Rights of the Accused
Analysis and Application: Legal Rights Afforded to the Accused
Kristian Addison
CJ227-03: Criminal Procedure
February 23, 2013
Despite the United States best efforts in preventing illegal immigration, there are those who manage to cross the border without any legal status, including a green card. Those who do manage to sneak into the United States unlawfully do not have many rights in comparison to actual US citizens. However, when it comes to encounters with the criminal justice system, they have the right to due process of the law. The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to prevent the states from committing oppressive and arbitrary actions against any person. Therefore, illegal immigrants are granted the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Thus, they are granted the rights to a fair and proper trial and cannot be stripped of their life, liberty or property without due process of the law (Stuckey, Roberson, & Wallace, 2006, 22-23). Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) and Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896) were two cases involved in the rights of immigrants when the courts found that the congressional committee worded the amendments, they worded them to say “any person” not “any citizen”. The language used can make all the difference in who has what rights (Longley, 2013). The main concern illegal immigrants face when brought up on criminal charges and brought before the court is whether or not they face deportation. 1. Since John was in custody, what are the procedural steps the police were required to take once John began to incriminate himself?
Brown v Mississippi (1936) and Ashcraft v Tennessee (1944) were two cases that courts found that coercion was used in establishing confessions and that this was a violation of due process rights because the confession was made involuntary and deemed inadmissible in trial. Later the Miranda v Arizona case (1966) established the rights a suspect has when he or she is in custody and being interrogated, known as the
Kristian Addison
CJ227-03: Criminal Procedure
February 23, 2013
Despite the United States best efforts in preventing illegal immigration, there are those who manage to cross the border without any legal status, including a green card. Those who do manage to sneak into the United States unlawfully do not have many rights in comparison to actual US citizens. However, when it comes to encounters with the criminal justice system, they have the right to due process of the law. The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to prevent the states from committing oppressive and arbitrary actions against any person. Therefore, illegal immigrants are granted the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Thus, they are granted the rights to a fair and proper trial and cannot be stripped of their life, liberty or property without due process of the law (Stuckey, Roberson, & Wallace, 2006, 22-23). Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) and Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896) were two cases involved in the rights of immigrants when the courts found that the congressional committee worded the amendments, they worded them to say “any person” not “any citizen”. The language used can make all the difference in who has what rights (Longley, 2013). The main concern illegal immigrants face when brought up on criminal charges and brought before the court is whether or not they face deportation. 1. Since John was in custody, what are the procedural steps the police were required to take once John began to incriminate himself?
Brown v Mississippi (1936) and Ashcraft v Tennessee (1944) were two cases that courts found that coercion was used in establishing confessions and that this was a violation of due process rights because the confession was made involuntary and deemed inadmissible in trial. Later the Miranda v Arizona case (1966) established the rights a suspect has when he or she is in custody and being interrogated, known as the