Preview

Fifth Amendment Indictment of Grand Jury

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
2747 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Fifth Amendment Indictment of Grand Jury
Fifth Amendment Indictment of Grand Jury The grand jury originated in England, under the rule of King John. The king selected the grand jury to be a body of his reign that would accuse no innocent person, and would shelter no guilty person. The Fifth Amendment of the United States protects people from self-incrimination by forcing the prosecution to obtain an indictment (complaint) from a grand jury before the case can be presented in trial before a court. Today, grand juries are virtually inexistent with the exception of the United States, which in some cases, still utilizes a grand jury. The Fifth Amendment clause on grand juries does not protect individuals serving in the military because they are considered to be United States property. By federal law, misdemeanors do not require an indictment to be obtained for a trial. Federal law only requires an indictment for felony cases to be presented before a court. One of the reasons that grand juries are almost inexistent today is that it is so heavily criticized by so many because the defendant is not represented today in the process. In many cases, the defendant can be easily persuaded by the prosecutor to disclose information that can be very useful, and is likely to be used during the final trial. Because the defendant is not represented, rarely will a grand jury decide against the wishes of the prosecution. Disbarred former Chief Judge of New York, Judge Sol Watchler, was once quoted as saying that it is so easy for the prosecutor to persuade the grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” Grand juries are selected by the local prosecutor, and in many occasions jurors have served several times before, and have a proven record to indict. No states have a regulation that will limit the number of grand juries that the prosecutor can assemble before finally getting the indictment he or she wants. Unfortunately, if an indictment is not acquired the first time, the prosecutor can form as many juries as


References: (Cont.) http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/Miranda.htmu. Retrieved from yahoo.com on August 18, 2007. http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html. Retrieved from yahoo.com on August 18, 2007. http://www.caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment.html. Retrieved from yahoo.com on August 22, 2007.
Continue Reading
View Writing Issues

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Chipotle Mexican Grill Case Analysis
    • 390 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Chipotle Mexican Grill Case Analysis

    Prosecutors are gathering evidence to present to a grand jury, which will decide whether to make an indictment.…

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

    Lack Of Professionalism: The Michael Brown And Eric Garner Cases
    • 64 Words
    • 1 Page

    Lack Of Professionalism: The Michael Brown And Eric Garner Cases

    A good example of the lack of professionalism with the grand jury are the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases, the grand jury’s decision not to prosecute syndicated police officers has placed the process in public scrutiny. In the arrest of Eric Garner and his tragic death for selling untaxed cigarettes. Officers tried to arrest him by using a chokehold and compressed his chest…

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

    Supreme Court Case: US V. Calandra 1974
    • 1275 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Supreme Court Case: US V. Calandra 1974

    In the case US v. Calandra (1974), Calandra was being questioned by the federal grand jury about loan sharking business. The reason the jury was asking these question were based on the evidence obtained at his company. Calandra didn’t want to answer any questions because he felt that the search of the company was an unlawful search and that it violated his fourth amendment exclusionary rule. The refusal to answer the grand jury, was what was being question about this case. Calandra felt like because of the exclusionary rule unde0r the fourth amendment he didn’t have to answer but he was wrong. The supreme court held that the exclusionary rule was only applicable in criminal courts and was not meant to be seen as a right but as a way to reduce unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by police ("Oyez: US v. Calandra," n.d.).…

    • 1275 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Smith V Cain Ap Go Po
    • 1275 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Smith V Cain Ap Go Po

    The court case of Smith V Cain was taken to the Petit jury in which the evidence was presented was favoring Cain due to the fact that he was an eyewitness who matched Juan Smith to one of the several gunmens at the house in 1995. The Petit jury was selected to hear this particular case in 2011 due to the fact that the Grand Jury is where the cases are sent to decide whether the case should be upheld and proceed to the next court or if the case has no real merit and essentially would be a waste for both of the parties to pursue a farther hearing in a higher court. The petit jury had originally ruled in favor of Cain and had ruled in favor of not granting Smith’s appeal. Smith had appealed saying that the trial was unfair and he didn’t…

    • 1275 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Fifth Amendment Prohibits Double Jeopardy Analysis
    • 335 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The Fifth Amendment Prohibits Double Jeopardy Analysis

    The fifth amendment prohibits double jeopardy (del Carmen, 2014). The concept behind prohibiting double jeopardy is to protect the defendant from being tried and punished twice for a single crime, but this doesn’t mean that after a verdict is handed down the process ends (del Carmen, 2014). They can try and get an appeal so that their case and verdict will be reviewed (del Carmen, 2014).…

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

    Differences in Triel and Grand Jury
    • 497 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Differences in Triel and Grand Jury

