Docstoc

Due Process

Document Sample
Due Process Powered By Docstoc
					  Due Process
By: Adam Milton and Cory
       Rochester
            5th   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.
            14th   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 6th
    amendment's right to an attorney. No confession could be
    admissible under the 5th 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 14th Amendment. However it 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 5th
    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 14th
    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 14th 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 14th amendment.
►   Miranda v. Arizona (1966) – enacted Miranda Rights to insure that due
    process is given to everyone.
                  Video
► http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/video/di
 gital-due-process-10376731
                 Sources
► http://www.oyez.org/
► http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendme
  nt_to_the_United_States_Constitution
► http://supreme.justia.com/

				
DOCUMENT INFO