QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether Mr. Jack Hernandez’s statements made during the interrogation can be used against him in the new murder trial. Hernandez was initially wanted for questioning in the murder of his former roommate in Texas and after being sentenced for a separate crime in Missouri, he was improperly questioned, Mirandized and detained as a result of his excited utterance due to a language barrier. The question is whether the statements taken by Missouri officials and Canadian authorities will be allowed to be used in Hernandez’ Texas trial. BRIEF ANSWER: For the most part, no. The statements will not be admissible because the acts of the Canadian police force, who were working outside of their jurisdiction, are subject to the Canadian Charter. Because of that violation, the accused’s right to counsel and right to silence were hindered. These violations were blatant and the evidence would not have been otherwise been discovered thus rendering the trial unfair. Consequently, the evidence of Mr. Cook’s statement shall be excluded. Although Hernandez is a Canadian, Canadian officials cannot come to the United States to question him while he is incarcerated in the American prison system without following the rules set forth by the American justice system. Therefore his statements cannot be used against him. Under the 6th Amendment, it states that, In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial
It has been determined that a material of criminal nature, must be tried before the courts. There are four significant fundamental principles of the criminal law. These principles all help and establish the factors to creating the following crime occurrence. The foundation of our justice system presents that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. According to Pennington, (2003), "before you can find any one of the defendants guilty you must be satisfied of his guilt as charged in some counts of the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt,”(p.108). In addition, burden of proof, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the individual being charged with the offense. Normally a person who is being charged for a crime is not required to answer police questions, this is where having the right to remaining silence can be taken into place
The Sixth Amendment provides that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a(n) speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.
“The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise
At approximately 1835 hours, I read Inmate Vasquez T384225 his Miranda Rights from an MCSO issued card, I asked him if he understood his rights and he said, "Yes." I asked him if he will voluntarily answer my questions? He said, "No." No further questions were asked.
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.
Amendment VI – The accused shall have a fair speedy public local jury trial; any witness confrontation
Attorneys representing Fernandez seek to have statements made by Fernandez during police interrogation suppressed. The presiding judge ruled that statements made by Fernandez during police interrogations are not admissible, because Fernandez “Miranda rights” to waive his rights to remain silent and consult an attorney were violated. Sexual battery charges are also dropped against Fernandez for lack
However, upon further examination of the confession letter that was written and signed by Miranda, officials had found that no specific rights, he was saying he understood to be waived, were listed on that confession form to begin with (Twardy,
''The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain convictions by means of unlawful searches and enforced confessions . . . should find no sanction in the judgment of the courts which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights.'' [9]
The issues presented in this case raise question to the admissibility of statements obtained from individuals engaged in custodial police interviews/interrogations and whether they are admissible against them in a criminal court when the individual has not been made aware of his constitutional rights and the statements are not freely provided, but are coerced or a product of harassment or a promise by authorities Likewise, “whether procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the fifth Amendment of the constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself are necessary”
In an ordered society, justice is necessary for everyone must be treated fairly. Regardless of a bad action or crime a person commits, they must receive a fair trial. Within the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, the sixth amendment states that one has a right to a speedy, public, and impartial trial by jury. Within The Eumenides, Athene is the voice
The State which is the prosecuting is obliged, as of necessity to ensure implementation of constitutional guarantees, and if there is any failure on its part in this regard, the constitutional safeguards shall prevail. If a speedy trial cannot be ensured, the citizen’s liberty cannot be curtailed and he will, therefore have to be set free. Whether an accused who is facing a trial is in custody or whether he is on bail are matters of little consideration in this regard because the liberty of the citizen is still curtailed either completely or
Admission of illegally obtained evidence has been debated since the Charter was passed. In each trial, it must be decided if admitting the evidence in question would bring the “administration of justice into disrepute” which relies on whether “the reasonable person”, fully informed of the facts, would be shocked if a judge allowed the evidence to be admitted.
With Article 6, a person is guaranteed to the right to a fair and public hearing in the determination of an individual’s civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him. The ECtHR in case laws has broadly
“Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence;