The Fifth Amendment And The United States Constitution Essay

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney...this is what you hear on all your favorite cop shows. But, where did this saying come from? In 1963 Ernesto Miranda a ninth grade dropout (PBS) was arrested and charged with kidnaping, rape, and armed robbery. The police interrogated him for two hours. During the question Miranda supposedly admitted to all the crimes. The police then used Miranda’s confession to convict him in court. While in prison Miranda appealed his case and eventually brought it to the Supreme Court. The court ruled five to four in favor of Miranda. The Supreme Court was correct in their ruling of Miranda v. Arizona, because

“ An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” a collection of 282 laws

the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any

Right to accusation of serious crime by the grand jury before any criminal charges for illegal crimes.

or public danger. No one can be put on trial again for the same crime.

“…nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or

The Appellant's right to due process has also been breached. This has lead the Appellant's right to a fair trial also being breached.

It is important to understand that as a character witness I am not responsible for determining this person’s guilt or innocence. My function is to provide information that

As William Blackstone, famous English jurist of the 18th century, said: it is "a universal maxim of the common law of England that no man is brought to jeopardy of his life or limb more than once for the same offence". The principle of double jeopardy that Blackstone refers to here has existed in the English law for over 800 years, and is based on two fundamental principles that are autrefois acquit and autrefois convict. Thus, the amendments brought by Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 are a huge innovation for the English (and Welsh) system of justice. This essay will consider the changes made to the principle of double jeopardy and question whether these new amendments have bettered our system of justice. In order to do so, it will first analyze the exact alterations that were made to the principle of double jeopardy. Then, it will examine why the Criminal Justice Act 2003 did not meet the government's objectives of "rebalancing" the criminal justice in favor of victims. Finally, we will consider how in reality, this Act did indeed improve the criminal justice system.

"You have the right to remain silent. If you choose to give up this right, anything you do say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you (The

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,

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in

“ You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you can not afford one, then one will be appointed to you.”

In a court of law, one’s crime should not be judged by the book alone, but rather by a matter circumstance and reason.

Nonetheless, a suspect must be advised of his right to remain silent, that anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law, that he has a right to an attorney present during questioning, and that an attorney will be appointed for him if he can not afford one. (Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at 479.) Moreover, Miranda places a significant burden on the Prosecution to prove a valid waiver thereof, in order to admit statements stemming from a custodial interrogation. (Id. at 436.) Accordingly, without a valid waiver, statements obtained in violation of Miranda must be suppressed.