The Handy Law Answer Book. David L Hudson
Читать онлайн книгу.
any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” Double jeopardy means that a person is placed in jeopardy of punishment for a crime twice. It prohibits a second prosecution after a person has been acquitted or convicted. It also prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that the double jeopardy clause is designed “to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense.”
What is an example of the double jeopardy clause prohibiting multiple punishments for the same offense?
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Ohio (1978) provides an excellent illustration of the Double Jeopardy Clause in action. County prosecutors initially charged Nathaniel Brown with joyriding. He pled guilty and served 30 days in jail. Upon his release, prosecutors charged him with the more serious crime of auto theft. Brown’s lawyer contended that this subsequent charged violated his client’s right to be free from double jeopardy.
The Supreme Court applied the Blockburger test—derived from Blockburger v. United States (1932): “The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” Applying this test, the Court determined that joyriding and auto theft constituted the same offense.
When giving testimony, you are protected by the Fifth Amendment from self-incrimination, which means you cannot be forced to say anything that could make you look guilty (iStock).
What is the protection against self-incrimination?
This Fifth Amendment-based freedom means that the government cannot force an individual to the prosecution against him or her. In other words, it means that the government cannot force persons to incriminate themselves. A person can say “I take the Fifth,” and the government cannot compel him or her to speak. We often think of the Fifth Amendment when someone takes the stand and a prosecutor asks them a question to which he or she responds: “I take the Fifth.” But, the Fifth Amendment also applies when a person is subject to police interrogation and questioning.
In what famous decision did the U.S. Supreme Court establish certain rights to persons facing interrogation and questioning from police?
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in four consolidated cases—Miranda v. Arizona, Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart—that law enforcement officials could not use statements obtained from a police interrogation unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. The Court held that police violate the Fifth Amendment if they do not inform a suspect prior to questioning that he or she has: (1) a right to remain silent; (2) that any statement he or she makes can be used against them in a court of law; (3) that he or she has the right to have an attorney present during questioning; and (4) that if he or she cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to them. If law enforcement officials fail to provide these procedural safeguards, the Court said that evidence obtained during such interrogations cannot be used against the suspect.
Who was Miranda in the famous case?
Ernesto A. Miranda was a criminal defendant convicted of rape who challenged his conviction in a U.S. Supreme Court case that bears his name. Miranda was arrested on suspicion of robbery. During a two-hour interrogation at a Phoenix police station, Miranda not only confessed to the robbery, but also to sexually assaulting and raping a woman 11 days earlier. The police officers never informed Miranda that he had a right to have a lawyer present during questioning. A jury convicted Miranda of kidnapping and rape and sentenced him to 20 to 30 years for each offense. Miranda’s lawyers argued that their client’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated by the coercive interrogation. In Miranda v. Arizona (1966; see LegalSpeak, p. 66), the U.S. Supreme Court agreed.
What happened to Ernesto A. Miranda after the U.S. Supreme Court decision?
Prosecutors retried Miranda without evidence obtained from his confession. The prosecution presented the testimony of Miranda’s common-law wife, who claimed that during a prison visit, Miranda confessed to her that he had raped the victim. A jury convicted him again on charges of kidnapping and rape in 1966. Miranda was paroled in 1972. However, in 1976, Miranda was stabbed to death in a bar fight. At the time of his death, he was carrying cards containing the text of the Miranda warnings.
You must be read your Miranda rights if you are taken into custody. Named after the case involving Ernesto A. Miranda, this procedure informs you about, among other things, your right to legal council (iStock).
What is due process?
Due process—a freedom also found in the Fourteenth Amendment—is one of the most important rights in the American legal system. It ensures a basic level of fundamental fairness before the state infringes on individual liberty.
LegalSpeak: Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
T he U.S. Supreme Court ruled:
In these cases, we might not find the defendants’ statements to have been involuntary in traditional terms. Our concern for adequate safeguards to protect precious Fifth Amendment rights is, of course, not lessened in the slightest. In each of the cases, the defendant was thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere and run through menacing police interrogation procedures. The potentiality for compulsion is forcefully apparent, for example, in Miranda, where the indigent Mexican defendant was a seriously disturbed individual with pronounced sexual fantasies….
Today, then, there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves. We have concluded that without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely. In order to combat these pressures and to permit a full opportunity to exercise the privilege against self-incrimination, the accused must be adequately and effectively apprised of his rights and the exercise of those rights must be fully honored….
The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court. This warning is needed in order to make him aware not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences of forgoing it. It is only through an awareness of these consequences that there can be any assurance of real understanding and intelligent exercise of the privilege. Moreover, this warning may serve to make the individual more acutely aware that he is faced with a phase of the adversary system—that he is not in the presence of persons acting solely in his interest.
Due process has often been divided into two basic categories: procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due process means that the government must guarantee a fair process before taking away an individual’s life, liberty, or property. The basic elements to procedural due process are notice and the right to a fair hearing. This prevents the government from arbitrarily taking away someone’s job or freedom.
Substantive due process means that laws cannot be irrational and arbitrary. Instead laws must advance a legitimate, governmental objective. Normally, the government must have a rational basis for its laws.
What