Preview

Aginst Self-Incrimination Without Due Process

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
119 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Aginst Self-Incrimination Without Due Process
The fifth amendment protects citizens aginst self- incrimination without due process of the law. There are rule and regulations that indivuduals of the law must obey to legally follow through with an investiagation and bring the accused to court so justice will have a chance to be served. “If information is obtained from suspects illegally, then that information is inadmissible in court because it violates the due process rights of the accused”(Brandl, 2014, p.79) If evidence that was illegally obtained was the key factor in the investigation and the, the case won’t result in a victory for the investigators. The indicted has a higher chance of not being found guilty, money and time has been wasted on the case.
Continue Reading
View Writing Issues

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    R V Fraser Case Study
    • 1492 Words
    • 6 Pages

    R V Fraser Case Study

    Evidence must be gathered lawfully or else the prosecution is at risk of it not being able to rely upon in any consecutive hearing or trial as a judge could rule that the evidence is unreasonable.…

    • 1492 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Nix V. Williams Summary
    • 822 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Nix V. Williams Summary

    Evidence has demonstrated that at the time of unconstitutional interrogation, a search was already in place for the victim, and the body would have inevitably been found. This means had there not be illegal conduct by the police officers, the fairness of the trial would have remained the…

    • 822 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Innis 446 US Court Case Study
    • 832 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Innis 446 US Court Case Study

    As further reiterated, “Confessions remain a proper element in law enforcement. Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence.” Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment does not bar voluntary statements by definition. The Fifth Amendment explicitly states “No person shall…be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. The issue here was whether or not the conversation was in fact an interrogation based on the subdivision called the “functional equivalent” of questioning, described as ‘any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect’. The court found that the conversation did not fall within the Miranda meaning of “interrogation” because it was concluded as being nothing more than a dialogue between the two officers, which invited no response from the respondent, and was clearly not a questioning initiated by officers. Furthermore, the conversation also was found not to fall under the description of “functional equivalent” because the few ‘offhand’ remarks that the officers made to one another in no way subjected the respondent to elicit a statement of admission, nor were the officers’ actions subjecting the respondent. Consequently, the respondent was found to have given a confession in a voluntary manner and that his Fifth Amendment rights were not deprived because he was not compelled or forced in any way to…

    • 832 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda Vs. Arizona Case Study
    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Miranda Vs. Arizona Case Study

    The second of the Supreme Court Cases to be discussed is Miranda V. Arizona. The importance of this case is that Miranda was interrogated without knowledge of his 5th amendment rights. In this specific case, the police arrested Miranda from his home in order to take him into investigation at the Phoenix police station. While Miranda was put on trial, he was not informed that he had a right to an attorney. From this the officers were able to retrieve a signed written statement from Miranda. Most importantly, this letter stated that Miranda had full knowledge of his legal rights. From the evidence found, Miranda was sentenced to prison for 20 to 30 years. From here the Supreme Court stated that, “...Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession…” (Miranda V Arizona).…

    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona
    • 671 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Miranda V. Arizona

    Brief Fact Summary: Self-incriminating evidence was provided by the defendants while interrogated by police without prior notification of the Fifth Amendment Rights of the United States Constitution.…

    • 671 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Exploring The Dishonest In Sabrina Butler's Case
    • 385 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Exploring The Dishonest In Sabrina Butler's Case

    When it comes to terms of conducting investigations, law enforcement officers were permitted to manipulate and use unjustified tactics to question the suspects. These measures have a strong tendency to eventually forced defendants into admitting a crime, whether the defendant is guilty or not. Moreover, in some scenarios, the prosecutors would even went as far as convicting defendants based on flimsy evidence and purposely overlook the solid proofs that can demonstrate defendants’ innocence. These dishonest prosecutors abandoned their responsibilities to obtain justice and to serve as the lawful agent for the people; instead, they deliberately violate the moral principles of their duties and the rights of the defendants to secure convictions. The usual forms of prosecutorial misconduct include but not restricted to: “coercing false confessions”, “lying or intentionally misleading jurors about their observations”, “failing to turn over exculpatory evidence to prosecutors”, “pressuring defense witnesses not to testify” and etc.…

    • 385 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    miranda v. arizona
    • 367 Words
    • 2 Pages

    miranda v. arizona

    Case Background: A Mexican immigrant residing in Phoenix, Arizona, Ernesto Miranda, was identified to be a suspect in the line-up of a woman who accused him of rape and kidnapping. Police then arrested and interrogated Miranda. It took up to at least two hours of interrogation by police until Miranda the confessed to the crimes. The confession was written. During the two hours of interrogation, police did not once mention Miranda’s neither Fifth Amendment Protection against self-incrimination nor his Sixth amendment right to have the right to an attorney. After Miranda’s confession the case was then taken to trial hosted by Arizona state court an prosecutors used the oral and written confession as evidence against Miranda. Miranda was then found guilty and he was convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison on each count. The conviction was then upheld due to the fact the Miranda’s attorney appealed to Arizona’s Supreme Court which then led to the case being appealed to the United States Supreme Court which also connected the case with four other similar ones. The court later came to an agreement that it is mandatory that the police have the role of protecting the rights of the accused suspect guaranteed by the…

    • 367 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More
  • Powerful Essays

