Analysis and Application: Legal Rights Afforded to the Accused By Kimberly Fleetwood CJ227: Criminal Procedure January 31, 2012 The police were not required to take any procedural steps even though John had made incriminating statements. If they had made the decision to question him on what he was saying, then they would have been obligated to read him his Miranda Rights. It would seem to me though that the police would not stop him to ask questions. The statements he was making would have surely been admissible in court. The only thing the officers needed to do was to take John’s statement down in their report.
The main purpose of the preliminary hearing is to establish whether there is sufficient evidence against a person to continue the justice process. There are three outcomes you can get from a preliminary hearing: the charges can be dismissed or dropped, a bail or detention hearing can be held, or a guilty plea can be found. There are many challenges that face the defendants, prosecutors, and the entire court when it comes to the preliminary hearing. Most prosecutors would rather go before a grand jury rather than hold a preliminary hearing. Going before a grand jury is favorable to the prosecutor because the jury only hears what the prosecutor has to say and will then deliberate whether the case should go to trial or not.
The accused are innocent until proven guilty and cannot be found guilty unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did in fact commit the crime or crimes that he or she is being accused of. The accused have the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney and if they cannot afford it one will be provided for them, they have the right to a trial by jury and the right to confront witnesses against them, and the right to bail bond unless they are charged with murder or the court determines them a flight risk. The accused also have the right against self-incrimination meaning that a person cannot be forced to be a witness against himself. Rule seven of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that the accused must have a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the facts constituting the offense they are being charged with. The accused have the right to counsel which means that under the sixth amendment the accused has the right to representation by an attorney.
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. Miranda then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed his case in 1966 (Miranda v. Arizona). Decision The Warren Court argued February 28 – March 2, 1966 Did not decide until June 13, 1966 There were 5 votes for Miranda and 4 votes against Chief Justice Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because “the police had failed to first inform
Right to Counsel Resha Harris CJA/364 May, 16, 2012 Gary, Looney Right to Counsel When a suspect is arrested and charged, he or she has the right of a counsel with an experienced attorney. In cases, which he or she cannot afford a lawyer the state has to provide one for the accused? “Police interrogation was a major concern. Without representation by counsel, the defendant is alone and vulnerable to improper police tactics. In two late 1950s cases, Crooker v .California (1958) and Cicenia v. LA gay (1958), dissenting justice argued that voluntary confessions should be excluded on the grounds that defendants requests for attorney were denied (Zalman, p., 2008).
Jury nullification is frequently practiced, but rarely occurs, in criminal trials and theoretically applicable to civil trials too – where it is focus to civil procedural solutions. To spare the innocent and castigate the guilty was the premeditated goal of the criminal justice system. An effect of a race-based jury nullification could be the demising an innocent life or incarcerating an innocent individual (Duane, 1996). Studies reveal that there’s an estimate of three to four percent of jury criminal trials engaged in jury nullification. Sad to say that there’s no means of totally eradicating jury nullification for jurors can’t be controlled
In the case of Bordenkircher v. Hayes (1978), the court stated, “so long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion.” Although there are many factors that come into play when a prosecutor is considering dismissing a case, the most prominent issues are state and federal resources, time, and investigative teams. When there is an insufficient amount of resources and time, the accused may be more subject to leniency from the prosecutors. Moreover, the counter argument for lenient behavior is that because prosecutors are not following through and charging certain cases, then they are not fully executing the law. Additionally, many people believe there is a strong possibility that some prosecutors will abuse their discretion privileges (Slobogin, p548). In the federal courts, prosecutors also have the discretion to join charges.
During opening statements no witnesses are called on to testify, evidence of any type will not be presented at this time.. The government has the “burden of proof” to the guilt of the suspect, therefore his statement is the first heard. Under normal circumstance the prosecutions statement lasts longer as it is more in detail therefore he/she speaks first. There have been times when the defense will wait until the conclusion of the prosecutions main case before giving their opening statement. Regardless of when the opening statements are made the prosecution walks the jury through the case through the prosecutions perspective of what
I am going to choose the fifth amendment of the constitution of the U.S., because it is used quit often by criminals. The way the Fifth Amendment works; when people are arrested by any law enforcement agency for any crime committed, they have the right to remain silent when interrogated by the detectives, because any statement made can be used as evidence against them, and during the interrogation it is recommended to have an attorney present and if you can’t afford an attorney, the court will appoint one to make sure that the suspects rights are not being violated (Mallor, J., 2013, p. 153).The Fifth Amendment pretty much protects people against compelled testimonial self-incrimination by establishing that no person will be forced to make a statement against himself (Mallor, J., 2013,
In most murder cases criminals who commit heinous crimes have used the insanity defense in pleading their cases. I’ve heard about a lot of people who have committed unspeakable crimes plead insanity in the preceding court trials. Would you let someone like this hide behind this plea and basically get away with murder? A criminal who was in his right state of mind meaning they knew what they were doing shouldn’t be able to use the insanity defense. In this speech I am going to tell you about the types of insanity defense that are used in court cases, the process that goes into verifying a criminals sanity, and the issues that come about after a plea is entered.