their trials. The suspects are to appear in the court and have to defend themselves against any accusations. The amendment was considered repugnant according to the basic criminal justice principles the act to deny an accused the assistance of a personal attorney. The representation by a private attorney is considered an opportunity to having and maintaining a system of justice that is accusatorial. This implies that the innocence or guiltiness of an individual accused is not obtained in an inquisitorial manner through the interrogation of the defendant. This has been construed as an opportunity to have the defendant have the right to be able to retain a personal attorney. It is also vital to note that by the amendment providing for the defendant to have a speedy trial, the prosecutors are thus not wait inordinately before placing or filing proceedings or charges with the trial after the charges have been filed. A Speedy Trial Act was passed by the Congress to ensure that this is put into effect (Sonneborn, 2004). The proceedings are to proceed within the stipulated 70 days upon the filing of the indictment by the prosecutor. The right of the accused to have a personal or private attorney is to rule out any prejudices or bias that might occur during the trial process. The publicity of the court proceedings do not point out the expected behavior of the spectators to the case and their influence on the actual outcome of the case. The defendants in this point have the right to call their own witnesses as well as mount their own evidence. The defendants are to present their own facts and theories that are aimed at proving their innocence. The defendant is however permitted to seek a waiver to the representation by the private counsel and seek to represent him or herself i.e. a pro se representation. The ineffective assistance of an attorney may yield to grounds for a new trial as the prevailing professional conduct has to be followed to the later. The 14th Amendment The 14th amendment contains the due process clause that contains 2 forms of the due process that are related to the interrogation and trial proceedings. Two distinctive types of due processes are drawn out from the due process by the Supreme Court which includes the substantive due and the procedural due process. Procedural due process related to the actual legal proceedings process which include the initial actions that precede a trial must be done in accordance with the law which must observe fairness and clarity. The person who is to be part of the legal proceedings must be informed of the time, venue as well as the date. The person is to be informed of the required documents that might be required to be presented during the proceedings. This is to ensure that the person is readily available and is prepared for the trial or proceedings. This also includes not only the government actions but also the administrative functions are well adhered and done (Russell, 2004). Any interactions with the government are to be written and are to follow procedures that are fair. Each side of the trial is to be fairly and actively represented through the provision of relevant information before a trial led by a jury that is impartial. The substantive process on the other hand refers to the actual laws in themselves. Substantive laws are deemed to have been violated if the law is judged and found to be unconstitutional. It is widely agreed that the unlisted rights for example are expected to be protected but it is not agreed by everyone as to who is to determine as to what these rights are. The Supreme Court has the right to expand the right’s lists which are perceived to have an immense amount of effect on the lives of the Americans. This has at times led to the throwing out of some laws that the many people actually want. An act perceived to be passed by the government is in violation to the right of a person then at times it is thrown out of the laws. This implies that the court to protect the rights of the common citizens based on the bill of rights which is heavily relied upon by the due process (Amar, 2005). References Amar, A. (2005). America's Constitution. New York: Random House. pp. 329 Chemerinsky, E. (2002). Constitutional Law Principle and Policies, 2nd ed. New York: Aspen Publishers, pp. 1–228. Dressler, J. and Michaels, A. (2006). Understanding Criminal Procedure: Investigtion, vol. 1, 4th ed. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis, pp. 21–49. Lieberman, J. (1999). A Practical Companion to the Constitution. Berkeley: University of California Press. Russell L. Weaver, W. Abramson, M. Burkoff, and Catherine, H. (2004). Principles of Criminal Procedure; St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, pp. 18–31. Sonneborn, L. (2004). Miranda v. Arizona: The Rights of the Accused. New York: Rosen. Tomkovicz, J. (2002). The Right to the Assistance of Counsel: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Read More