Essay about Fifth Amendment and Double Jeopardy

The prosecution reduced the charge from murder to manslaughter as they did not believe the requisite degree of reckless indifference or lack of mens rea were sufficient evidence to support the charge of murder. The use of discretion is outlined in the

The four basic components of the Fifth Amendment include: double jeopardy, due process, the right to be heard by a jury and safeguards against self-incrimination. Double jeopardy is when the individual can only be tried for a crime once. In the event that they are acquitted and new information surfaces, they cannot be retried again for the same crime. Instead, new charges would have to be filed showing the individual violated another area of the law. (Sundahl, 2011)

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

Guiteau pleaded not guilty to the murder charges. The trial that took place on November 14 in Washington D.C. was one of the first high profile cases where the defense of insanity was considered. Charles claimed that he wasn 't

Appellant Brady was found guilty of first degree murder by the Maryland Court system. During his trial hearing Brady admitted to participating in the organization and forethought of the crime with a partner, although plead that he himself did not commit the crime. After disclosing his involvement, Brady’s lawyer admitted to his guilt but asked for a lesser penalty since Brady didn’t commit the murder. Before trial Brady’s council asked for all relevant information to the trial and were given most, but not all of it. The withholding of evidence was a violation of due process laws in which a new trial was requested. A new trial was granted but only for sentencing and not a retrial of fact.

Which the judge did rule that with all the evidence that was withheld in the prior trial then there will be a new trial on Peggy Hettricks case. Which when Mr. Masters had his new trial he found not guilty and released from prison. Later on the judge ruled he was wrongfully convicted and Mr. Masters sued and was granted millions.

The 5th Amendment Basically, states that no one shall be charged with capital crimes without a Grand Jury's permission, except in cases regarding the military while under service in wartime or public danger. No one can be put on trial again for the same crime. You can't be forced to testify yourself. That no one should be

Booker appealed his sentence to the 7th Circuit Court on the basis that the trial judge imposing the new sentencing violated his right to a trial by jury. The 7th Circuit affirmed Booker’s conviction and remanded the case for resentencing (United States v. Booker, 375 F.3d 508, (2004); Bloom, 2005). The Department of Justice appealed the 7th Circuit ruling to the Supreme Court,

over again. The court may have not looked at the positive aspects of the appellant, but since he

Because of the failed objective, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said that a person cannot get rid of his/her death sentence unless surmounting a Texas rule that is analogous federal rule. The Almanza v. State case made Texas adopt a rule stating that a criminal defendant who does not object to the jury’s instruction will not receive a reversal just because the instruction mistake was harmful. Instead, the defendant must meet a heightened standard, but if the standard is not met the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals will make the petitioner’s sentence stand (Kennedy).

The jury convicted McCleskey of murder. At the penalty hearing, the jury heard arguments as to the appropriate sentence. Under Georgia law, the jury could not consider imposing the death penalty unless it found beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was accompanied by one of the statutory aggravating circumstances. The jury in this case found two aggravating circumstances to exist beyond a reasonable doubt: the murder was committed during the course of an armed robbery, and the murder was committed upon a peace officer engaged in the performance of his duties. In making its decision whether to impose the death sentence, the jury considered the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of McCleskey's conduct. McCleskey offered no mitigating evidence. The jury recommended that he be sentenced to death on the murder charge and to consecutive life sentences on the armed robbery charges. The court followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced McCleskey to

The sixth amendment to the U.S constitution guarantees a defendant in a criminal prosecution the right to a speedy, public, and impartial trial by jury. Once it has determined that the trial will be by jury, the next step in the criminal proceeding is the selection of the jurors. During this process possible jurors receive a summons in the mall ordering them to appear in court at a specified time and date the people who are summoned comprise the venire (the prospective jurors for cases). Voir dire Latin term meaning to speak the truth, this is an examination conducted by the courts or by the attorneys of a potential juror or witness to determine if they would be proficient or qualified for services. Jurors’ questionnaires reveals information disqualifying them from jury service is only the first step in the jury selection process. Typical questions relate to whether prospective jurors know the defendant, the attorneys, or any of the witnesses, whether they have read or heard about the case in the media, and whether they have racial, nationality, or gender biases. Effective voir dire is getting the prospective jurors to tell the court or attorneys what they need to know( Ferdico, J 2005).

In Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court examined whether or not the prosecutors had the right to suppress evidence that may have helped the defendant. Specifically, two defendants, Boblit and Brady were charged with murder. Both defendants had separate trials. The first defendant to stand trial was Boblit, who admitted his guilt. In Brady’s trial,

Defendant Woods moved pro se to withdraw his guilty plea to second degree murder. Woods had entered a guilty plea pursuant to agreement; he claimed that he would not have entered the plea but for his attorney’s failure to sufficiently investigate a witness’s proposed trial testimony. The district court denied Woods’s motion and sentenced Woods to 258 months’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

The issue here becomes whether the court’s decision was the right one or if they could have come up with a different decision had the case been studied from different perspectives making the decision wrong. Both arguments (for and against the Court’s decision) are discussed below, but I personally believe that court’s decision was the only right one to make.