The On The American Criminal Jurisprudence

In the case of Wong Sun v United States, in consideration of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine the Court excluded the admission of evidence in the trial court due to the violation of defendant’s Fourth Amendment Rights when the derivative evidence was obtained. Therefore, in this essay, I am going to discuss if the exclusion of evidence contributes in an important way of supporting the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment or should the derivative evidence be admitted because police officers could not have anticipated the discovery of derivative evidence.

This case is one that changed the way the United States Police forces will work forever. Every human in the world has natural born rights. Even people who have been arrested have rights, ‘The rights of the accused’. These rights are the main point of this court case.

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 affords all people certain rights. The Fifth Amendment states that we have the right against self incrimination. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search or seizure. People have the right to confront witnesses and accusers. Nothing can change these rights unless the U.S. constitutions were to be rewritten and that is not likely to happen. In this paper we will be examining the Fourth Amendment, learning the requirements for obtaining a search warrant, defining probable cause, describing when search and seizure does not require a warrant. We will also explain the rationale for allowing warrantless searches, examine the persuasiveness of these reasons, and determine if probable cause is always

4. Evidence illegally obtained by the police in violation of the Fourth Amendment will be excluded from trial whether or not the police acted in good faith?

Does the police practice of questioning individuals without notifying them of their right to a lawyer and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?

Courts are established social, political, and judicial institutions necessary for the manifestation of justice and the maintenance of law and order. The courts are part of the judicial branch of government, as outlined in Article III of the United States Constitution. Courts are the arenas in which the law is tried and applied. Judges are the presiding officers of the court. The United States Supreme Court is the most fundamental court because has "the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal laws and resolve other disputes over them," (United States Courts, 2012). This is true even though even though the court does not expressly enforce that law; enforcement is the province of the executive branch.

At Michael C.’s trial his defense argued when he requested to speak with his probation officer that was the same as him invoking his Fifth Amendment rights (Henry-Mays, 2007). The trial judge denied the defense’s motion to suppress the evidence; however, an appeal was eventually filed with the California Supreme Court, and the court reversed the initial ruling (Henry-Mays, 2007). The California Supreme Court’s premise behind their ruling was the probation officer served as Michael C.’s guardian, and when he requested to speak with his probation officer that was the same as him invoking his Fifth Amendment rights (Henry-Mays, 2007). Since, we understand why the California Supreme Court reversed the initial ruling, let us analyze the Supreme Court’s decision on this case

In my paper to follow I intend to better educate and provide examples and different situations dealing with the Fourth Amendment in criminal procedures.

The 5th amendment declares 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

No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Seminar DB# Issue: Whether the law enforcement officers properly gave Miranda warnings to the defendant Jane Dough. Rules: The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Before questioning a person in custody, an officer must advise the person that 1) he has the right to remain silent; 2) if the person waives his right to remain silent, any statement the person provides may be used as evidence against him in court; 3) he has the right to the presence of an attorney during questioning; and 4) if the person cannot afford and attorney, one will be appointed to represent him.

: 1) the testimony about Ms. Fergile’s identification of Mr. Tulin during the FBI photo array should not have been permitted; 2) the cumulative weight of the evidence does not support a judgment of guilt; 3) Mr. Tulin’s counsel should have been allowed to make observations and arguments to the jury about Ms. Fergile’s courtroom demeanor, which included waving and smiling at Mr. Tulin; 4) despite the court’s ruling on a motion in limine precluding testimony about the rape of Ms. Fergile’s niece, testimony to that effect came out and was heard by the jury, tainting the trial with undue prejudice;, and 5) the government’s arguments in closing shifted the burden to the defendant, thus prejudicing Mr. Tulin and violating his rights to fair trial.

The self-incrimination privilege recognizes the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution by protecting witnesses from being coerced into incriminating themselves. Under this privilege, a witness is allowed to plead the Fifth by refusing to respond to questions if the response could be self incriminatory. This privilege is founded on the aspect of torture, which was used to extract information

The Fifth Amendment as it pertains to confessions, states that “no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themselves. The Fifth Amendment was created to protect individuals against self-incrimination, and any confession obtained when it is in violation of the Amendment will be inadmissible in court. The case Miranda v. Arizona involves Ernesto Miranda who was arrested based on evidence linking him to a kidnapping and rape. Miranda signed a confession to the rape, but he was never told his right to counsel, his right to remain silent, and that his statements would be used against him during the interrogation before being presented the confession form. His lawyer argued that the