Presentation on theme: "Objective 29L Analyze he rights of the accused as set forth in the 4 th,5 th,6 th,8 th, and 14 th Amendments, including but no limited to such cases as."— Presentation transcript:
Objective 29L Analyze he rights of the accused as set forth in the 4 th,5 th,6 th,8 th, and 14 th Amendments, including but no limited to such cases as Mapp V. Ohio, New Jersey V. T.L.O, Miranda V. Arizona, Gideon V. Wainwright, Gregg V. Georgia By: Amoni & Greg
The 4 th Amendment What does it say : The Fourth Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause... and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Mapp V. Ohio (1961) Ms. Doralee Mapp lived in Cleveland, Ohio. After receiving information that an individual wanted in connection with a recent bombing was hiding in Mapp's house, the Cleveland police knocked on her door and demanded entrance. Although Mapp did not allow them to enter, they gained access by forcibly opening the door. Once the police were inside the house, Mapp confronted them and demanded to see their warrant. One of the officers held up a piece of paper claiming it was a search warrant. Mapp grabbed the paper but an officer recovered it and handcuffed Mapp "because she had been belligerent". In the course of the basement search, police found a trunk containing "lewd and lascivious" books, pictures, and photographs. As a result, Mapp was arrested for violating Ohio's criminal law prohibiting the possession of obscene materials.
The 5 th Amendment The rights of accused criminals by providing for due process of law, forbidding double jeopardy, and stating that no person may be forced to testify as a witness against himself or herself.
The 6 th Amendment The Sixth Amendment states that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona, in 1963. Miranda was arrested after a crime victim identified him in a police lineup. Miranda was charged with rape and kidnapping and interrogated for two hours while in police custody. The police officers questioning him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney. His attorney argued that his confession should have been excluded from trial because he had not been informed of his rights, nor had an attorney been present during his interrogation. The police officers involved admitted that they had not given Miranda any explanation of his rights. They argued, however, that because Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights. The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld his conviction.
The 8 th Amendment Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Gregg V. Georgia (1976) A Jury found Troy Gregg guilty of committing an armed robbery and murder. In accordance with Georgia law, the trial was in two stages, a guilt stage, and a sentencing stage. At the guilt stage of Georgia's bifurcated procedure, the jury found the petitioner guilty of two accounts armed robbery and murder. At the penalty stage, the judge instructed the jury that it could recommend either a death sentence or a life prison sentence on each count and the jury returned the verdict of death. Challenging his death sentence, Gregg claimed that his capital sentence was “cruel and unusual” punishment, violating the 8th and 14th amendment. It was found that the punishment of death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances
The 14 th Amendment Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection
Gideon V. Wainwright Charged in Florida State Court with a noncapital felony, appeared without funds and without counsel and asked to have one appointed and was denied. Held the right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trail to have the assistance of counsel is a fundamental right to a fair trail and conviction without the assistance of counsel violated the 14 th Amendment.