Fifth Amendment Confessions and Interrogations - Research Paper Example

However, Amanda had a right to contest the quality of the drug under the conspiracy count at the time of her sentencing hearing. Before the hearing, she was told that her plea had been accepted and that she was going to face a mandatory minimum sentence in prison for one year for the offence. But if the prosecution could prove that the amount of the cocaine that was involved required five kilograms, that was necessary for longer sentence, she would face a minimum of not less than ten years in prison.

During the trial, Amanda was informed that by making the guilty plea, she was relinquishing her Fifth Amendment right that she had the right to remain silent at the time of trial (Berger, 111). During the trial, the District Court heard several testimonies from Amanda’s co-defendants, they testified that the alleged drug amount that Mitchell sales put her above the five-kilogram threshold. Mitchell on the other hand never testified in defence of the charges made by the government regarding the mass of the drug.

Her lawyers argued that the mass of the cocaine that was attributed for her sentence purpose was not equivalent to the threshold. But as a result of her pleading guilty, the District Court ruled that Amanda had given up the right of remaining silent on the crimes that were detailed. As a result, the District Court agreed with testimonies given by her co-defendants’ that had put her on the five-kilogram threshold. As a result, a minimum sentence of ten years was mandated (Hickey, 55). It was noted that the failure on testifying had contributed to the decision that was made by the court to accept the very testimonies that were given by her co-defendants.

The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. However, the District Court held that at sentencing, the pleading guilty was not a waiver of privilege. In addition, it held that trial courts might not draw antagonistic inference though the silence of