Presentation on theme: "Due Process Sarah Ashworth Kelsey Syx. 14 th Amendment Section 1 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction."— Presentation transcript:
Due Process Sarah Ashworth Kelsey Syx
14 th Amendment Section 1 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Original Intent Protect the rights of American citizens in terms of fair procedures
Current Interpretation Bill of Rights has been selectively incorporated to apply to the states
Substantive Due Process Substantive due process involves liberty-based due process challenges which seek certain outcomes instead of merely contesting procedures and their effects; in such cases, the Supreme Court recognizes a constitutionally-based "liberty" which then renders laws seeking to limit said "liberty" either unenforceable or limited in scope.
Procedural Due Process Procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness. The constitutional right to procedural due process has been broadly construed to protect the individual so that statutes, regulations, and enforcement actions must ensure that no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result.
Eminent Domain Eminent domain is the inherent power of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent. The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development. The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are for public utilities, highways, and railroads, however it may also be taken for reasons of public safety.
Miranda v. Arizona Background: Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona. He signed a written confession while in custody, but was unaware that he was protected from self-incrimination. His lawyers appealed the case all the way to the Supreme Court on those grounds. Decision: In a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court overthrew the conviction and established that the accused have the right to remain silent. The Court also established that prosecutors may not use statements from a defendant who is in custody unless that defendant has been informed of his or her rights. Significance: Chief Justice Earl Warren expanded the rights of the accused. The due process clause was used to selectively incorporate part of the 5 th Amendment. Impact: States are required to read defendants their Miranda Rights before interrogations commence.
Richards v. Jefferson County Background: In 1996, privately employed petitioners in Jefferson County, AL claimed that the countys occupation tax violated the Alabama and Federal Constitutions. A similar, previous case (Bedingfield v. Jefferson County) dealt with the petitioners state claims but not their federal claims. Alabama state courts barred the case, since they felt that it would only be re-litigating what an earlier case established. Decision: The court unanimously decided that since the petitioners had no knowledge of the previous case, nor proper representation, it could not be used to bar ruling on the federal claims. Significance: The federal due process right to be heard was extended to the states, and as a result, prior litigation may not bind current plaintiffs. Impact: Previously, state courts had been allowed to use their own procedures for ensuring against re-litigation. In this case, the Supreme Court determined that that violated federal due process. Everyone is guaranteed their day in court.
Smith v. Phillips Background: Smith was a juror at Phillips trial. Phillips was convicted on two counts of murder and one of attempted murder. After the decision it became known that Smith had applied for a job in the District Attorney's Office, and that the prosecutors had knowledge of this during the trial. Phillips claimed that he had been denied due process, and a District Court demanded he be given a retrial, since Smith may have been biased in his vote. Decision: The Supreme court held that the proper procedure was to hold a hearing to prove actual bias. Such a hearing had already been held by the trial judge, Harold Birns, and it had been established that Smith was unbiased. Thus, a new trial was not required. Significance: Supposed juror impartiality was grounds for a hearing, not a retrial. Due process rights were not violated. Impact: The case held that due process did not always warrant a new trial every time a juror was potentially biased. Instead, Due process means a jury capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it, and a trial judge ever watchful to prevent prejudicial occurrences and to determine the effect of such occurrences when they happen.
Wolff v. McDonnell Background: An inmate challenged Nebraskas forfeiture of his good-time credit without granting him a due process hearing concerning that forfeiture. Decision: The Court held that when a prison disciplinary hearing might result in the loss of good-time credits, due process required that the prison notify the prisoner in advance of the hearing, afford him an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense, and furnish him with a written statement of the evidence relied on and the reason for the disciplinary action. Significance: Increased criminal rights while in prison. Impact: In order to take away good-time credits, due process is required by the 14 th Amendment.
Barron v. Baltimore Background: John Barron was co-owner of a profitable wharf in the harbor of Baltimore. As the city developed and expanded, large amounts of sand accumulated in the harbor, depriving Barron of the deep waters which had been the key to his successful business. He sued the city to recover a portion of his financial losses. Decision: The Court announced its decision in this case without even hearing the arguments of the City of Baltimore. Writing for the unanimous Court, Chief Justice Marshall found that the limitations on government articulated in the Fifth Amendment were specifically intended to limit the powers of the national government. Citing the intent of the framers and the development of the Bill of Rights as an exclusive check on the government in Washington D.C., Marshall argued that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth Amendment was not applicable to the states. Significance: Clarified that the Bill of Rights was to protect citizens rights, but did not apply to the states. Impact: States are not responsible for financial losses caused by state projects.
