The double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids the government from prosecuting individuals more than one time for a single offense and from imposing more than one punishment for a single act. The Constitution states “No person shall…be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb.” Most state constitutions guarantee this right to defendants appearing in state court. States that do not specifically assure the right of double jeopardy in their laws, must still ensure the right to criminal defendants. States must uphold this right due to the guarantee in the Fifth Amendment by means of the doctrine of incorporation. Benton v. Maryland, 39 U.S. 784, 89 S. Ct. 2056, 23 L. Ed.2d 707 (1969), supports the the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause is relevant to both state and federal proceedings.
A search warrant was issued by a State Superior Judge to search the Respondent’s residence whereby a large quantity of drugs was found. The Respondents filed a motion to suppress the evidence found. The District Court held an evidentiary hearing and granted partial suppression of the evidence. The District Court concluded that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued was found to be insufficient to establish probable cause. The court rejected the Government’s suggestion that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not apply where evidence is seized in reasonable good-faith reliance on a search warrant.
First of all, if the crime is as terrible as murder, and it was fully intentional, the privilege should be fully stripped. Some of the criminals in prison lost their right to vote because the crimes they committed were mainly unlawful instead of unjust. Lastly, there could be a series of tests to be given to the prisoners to determine if they are in the right state of mind to vote. When a person commits a crime, the crime will be either as small as fleeing police by motor vehicle, to as big as committing a murder. This is a strong difference in the types of crimes being committed.
He was escorted off the premises while the search was done, and he as well was searched off the premises. The warrant states that the police have the right to search the premises and the person. The search was illegal because Summers was not searched on the grounds of the premises allowed by the search warrant. Information gathered from: Michigan v. Summers - 452 U.S. 692 (1981). (n.d.).
Exclusionary Rule Evaluation John Stepney CJA/364 November 5, 2013 Kenneth Overwater Abstract The Fourth Amendment always has protected the three civil rights of liberty, property, and privacy. Under the Fourth Amendment the exclusionary rule was designed to sustain that any evidence that was obtained illegally by government officials is a violation of a defendant's constitutional rights and cannot be used against the defendant in a court of law. The reader will be informed of the rationale and purpose of the exclusionary rule and identify exceptions to the rule. It will also analyze the costs and benefits as well as alternative remedies to the exclusionary rule. Exclusionary Rule Evaluation In the 18th century the exclusionary rule under common law did not allow coerced confessions of defendants to be admitted in trial courts.
With this model, there is no second chance. The due process model focuses on individual liberties and rights and is concerned with limiting the powers of government. The focus is on the accused and on his or her rights. The focus is also on providing some balance to the power and authority of the state. Due process protections under the Constitution force the state to fulfill its burden of proving its case against the accused.
Alfonzo once again claimed that Commerce Clause which is basically where Congress is granted separate power, which Alfonzo thought was a direct violation of the Constitution Of The Unites States. The Fifth Circuit overturned the original conviction by stating the charges and the laws are past the powers of the Congress and in response to that the U.S. government then appealed to the Supreme court. The reason they did this was so the Commerce Laws could stay in effect. The Governments argument was the possession of a firearm on or within a school facility would likely be to commit a act of violence which would effect the school and how it is run and also the well being of the population, and because of all this the government believe that the commerce clause should be upheld. In
The confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. This right includes the ability of the accused to have a face- to- face confrontation with the witnesses giving testimonial evidence against them during a trial. In Ohio V. Clark, two main issues arise. The first is whether or not an individual’s obligation to report suspected child abuse makes that person an agent for law enforcement for purpose of the confrontation clause. The other key issue is whether or not a child’s out- of- court statements to a teacher in response to a teachers concern about potential child abuse qualify as testimonial statements.
The Alien Friends act which allowed the president to deport anyone who he thought posed a threat. The Alien Enemies Act (this is the one that forms the basis of the Patriot Act) which allow the President to capture and deport all immigrants whose country was at war with us and the final law under the Alien Sedition Acts was the Sedition Act which severely restricted a citizens right to free speech. A person could be jailed if he said anything bad against the government or it's leaders. This is really crazy because one of our freedoms is the freedom of speech. We should be able to say whatever it is that we want.
Criminal Procedure Michelle Taylor CJA/364 Barbara Mitchell October 31, 2011 Introduction The sixth amendment to the constitution of the United States says that an individual that is accused will have the right to a counsel during criminal procedures that will help to aid in defense of the accused individual. The subject of this paper will analyze the aspects of rights to a counsel. The development of rights to counsel will be examined. When the rights to a counsel is attached to criminal procedures,