    A grand jury is a group of jurors who hear testimony for the prosecution's witnesses as well as a statement about the crime from the prosecutor. A grand jury is run mostly by the prosecutor, and although the suspect does have a right to speak at a grand jury hearing, he or she can only be cross-examined by the prosecutor, and the defense attorney plays no role.Most grand juries contain between sixteen and twenty-three jurors.A grand jury is closed to the public.Most grand jury hearings consist only of the witnesses, the jurors and the prosecutor.A grand jury consists of jurors who serve for the period of a court term, which can be up to eighteen months.…

    • 497 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Twelve Angry Men: The United States Judicial System
    • 521 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Twelve Angry Men: The United States Judicial System

    This is why the film Twelve Angry Men suggest that The United States Judicial system is very unfair to the person being tried because they don't check into the juror members enough which can lead to a very unfair jury…

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

    Michael Brown Debate
    • 799 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Michael Brown Debate

    Sorry, dead wrong. The purpose of a grand jury is only to see if there was probable cause that a crime may have been committed. What evidence is presented is selected by the Prosecutor. There is no defense attorney, no defense presentation. It's not about guilt or innocence, only to see if there's the bare minimum of evidence that there may have been a crime. It's EXACTLY the same barrier as a police officer has in order to stop you, probable cause.…

    • 799 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Better Essays

    Procedural Safeguard Research Paper
    • 2354 Words
    • 10 Pages

    Procedural Safeguard Research Paper

    "The history of liberty has largely been the history of observance of procedural safeguards." We agree with this quote because our country is based on the right to have our guaranteed protection of life, liberty and property. Two of the greatest procedural guarantees that insure liberty are the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. According to the Fifth Amendment, a capital crime is punishable by death, while an infamous crime is punishable by death or imprisonment. This amendment guarantees that no one has to stand trial for such a federal crime unless indicted by a grand jury. Further, a person cannot be put in double jeopardy for the same offense by the same government. The amendment also guarantees that a person cannot be forced to testify against himself, and forbids the government from taking a person's…

    • 2354 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Better Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Team Reflection Week 2
    • 613 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Team Reflection Week 2

    The fifth and 14th U. S. Constitution amendments were put into action to care of the rights of businesses and organizations. The fifth amendment supports “ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be…

    • 613 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Advantages Of The 5th Amendment
    • 189 Words
    • 1 Page

    Advantages Of The 5th Amendment

    The 5th Amendment states that the government must follow the due process of the law before punishing a person and that all citizens had the right to a trial by jury. It also states that a person cannot be put on trial twice for the same crime or that person on trial for a crime does not have to testify against themselves in court - "Pleading the 5th". The reason for this addition to the Constitution was due to the British refusing to grant the same rights to American subjects as they gave to people in Great Britain. Many people were jailed without even being accused of a crime. This specifically referred to the right of a Trial by Jury and the right not incriminate themselves. The 5th Amendment is also referred to as the Double Jeopardy and…

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

    7th Amendment
    • 388 Words
    • 2 Pages

    7th Amendment

    The 7th Amendment states that any person who is accused of a crime, where the dollar amount is deemed to be valued at twenty dollars or more, has the legal right to a trial by jury. A jury trial is a panel of randomly selected citizens who will listen to the case in question and together jointly reach a decision on whether the defendant in the case is guilty or not guilty of the crime they have been charged with. The amendment also states that no Court can reexamine the facts from the case, because any decision reached by a jury will stand.…

    • 388 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Purpose Of The Grand Jury
    • 998 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Purpose Of The Grand Jury

    Grand Jury’s are also afforded certain investigative immunities and subpoena powers. However, the Grand Jury…

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

    Duties Of Citizenship In America
    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Duties Of Citizenship In America

    5th Amendment protects you from being held for committing a crime unless you are properly indicted or being forced to testify against yourself…

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Powerful Essays

    The Sixth Amendment
    • 2928 Words
    • 12 Pages

    The Sixth Amendment

    The 6th Amendment focuses completely on the rights of a person accused of committing a crime by the government. The 6th Amendment contains seven specific protections for people accused of crimes. These seven rights are: the right to a speedy trial, the right to a public trial, the right to be judged by an impartial jury, the right to be notified of the nature and circumstances of the alleged crime, the right to confront witnesses who will testify against the accused, the right to find witnesses who will speak in favor of the accused, and, the right to have a lawyer. The reasoning behind all of these protections goes back to the days of our founding fathers; when under the English law none of these rights were guaranteed. The writers of the constitution felt it was very important that all of the rights that are given under the sixth amendment were guaranteed in reaction to the blatant suppression of individual rights and liberties that were being implemented in the “colonies”. As time has passed and our constitution amended in reaction to those times, the rights guaranteed under the 6th Amendment have been strengthened and justly implemented.…

    • 2928 Words
    • 12 Pages
    Powerful Essays
    Read More

Related Topics