Due Process By: Adam Milton and Cory Rochester

5 th Ammendment ► 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 offence 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 taken for public use, without just compensation.

14 th Ammendment ► 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.

Definitions ► Due process - principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Rights cannot be taken away without a trial. ► Procedural due process – procedural rights dictate how the government can lawfully go about taking away a person’s freedom or property or life, when the law otherwise gives them the power to do so. ► Substantive due process - substantive rights are those general rights that reserve to the individual the power to possess or to do certain things, despite the government’s desire to the contrary. ► Eminent domain - is the inherent power of the state to seize a citizen's property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent.

Miranda v. Arizona ► Background: Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested for robbery and then confessed to raping an 18-year-old female. Miranda’s lawyer appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court who then emphasized that Miranda did not request an attorney. ► Decision: Since Miranda did not request a lawyer and was not informed of his rights, this violated the 6 th amendment's right to an attorney. No confession could be admissible under the 5 th amendments’s self-incrimination clause as well. ► 5 votes for Miranda, 4 votes against ► Miranda’s conviction was overturned.

► Effects on policy: It enacted the famous Miranda Rights. ► “The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in the court of law; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.”

Richards v. Jefferson County ► Background: Jason Richards and others, who are privately employed in Jefferson County, filed a state court class action suit claiming that the county's occupation tax violates the Federal and Alabama Constitutions. The State Supreme Court thought doctrine of res judicata meaning already judged or final judgement applied due to a former case of Bedingfield v. Jefferson County. ► Decision: The Court ruled that since the Richards and others were not sufficiently represented in Bedingfield v. Jefferson County case, under federal due process, the previous ruling did not bind Richards and cannot stop them from challenging the unconstitutionality of the law. ► 9 votes for Richards, 0 votes against ► Effects on Policy: Further asserted the power of due process to protect the rights of people

Smith v. Phillips ► Background: Smith was convicted of murder and wanted vacate his conviction on the ground that a juror in his case submitted during the trial an application for employment as an investigator in the District Attorney's Office. Smith assumed that the prosecuting attorneys withheld the information from the trial court and respondent's defense counsel until after the trial. The District Court ordered Smith released unless the State granted him a new trial. The United States Court of Appeals, without considering whether the juror was actually or biased not, said that since the prosecutors failed to disclose their knowledge about the juror, Smith was denied due process. ► Decision: Smith was not denied a fair trial under the Due Process Clause under the 14 th Amendment. However i t was wrong for the lower courts to order a new trial. Federal courts hold no supervisory authority over state judicial proceedings, and may intervene only to correct wrongs that involve the constitution.

► 6 votes for Smith, 3 votes against ► Effects on policy: Helped insure that a person has a right to a fair trial.

Wolff v. McDonnell ► Background: Wolff held that the disciplinary proceedings at his prison violated due process; that the inmate legal assistance program did not meet constitutional standards; and that the regulations governing inmates' mail were unconstitutionally restrictive. ► Decision: The Court held that prisoners are no longer slaves of the state and are not entirely stripped of their constitutional protections. Prisoners can also call witnesses in present evidence to defend himself. The Court also said that a State can constitutionally require mail from an attorney be indentified as such and can be opened in front of a prisoner to protect from contraband ► 6 votes for Wolff, 3 votes against ► Effects on policy: Prisoners are no longer prisoners of the state and are given more rights

Barron v. Baltimore ► Background: John Barron was a co-owner of a wharf in Baltimore harbor and due to expansion of the city some of his fishing grounds were becoming useless. He sued the city to recover financial losses. ► Decision: The Court had to rule whether eminent domain in the 5 th amendment applied to states as well. It ruled that under the original intent of the framers since it was supposed to protect from the federal government and not the state government the amendment was not applicable. ► 7 votes for Baltimore, 0 votes against ► Effects on policy: Held that the Bill of Rights could not be applied to the States. This was reversed in the 14 th amendment.

Lawrence v. Texas ► Background: Due to a reported weapons disturbance, police entered Lawrence’s residence where he was found with another man. Under the Texas “Homosexual Conduct" law, which did not allow same-sex sexual intimacy, they were convicted. Both of the men fought that they were denied due process and were not able to enjoy their right to liberty and privacy. ► Decision: The law did violate the Due Process Clause since they were free adults to do as they wish. The state has no right to intrude into its peoples’ lives. ► 6 votes for Lawrence and Garner, 3 vote(s) against ► Effects on policy: Reaffirmed the power of the 14 th amendment that due process applies to states. Also it helped move Gay Rights.

Represents the right to a fair trial. Controversy over distorted evidence.

Demonstrates that Miranda rights are now mandated in law enforcement.

Evolution of Due Process ► Barron v. Baltimore (1833) – Bill of Rights were not applied to states ► Slaughterhouse Case (1873) – caused the privileges and immunities clause to not be used to apply the Bill of Rights to the states ► Gitlow v. New York (1925) – ruled that provisions and liberties in the Bill of Rights applied to states. Bill of Rights were “totally incorporated.” Due process has same restrictions on state government as it does on the federal government. ► Palko v. Connecticut (1937) – decided on selective incorporation instead of total. ► As years passed, more and more amendments of the Bill of Rights were put under the Due Process Clause of the 14 th amendment. ► Miranda v. Arizona (1966) – enacted Miranda Rights to insure that due process is given to everyone.

Video ► gital-due-process gital-due-process gital-due-process

Sources ► ► nt_to_the_United_States_Constitution nt_to_the_United_States_Constitution nt_to_the_United_States_Constitution ►