The Protections Provided by the Constitution - Case Study Example

Constitutional Protection in Criminal Investigations Protection against governmental ity during prosecution Constitution of the United sis a document entitling citizens certain fundamental rights. These rights are enshrined in the Bill of rights. Under the constitution, government is given wide ranging powers over the citizens. This is done so as to better secure peace and prevention of crime. In order to do this, the criminal justice system is used. This paper deals with the question whether the protections provided by the Constitution are adequate for protecting fundamental rights. The research was done so as to find out the statutory provisions and relevant case law that shaped the policy of the government regarding compliance of the provisions in order to ensure that rights guaranteed in the constitution are not violated. Four basic components of Fifth Amendment The Fifth Amendment is a vital addition to the Bill of Rights. It was introduced to provide a safeguard against illegal use of authority by the government during the course of a criminal prosecution. The best feature of the Fifth Amendment is that it prevents the government from depriving any person from life, liberty or property except by due process of law. The expression due process of law means that the legal proceedings initiated against a person and the laws that govern these proceedings are fair and take care of the principles of natural justice. Due process of law mandates that the laws are reasonable; guided by reason and not made out of whim of an individual. Secondly, it provides protection against self incrimination. This means that no person will be compelled to incriminate himself i.e. be made to testify about something which may implicate or offer evidence against his own interest in a criminal case. The rule against self incrimination has evolved into creation of new concepts such as Miranda warnings. In Miranda v Arizona the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a suspect should be made aware about his rights regarding silence and legal counsel (hence these are termed Miranda rights); and that any confessional statement obtained without notice of these rights would be inadmissible in evidence in a case likely to arise against him. In its own words, the prosecution “may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination” Thirdly, the double jeopardy clause provides that no person shall be tried for the same offense after conviction or acquittal in a trial. It also provides that nobody would be given multiple punishments for the same offense. The fourth component of the Fifth Amendment is trial by a jury of peers in case of a capital or infamous crime (a crime which made a convict incompetent as a witness). This clause ensures that the rules of law are applied with common sense. Interrogation According to Miranda interrogation is “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers”. The Supreme Court defined deliberate elicitation in United States v. Henry to be where the officers had “intentionally creat[ed] a situation likely to induce Henry to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel”. In Kirby v. Illinois it was held that criminal proceedings include: formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information or arraignment. In Rhode Island v. Innis the Court noted that interrogation “must reflect a measure of compulsion above and beyond that inherent in custody itself”. It was also held that the term "interrogation" under Miranda refers “not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.” However, according to California v. Beheler, the defendant had called the police to report a homicide in which he was involved and voluntarily accompanied them to the station house. There he gave a statement and was allowed to leave. After five days he was arrested and in his statement after being informed of his Miranda rights, admitted that he had made the earlier statement voluntarily. “if the suspect is not placed under arrest, voluntarily comes to the police station, and is allowed to leave unhindered by the police after a brief interview” then that would not amount to custody, and any statement made in such a condition can be used as evidence against the maker thereof. Miranda’s case spawned a lot of progeny. In light of Miranda courts have dealt with substance and adequacy of warnings; waivers of Miranda rights, questioning after assertion of Miranda protection, public safety exception to Miranda etc. Confession Confession is an admission by a person that he had participated in a crime. Confession is covered in three Amendments. The Fifth Amendment prohibits self incrimination and applies during custodial interrogation. The Sixth Amendment provides for aid of a legal counsel and applies only after formal charges have been filed. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States from depriving persons of life, person or property except by due process of law or from enacting any law which does this. The protection the Fourteenth Amendment applies at all stages of the prosecution. In Fikes v. Alabama, the defendant was arrested and taken to the state prison far away from his home, where he made a confession after five days of rigorous interrogation. He was mentally weak and it was held that when in the “totality of circumstances that preceded the confessions” the defendant is not able to exercise his “power of resistance,” the confession becomes involuntary. In Massiah v. United States, the defendant, on advice of legal counsel, pleaded not guilty and was released on bail. In a talk with a co-accused he made several self incriminating statements. These were used as evidence against him. The Supreme Court held that the use of these statements were made in absence of counsel and could not be used against the defendant. In the shocking case of Eddie Joe Lloyd, the defendant, a mentally ill man receiving treatment in a hospital suggested to the police ways to solve various murders. In their frequent visits and interrogations, police officers allowed Lloyd to believe that his confessions would help them “smoke out” the real perpetrator. Lloyd confessed and was doomed to prison for 17 years after which DNA testing revealed that he was not the perpetrator. In a settlement with the family members of Lloyd, Detroit’s police officials said that they would henceforth videotape all interrogations which carried a sentence of life. Identification United States v. Wade dealt with Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as regards use of identification procedures. It was held that privilege against self incrimination does not apply in use of identification procedures. However, there should be nothing suggestive about a particular accused. It has become almost standard procedure that lineups consist of 5-6 people of similar builds, suspects should choose place in line and persons known to the witness not allowed in the lineup. A showup is the confrontation of the victim which are conducted outside the courtroom setting. References California v. Beheler 463 U. S. 1121 (1983) Estate of Eddie Joe Lloyd v. City of Detroit, et al. Case Number: 2:04-cv-70922-GER-SDP Fikes v. Alabama 352 U.S. 191 (1957) Kirby v. Illinois 406 U.S. 682 (1972) Massiah v. United States 377 U.S. 201 (1964) Miranda v Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Rhode Island v. Innis 446 U.S. 291 (1980) United States v. Wade 388 U.S. 218 (1967) Read More