Confrontation Clause

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.

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

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

". . . 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 [1966]). 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 defendants right against self-incrimination, is the essential mainstay of the United States adversary system and guarantees to the individual the "right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will," during a period of custodial interrogation as well as in the courts or during the course of other official investigations (Miranda v. Arizona 1966).

It was insisted upon as a defensive weapon of society and society's patriots against laws and proceedings that did not have the sanction of public opinion. In all the cases that have made the formative history of this privilege and have lent to it its color, all that the accused asked for was a fair trial before a fair and impartial jury of his peers, to whom he should not be forced by the state or sovereignty to confess his guilt of the fact charged. Once before a jury, the person accused needed not to concern himself with the inferences that the jury might draw from his silence, as the jurors themselves were only too eager to render verdicts of not guilty in the cases alluded

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.

The Fourteenth Amendment has made the Sixth Amendment’s right to confrontation applicable to state court as well as federal court. The confrontation clause guarantees criminal defendants the opportunity to face the prosecution’s witnesses in the case against them and dispute the witnesses’ testimony (Find Law, n.d. 2015).

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.

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.

Individual rights are a very crucial part of our United States constitution, because whether these rights are being provided towards a criminal defendant or a victim the goal of our national government is to provide the same level of rights adequately to all its citizens. From the time in which the new judicial federalism began up until now, these rights have been more and more in debate case after case both in federal and state courts. A good example to this fact is a comparison between 3 different cases that pertain to decisions from both state and federal court, these cases are Maryland v Craig, Pennsylvania v Ludwig, and Ohio v Self. These cases deal with the defendant’s right to confront witnesses when the witness is a child who is

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

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.