Holmes v. South Carolina Background: Bobby Lee Holmes was sentenced to death after he was convicted of murder and several other crimes. At trial, he was not permitted to introduce evidence suggesting that another person had committed the crimes. Under South Carolina law, defendants "seeking to present evidence of third-party guilt must [limit the evidence] to such facts as are inconsistent with his own guilt, and to such facts as raise a reasonable inference or presumption as to his own innocence." Evidence that merely casts a bare suspicion on another person is not admissible. Using this standard, the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision not to allow the evidence. Decision: The Court reversed the South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously. The opinion by Justice Samuel Alito held that evidence of third-party guilt brought by the defense could not be excluded only on the basis of the strength of the prosecution's case. Significance: Although the Constitution is not violated by the exclusion of evidence based on "certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury," the Court held that exclusion of a defendant's evidence based on the strength of the prosecution's evidence denies the defendant his constitutional right to "'a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.'" Impact: Increased defendant rights.
Constitutional Interpretation Selective Incorporation Constitution Bill of Rights 1868: 14 th Amendment 1925: Gitlow v. NY 1937: Palko v. CT 1966: Miranda v. AZ 1982: Smith v. Phillips 1996: Richards v. Jefferson County 2006: Holmes v. South Carolina 1974: Wolff v. McDonnell 1833: Barron v. Baltimore
Explanation The Constitutional interpretation of the due process clause involves the selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights and its application to the states. Past: The Bill of Rights was originally though to apply only to the federal government. Americans were worried about a strong federal government encroaching on their rights, so they sought to protect those rights. They did not consider these protections to extend to the state government, since states had their own constitutions.
Explanation, cont. 14 th Amendment: The 14 th Amendment included the due process clause, which essentially prohibited a state from depriving a citizen of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The ratification of this amendment began the process of selective incorporation, where the Supreme Court decided on a case-by-case basis which parts of the Bill of Rights were applicable to the states through the due process clause.
Explanation, cont. Landmark court cases: Barron v. Baltimore: The Bill of Rights is not applicable to the states. Gitlow v. New York: The Supreme Court decided that parts of the Bill of Rights are applicable to state governments. Since they are fundamental rights and liberties, freedom of the press and speech are protected from infringement by states in the due process clause. Palko v. Connecticut: A standard to selective interpretation was established, as any right considered fundamental and essential to the concept of liberty was to be applied to the states. Miranda v. Arizona: The due process clause was applied to defendants, and their rights expanded and protected from the states.
Explanation, cont. Wolff v. McDonnell: Due process was applied to inmates in regards to hearings that may result in loss of good-time credits. Smith v. Phillips: Due process was further defined, and the Supreme Court recognized that in trials, juror impartiality was not always a breach of due process, nor grounds for a re-trial. Richards v. Jefferson County: The Supreme Court supported citizens rights to due process. States could not deprive a citizen his or her due process right by refusing to hear a case based on a previous case. Holmes v. South Carolina: Based on due process, defendants are allowed to submit evidence of any kind in their defense.
Explanation, cont. Present: Now, it is commonly understood that a citizen may not be deprived of his or her fundamental rights by neither the federal government nor a state government. The due process clause has been used to selectively incorporate parts of the Bill of Rights, and now its provisions are extended to the state governments. Essentially, the interpretation of the due process clause has involved a journey from a time when the Bill of Rights was not applicable to state law, to a time when it is. Now, no state may deprive a citizen of his or her rights without due process of law.
Impact and Application The due process clause has been used to guarantee Americans many of the rights that are outlined in the Bill of Rights. It was previously thought that these rights were only applicable to the federal government. The due process clause protects the right to free speech, religion, press; guards against search and seizure; limits self-incrimination and guarantees a criminal trial; and prevents cruel/unusual punishment or excessive bail. Once it was established that states were not allowed to infringe on these rights, a number of state laws and policies were invalidated. The protection of these rights were then incorporated into public policy. For example, state police must follow specific procedures and may not question a person in custody unless that person has been read their rights. In general, the rights of defendants have been expanded and protected. Also as a result of the due process clause, states may not follow any laws or policies that deny a persons fundamental, First Amendment rights. It was originally thought that a state could choose the protections guaranteed (and even provide less)to its citizens; however, the due process clause established that the states could outline more protections than the federal government, but not less.
Examples Due process has been used to guarantee: – Right to an impartial jury (Parker v. Gladden) – Freedom of speech (Gitlow v. New York) – Freedom of the press (Near v. Minnesota) – Freedom of assembly (De Jonge v. Oregon) – Free exercise of religion (Cantwell v. Connecticut) – Immunity from self-incrimination (Mallory v. Hogan) – Immunity from double-jeopardy (Benton v. Maryland) – Right to a speedy trial (Klopfer v. North Carolina) – Right to counsel in felony cases (Gideon v. Wainwright) – Right to counsel for all crimes involving jail terms (Argersinger v. California)