    East Side Riva Gang Research Paper
    • 1030 Words
    • 5 Pages

    East Side Riva Gang Research Paper

    Constitution, but the U.S. Supreme Court has said that several of the Amendments create this right. One of which is the Fourth Amendment. It stops the police and other government agencies from searching citizens and or their property without proof of incriminating evidence that is to brought forth before a judge should generate a belief that incriminating evidence can be found on the citizens/property. The law in this stance is simple one is very much entailed to their constitutional rights, up until the guilty verdict, where the first right you lose is the one most cherish the most, “right to privacy.” This by no mean gives way to not having an attorney present, sixth amendment as stated above, gives one right to counsel. In the case of evidence use, there were a couple of cases; Boyd v. United States and Weeks v. United States, that said the federal government couldn’t use evidence acquired through an illegal process due to an exclusionary rule and it would not be admissible in court. So, if the evidence is obtained legally, it is admissible in court. Most of the Amendments might not be as black and white as people would want them to be. Our forefathers left a gray area, which has now been left to the people of various sates to fill in. Though unknown by me, as to how affective Civil gang injunctions are, there was never injustice, or overstepped boundaries by the DA. East Side Riva gang members were nothing more…

    • 1030 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Training Day Violations
    • 693 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Training Day Violations

    The Hunt for Snoop Dogg violated one’s constitutional rights, because he was not placed under arrest, being in a wheel chair he was tackled down to the floor. Although they did find a gun they used the bullets to count for how much time he would get if he was arrested. To find the drugs Alonzo stuck a pen down his throat for him to throw it. Used this technique to find out who he worked for using his previous record for information. They did not collect the evidence nor did they arrest him. His fifth Amendment was violated because, he was witness against himself by force and not by…

    • 693 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona
    • 647 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

    Supreme Court consolidated four separate court cases with issues concerning the admissibility of evidence obtained during police interrogations. All the defendants in each of these occurrences offered incriminating evidence during interrogations from police and were not notified prior to the interrogations of their rights granted to them under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Miranda was arrested and taken into custody to a police station where he was identified by the witness. He was questioned for 2 hours by officers without being advised of his right to counsel and then signed a statement that said that his confession was voluntary. ISSUE: Whether the government is required to notify the detained individuals of their constitutional rights granted by the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination prior to the individuals being interrogated by the authorities and assistance of counsel and give a voluntary waiver of these rights as a necessary precondition to police questioning and the giving of a…

    • 647 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Plea Bargain
    • 857 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Plea Bargain

    Brief: Respondent was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 84 Stat. 1260. On October 17, 1991, respondent and his attorney asked to meet with the prosecutor to discuss the possibility of cooperating with the Government. At the beginning of the meeting, the prosecutor informed respondent that he had no obligation to talk, but that if he wanted to cooperate, he would have to be completely truthful. As a condition of proceeding with the discussion, the prosecutor indicated that the respondent would have to agree that any statements he made could be used to impeach any contradictory testimony he might give at trial if it went that far. Respondent conversed with his counsel and agreed to proceed under the prosecutor’s conditions. The respondent admitted to knowing that the package he attempted to sell to the undercover cop did contain methamphetamine. Respondent claimed that he did not know Shuster was manufacturing methamphetamine at his residence and later confessed that he did know of Shuster manufacturing methamphetamine in his residence. Respondent minimized his role in Shuster’s methamphetamine operation by claiming that he had not visited Shuster’s residence for at least a week before his arrest. The government showed the respondent surveillance evidence showing that his car was at Shuster’s residence the day before the arrest. The meeting ended on the basis that the respondent failed to provide completely truthful information. Respondent was tried on the methamphetamine charges and took the stand at his own defense. He maintained that he was not involved in the methamphetamine trafficking and he had thought Shuster was using his home laboratory to make plastic explosives for the CIA. He denied knowing that the package he delivered to the…

    • 857 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona
    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The police duty to give these warnings is compelled by the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse "to be a witness against himself," and Sixth Amendment, which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney.…

    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona
    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Miranda V. Arizona

    The case of Miranda v. Arizona dealt with the question, “Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?” This case started in 1963, when Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for robbing $8 from a bank worker, and was charged with armed robbery. He already had a record for armed robbery, and a juvenile record including attempted rape, assault, and burglary. While Miranda was in police custody, he signed a written confession to the robbery, and also to kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman 11 days before the robbery. After being convicted, Miranda’s lawyer appealed; on the basis that the defendant did not know he was protected from self-incrimination and therefore did not have to confess to his crimes.…

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Exclusionary Rule Violations
    • 115 Words
    • 1 Page

    Exclusionary Rule Violations

    When law enforcement or an government agency take it upon themselves to enter someone home or search a vehicle without a valid search warrant they are violating that persons Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure. Evidence that could be admissible in a case may be excluded from trial if it is gather as a resulted from an illegal search or some other constitutional violation. The exclusionary rule prevents the use of most evidence gathered illegally. The rule can also be triggered by law enforcement violations of a person’s Fifth or Sixth Amendments right as well. I feel that is the case as it contains to John Smith and the search of his…

    • 115 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Policing and the Constitution
    • 868 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Policing and the Constitution

    The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution states: Set out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy. This means that the officer does not determine innocence or guilt. She or he only determines probable cause of belief of guilt. Also, an officer cannot force a person to bear witness against himself. If a person is tried and a verdict is given, that person cannot be tried again. Accused persons cannot be forced to say anything. Eminent domain is the power of a government to take private property for public use, usually with compensation paid to the owner.…

    • 868 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More

Related Topics