Criminal Law Foundation - Essay Example

? The 4th Amendment of the US constitution protects every individual from unreasonable search and seizure while the 5th Amendment provides that the due process of law must be fair. The sixth Amendment grants every accused person the right to counsel. The 5th Amendment protects the accused against self-incrimination. Federal Courts must comply with all constitutional provisions listed in the Constitution. However, some state courts, the US Supreme court have adopted a selective basis to determine the due process of the criminal defendant while safeguarding the protected rights. Some of the protected rights include assistance of counsel, protection against self-incrimination, just and speedy trial, right to confront the opposing witness and requirement that all infamous crimes be tried by a Grand jury as provided in 5th Amendment. Introduction The 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments of the US constitution provides for the safeguarded rights of accused persons. A criminal defendant whether an adult or juvenile has certain constitutional rights such as the right to be represented by a counsel, the right speedy trial, the right to a trial by a jury, the protection against self-incrimination and exclusionary right (Hall, 2012). The 4th Amendment protects the accused persons from any unlawful searches and seizures by the government authorities. The Exclusionary Rule provides that any evidence obtained by the law enforcement authorities is inadmissible before the court proceedings since it violates the 4th Amendment safeguarded rights (Hall, 2012). The Fifth Amendment protects the defendants from double jeopardy, and self-incrimination. Specifically, the Miranda warnings requires the police officers to warn the juveniles on the right to remain silent and right to give evidence in the company of any attorney since such evidence may be used against them in criminal proceedings (Hall, 2012). The fourth Amendment protects the accused from unreasonable searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule provides that evidence obtained illegally by government authorities is inadmissible in court proceedings since it violates the 4th Amendment (Scheb, 2009). The accused has the right to file a motion of suppress and prevent the prosecution using the illegally obtained evidence. This rule applies in seizures of weapons, stolen property and illegal drugs by the police authorities. In the case of Weeks v.US (1914) 232 U.S 383 , the court ruled that whereby the police authorities exceed their authority in obtaining evidence, such searches are void since they violate the accused rights under the 4th Amendment. However, Jones v, Kmart Corp, (1998) 17 Cal, App, 4th 329, 332, the judge ruled that evidence illegally obtained by individuals acting in a private capacity is not subject to the Exclusionary rule. The Exclusionary rule provides that evidence obtained from illegal searches may not form a basis for subsequent search or probable cause of the crime. The Exclusionary rule applies to all juvenile cases that have been filed according to the Welfare and Institutions Code. Some of the prohibited methods of obtaining evidence from the accused include torture, inhumane treatment, or any court-ordered surgical operation to remove a bullet from the defendant’s body. Some of the factors that courts observe in determining whether the evidence was obtained with the consent of the accused include the intelligence of defendant, the length of detention, the repetitiveness of questioning, and the use of physical punishment and age of the accused (Samaha, 2012). According to the 5th amendment, citizens can not be charged with an “infamous” crime unless indicted by a grand jury. The Due process Claus of the Fifth Amendment of the US constitution prohibits the courts from courts from depriving the accused persons the right to liberty or property depending on the seriousness of the crime. The court procedural laws should ensure fairness and guarantee the accused the right to be heard. The 5th Amendment protects the defendant against self-incrimination. The accused person cannot be forced to testify against himself or provide any self-incriminating evidence (Scheb, 2009). The law enforcement officers have the duty to tell arrested people of their right to remain silent, the right to talk with the attorney before they are convicted and the right of attorney to be present during questioning. The Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides the procedures which the government can acquire the public property for the public use (Hall, 2012). Juveniles lack the capacity to understand their legal rights against self-incrimination. In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) 384 U.S 436, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles have the constitutional right to be notified of the charges against them. The juveniles should be notified of the Miranda warnings before questioning by the law enforcement authorities (Scheb, 2009). The Supreme Court established a legal principle that juveniles are vulnerable to police coercion than adults and due care must be taken in custodial interrogations (Hall, 2012). Some states such as Montana, New Jersey and Washington have established laws whereby juveniles under certain age limit should be compulsory notified of the Miranda warnings. The juveniles must be notified of their right to remain silent since any information can be used against them in criminal proceedings (Samaha, 2012). In other states, the courts use the totality of circumstances test to determine whether the waiver of the Miranda warnings before custodial interrogations was voluntary. The waiver should be as a result of free choice by the juvenile but not intimidation or coercion. For instance, New Hampshire Supreme Court will examine the juvenile’s age, educational level, physical condition, and the language of the warnings, methods of interrogation applied and whether the juvenile had been warned of any likelihood of transfer to adult courts. Some of the states that use the totality of circumstances test include Alaska and Alabama (Hall, 2012). The 5th Amendment provides that if the defendant has been acquitted of the same crime, the prosecution may not prosecute him or her for the same crimes. This right is derived from the protection against double jeopardy right. However, the attorney general may recommend for the prosecution of the same accused crime at the federal courts if the state court has acquitted the defendant. In the case of Fong Foo v. United States, 1962, the Supreme Court held that a case cannot be retried even when a lower court judge has made grave errors in ruling. The Supreme Court recognized the mistakes of the Lowe court ruling but disagreed with the demands of the Appeal Court to have the case be tried again (Hall, 2012). According to 6th Amendment, if the defendant is unable to obtain an attorney, the court will provide an attorney for defendant. However, such right will apply in felony charges where actual imprisonment may occur when accused is found guilty. A defendant has a right to reject a counsel and proceed with self-representation. Also the defendant has the right to cross-examine opposing witnesses including out-of court statements. In the federal court proceedings, the jury verdict must be unanimous but in some States a vote of nine out of the twelve juries can either acquit or convict the accused person. The Compulsory Process Clause of the 6th Amendment also provides the accused with the right to obtain favourable witnesses. The 6th Amendment provides that an accused shall have the right to speedy trials. The seven rights that are listed in the 6th Amendment of the US constitution include the right to a speedy trial, right to a public trial, the right to have an impartial jury, the right of the notification of the circumstances concerning the crime and the right to find the witnesses who will testify in favor of the accused (Hall, 2012). The speedy trial clause mainly prevents any possible incarcerations before the accused has been proven guilty, to proven any possible anxiety on the accused and possibly to ensure the accused has enough time to appeal against the court decision (Scheb, 2009). According to Federal Speedy Trial Act 1974, all the charges against the accused must be submitted and filed within 30 days of the arrest and trial must begin within a timeframe of 70 days. The sixth Amendment also provides that the accused has the right to public trail in order to compel the witnesses to tell the truth and ensure the public desire of justice (Samaha, 2012). The confrontation clause of the 6th provides that all the accused persons have the right to confront the witnesses against them (Hall, 2012). Conclusion The 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments of the US constitution provide for certain constitutional rights of persons accused of offences. The provisions guide the day to day activities of both the adult and juvenile courts in the United States. For instance, the fourth Amendment protects the accused persons from unlawful searches and seizures. The Exclusionary Rule provides that evidence obtained unlawfully by the government authorities can not be admissible in lawful court proceedings against the defendant. The Fifth Amendment provides that people accused of infamous crimes such as felonies have the right to trial by a grand jury, such accused persons are also protected against double jeopardy and have a right of protection against any self-incrimination in custodial interrogations. According to Miranda warnings, the police authorities should warn the juveniles about the right to remain silent and he right to have an attorney during interrogations. References: Hall, D. (2012). Criminal law and procedure. New York. Cengage Learning. Samaha, J. (2012). Criminal procedure. Belmont. Thomson Wadsworth. Scheb, J.M. (2009). Criminal procedure. Belmont. Cengage Learning. Read More