". . . the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." —Chief Justice Earl Warren, speaking for the majority.
In the case of Fare v. Michael C., the police arrested the sixteen-year-old Michael C. under the suspicion of murder, and he was transported to the police station for a custodial interrogation (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Furthermore, before the interrogation began Michael C. was advised of his Miranda Rights, and Michael C. specifically asked to consult his probation officer, and not a lawyer (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Consequently, the police refused to allow Michael C. to speak with his state probation officer, and they continued to question him about the murder (Henry-Mays, 2007). Michael C. continued to answer the investigator’s questions and he drew sketches, which ultimately implicated him in the murder (Henry-Mays, 2007). Now that we understand the general facts of the case, let us examine the key facts and issues, which lead to the Supreme Court’s decision.
Beginning in the 1960s, the US Supreme Court decided on a succession of landmark cases that histrionically altered the processes and all around atmosphere of the Juvenile Justice System in America. One case in particular that played a major role in the Juvenile field is Kent vs. US (383 US. 541 ). The landmark case Kent vs. United States, observed as the first chief juvenile rights case in our history. This important case established the collective standards that entitled juveniles the right to waivers and preliminary hearings, which ensured due process was served. This would ultimately decide if the court would shift Kent into adult jurisdiction or allow him to remain in the juvenile system.
The sixth amendment states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and District wherein the crime shall have been committed, which District shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel or his defence.” ("The Bill of Rights and Amendments 11-27.") This amendment means that anyone who is accused of a crime has the right to a quick and public trial. The trial of the accused must be held by an unbiased jury in the area where the crime supposedly
In other words, the unanticipated result of the Supreme Court's Gault decision was to shift the focus of Juvenile Court from the child to the facts of the crime the child committed. Only after the legal issues are dealt with, after many weeks, months, or sometimes years pass, does the court belatedly turn its attention toward what should be done to help a child -- far too late in many cases. The child's rights are protected, but the child is not. And given the fact that most accused juveniles remain free while their cases slowly pass through the system, society is not protected, either.
The United States Constitution has Fifth Amendment also called as Amendment V which is part of Bill of Rights. It protects people from being forcibly witness against themselves in criminal cases. "Pleading the Fifth" is an everyday term for summoning the correct that enables observers to decrease to answer questions where the appropriate responses may implicate them, and by and large without suffering a punishment for stating the right. This evidentiary benefit guarantees that respondents can't be constrained to wind up witnesses at their own particular trials. Assuming, in any case, they affirm, they are not qualified for the privilege amid round of questioning, where questions are significant to their declaration on coordinate
Five major court cases that influenced our treatment of juveniles today include Kent v. United States (1966), In re Gault (1967), In re Winship (1970), McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) and Breen v. Jones (1975). Kent v. United States (1966) set the standards for transfers. In this case, the judge ruled Kent to adult court without consulting with the child, the child’s mother or attorney. It was this case that determined the attorney has the right to review documentation presented by the probation officer. Thanks to In re Gault (1967), juveniles how have a right to due process during any proceedings in which a juvenile is facing institutional confinement. It was also outlined in In re Gault (1967) exactly what a juveniles rights are during the entire process. Key rights are being notified of the charges brought up against them, right to counsel and cross-examination of witnesses by the attorney’s.
In Quinn v. United States(5) one of the dissenting judges expressed his wholehearted assent to the judicial amendment of the self-incrimination clause by striking the words "in any criminal case" therefrom, but he protested against the new rule laid down by the Court in that case, under which a contumacious witness must now be given a formula for claiming the privilege and after refusal to answer must be pleaded with a second time in order to get his "intent" not to answer set up. Justice Harlan, being new and uninitiated, couldn't approve the "new rule." He said:
The Sixth Amendment of the United States states “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense (CRS Annotated Constitution, n.d.).” The Sixth Amendment offers seven rights to everyone; (1) a speedy trial; (2) a public trial; (3) an unbiased jury; (4) told the charges against him/her; (5) able to confront those against him/her; (6) able to provide a witness in his/her favor; (7) right to lawful guidance. The Sixth Amendment is extremely important because it protects the rights of those being accused with criminal charges. It ensures that the process of conviction is done fairly and no one is deprived of their rights and unfairly charged.
It is my belief that police should be allowed to freely contact defendants and it is the defendant’s responsibility to invoke their rights to remain silent and rights to counsel on a case by case basis. This paper will explain the difference between a persons Mirandized counsel rights versus their sixth amendment counsel rights, different Supreme Court cases over the years that have demonstrated the court’s position on suspects being questioned by police, and how these decisions are affecting the world of law enforcement today.
Many law makers do not fully grasp the inherent problems with these laws. Instead, they place the responsibility on the defense lawyers to present the case well enough in hopes that a battered woman will be found not guilty of child abuse by omission (Askins). Beyond the legislature, the court system must also be held accountable for its part in the process. The prosecution in the Lindley case could not recall an instance in which a father was tried under these laws. In such cases, prosecutors essentially blame the victims for the abuse wrought upon them and their children. They continually beg the question, “why did she not leave” but fail to remember the abuser maintains power by threatening to take the woman’s life or that of her children. In the unlikely case a father is tried, he is rarely held responsible. A court found a father whose wife murdered their child to not have responsibility to protect their child and also found the sympathy of the
The Facts: A judge out of a New York Family court found 12-year old Winship (Defendant) had committed an act of stealing money from a pocketbook in a locker that if it had been committed by an adult it would have been a crime. But due to it being a 12-year old, the judge relying on a preponderance of the evidence, the standard of proof required by the New York Family Court Act, led the way of giving good reason that justified the fact that a young person did the crime that he was charged with. Winship had to dealt with a finding like this had to be based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This decision was supported by the New York Court of Appeals and sustained the constitutional, but Winship was granted a review by the United States Supreme Court.
In the case of the Maryland and Craig case, the victim was not protected under the Confrontation Clause. The clause was a violation of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. At first, its purpose was to eliminate the face to face between the accuser and the child. The amendment was compelled toward supporting the child but overlooking the rights of the accuser because it eliminates the face-to-face confrontation between the two. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's stated that the hearsay fulfills the Confrontation Clauses regardless if the victim was a presence of sufficient indicia of reliability(Goodman, 1995). The accuser challenges the law by stating that not only their Sixth Amendment was violated but their Fourteenth Amendment right
Accordingly, the clause protects the accused’s rights for an opportunity for effective cross-examination. However, it does not guarantee the accused to actually have one. While the customer is unavailable at the trial for the defendant to be confronted with, the police officer who was present at the time of the identification will testify, and his testimony is deemed to be highly reliable. In addition, the defense attorney can be given an opportunity to effectively cross-examine the officer.
Laws tend to make the lives of every individual safer and pleasant. The subject of this paper focuses on evaluating and identifying the Constitutional safeguards within the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments of the United States Constitution. How these safeguards to the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment will apply to juvenile and adult court proceedings. Finally, this paper will focus the impact that these safeguards, such as speedy trial, Miranda warning, exclusionary rule, and right to counsel will have on the day- to- day operation for juvenile and adult courts.