Presentation on theme: "Rights of the Accused. 5-6-8 14 th – Amendment Presumption of innocence Presumption of innocence Manzanar –one of our big failings Reasonable doubt Reasonable."— Presentation transcript:
5-6-8 14 th – Amendment Presumption of innocence Presumption of innocence Manzanar –one of our big failings Reasonable doubt Reasonable doubt Due Process Due Process
Due Process Rules the Government must follow 14 th amendment set the laws of due process– no laws can be passed to abridge the rights of the people including the accused Equal protection for everyone including the accused
Procedural Due Process when being arrested / accused Must have / be – Probable cause – Informed of rights – Grand jury or prosecutor must determine evidence is enough to convict Indicts—formal charge Affidavit—sworn statement that evidence is “good” Informed of the charge
THE ACCUSED HAS THE RIGHT TO…. Speedy, fair trial Impartial jury Right to question, hear testimony against Cannot be tried twice for same crime Double jeopardy Right of appeal
Substantive Due Process This process guarantees that rights must be administered fairly and no one has their rights violated—laws must be fair.
The Constitution must balance the rights of the majority against the right of the accused to receive a fair treatment. (as painful as that sometimes is)
Court Cases Mapp v Ohio—1961 4 th Amendment Based on 4 th Amendment freedoms Illegally seized material from a persons house led to the conviction of a woman. She appealed based on the 4 th amendment’s illegal search and seizure clause. Ruling 6-3: Established due process procedures for searches. Ruling 6-3: Established due process procedures for searches.
What happened? Mapp v. Ohio (1961): Looking for someone else, Cleveland, Ohio Police entered Dollie Mapp's home. Police did not find their suspect, but arrested Ms. Mapp for possessing obscene literature. Without a warrant to search for the literature, Ms. Mapp's conviction was thrown out and she was set free. (She eventually –years later--was arrested possessing stolen goods and drugs and served time in prison.)
Gideon v Wainwright--1963 6 th Amendment Based on 6 th Amendment right to a fair trial. Gideon He was too poor to afford a lawyer and was denied assistance. Convicted. 14 th Amendment substantive due process He appealed directly to Supreme Court and based on the 14 th Amendment —substantive due process guarantees a person a fair trial and without a lawyer, a trial cannot be fair. Ruling 9-0: Gideon’s trial guaranteed that everyone from then on would have the right to lawyer—one paid for by the government if necessary.
Gideon v Wainwright What Happened? Gideon v Wainwright A penniless drifter, Gideon was convicted of minor theft ( @ $10 from a pool hall). Didn’t think it was fair because he didn’t have a lawyer. Wrote the Supreme Court with “pencil and paper” Had conviction overturned, lived a free man out of trouble but changed the US for everyone else.
Miranda v Arizona 1966 Miranda was arrested but not advised that he could refuse to speak. He confessed to the rape and murder. 5 th Amendment Upon appeal, his conviction was reversed based upon the 5 th Amendment right not be compelled to testify against himself. Ruling: 5-4 Today the Miranda Rights advise: You have the right to remain silent Anything you say can and will be used against you Right to an attorney Right to stop police questioning anytime you choose.
What Happened Next? Ernesto Miranda had his conviction thrown out though he did not become a free man. A new trial was ordered. The police had other evidence that was independent of the confession, and when Miranda was tried a second time, he was convicted again. After release from prison, Miranda was killed in a barroom brawl in 1976.
The “Making Sure” Miranda Rights You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand? Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand? You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand? If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand? If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand? Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?
The Miranda Rights You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.