The Importance Of Due Process In The Court System

In order to establish justice, laws need to be interpreted and judged. When the contents of a law are used to “honor” the criminal's actions the judicial branch will bring justice to the victim and the law. The judicial branch does not prejudice, therefore they judge fairly and justly. The way the judicial branch works makes it so that it establishes justice. In Article Three of the Constitution, it states “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

However, the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the Sixth Amendment provided criminal defendants with a right to counsel who provides "reasonably effective assistance given the totality of the circumstances. " The Court of Appeals outlined the standards for judging whether a defense

The defense counsels can argue against the safeguard of accused before they are proved guilty with support of constitutional safeguards. The law enforcement officers cannot harass the accused or defame the accused because they are protected by the amendments in the constitution. The 4th Amendment states that unless there is warrant the house or accused cannot be searched. The law enforcement officers need to take permission before arrest or searching the accused.

Article 2 stipulates that there is a protection of the right to life. Article 3 stipulates that there is a right to protection from degrading treatment. An example of where the courts have had to decide where the courts have had to decide which of the conflicting rights outweighed the other is in the case of John Venebles, the murderer of James Bulger. After he was arrested for possession of child pornography some years back, it was considered whether his anonymity should be lifted. The court considered however, that there was a “clear and present danger to his physical safety and life” and so he should retain his anonymity.

Waiving Miranda Rights: Waiving Miranda rights is not an option, though, until the family has been knowledgeable of those privileges, and are fully comprehends them. Few of the authorities allow an indirect waiving of these rights, which actually means that a accused’s performance indicates that he wants to capitulation those rights, even if he has not explicitly stated this. For example: Juan is under arrest for burglary, at which point he is understand his Miranda rights.

[The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) shared a similar view. Lord Lane C.J said, at p.1074: "The remaining and no less difficult question is whether, despite that view, this is an area where the court should step aside to leave the matter to the Parliamentary process.

Thus, because relationships cannot be proved true, an attempt is made to prove them false. This is called falsification. For example, instead of proving that a defendant is truly guilty of a crime, a prosecutor attempts to prove with a certain confidence level that the defendant is not innocent of the crime. For example, if there is a 95% confidence level that a defendant is not innocent, then jurors may find the defendant guilty.

Parliament is equipped to make any law subject to the functioning of the Constitution and there is no other legislative power. The Judiciary is free in its field and there can be no impedance with its legal capacities either by the Executive or by the Legislature. The Supreme Court and High Courts are given the force of judicial review and they can announce any law went by the Parliament or the Legislature as unlawful. Considering these variables, many legal thinkers and scholars have accepted the fact that Separation of Powers has been acknowledged in the Indian Constitution .

Many of the court’s decisions were controversial, and critics have charged that justices/ judges have written their own values into the constitution. There are several restrictions on the exercise of judicial review courts may strike down unconstitutional laws only when cases are brought to them. In the absence of a case, judges may not issue advisory opinion – that is, they may not say what they think a constitutional rule means or whether a law is invalid, moreover not every case presents the possibility of judicial review. The parties seeking review must have “standing”- that is, they must be the ones actually affected by the law in question. Also, the dispute must be “ripe” – a person may not ask a court to void a law if it has not yet been applied to that person.

Arizona ruling eliminated the fear of the accused from torture and coercion and notified individuals of their rights that they otherwise wouldn’t have known that they had. The ruling explicitly stated that if a person was not informed of their Fifth Amendment right, then compelling pressures could cause a person who otherwise not have spoken, to incriminate themselves (Document J). In the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, it had not specifically stated that a suspect must be informed of their rights before they are questioned. The ruling of Miranda v. Arizona finally cleared up the confusion concerning the rights of the accused and self-incrimination and required officials of the law to read out the warning known as the Miranda warning to anyone they may question. Additionally, manuals such as Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation, specified the rules to be used during interrogations to prevent coercion (Document F).

Point 1. The collected evidence ought to be suppressed for failure to issue Miranda warnings during a custodial interrogation. Miranda warnings were made mandatory by the Supreme Court to protect the citizenry from hard police interrogation tactics and forced confessions. However, when a private citizen becomes the interrogator outside, the application of Miranda becomes less strict. The Constitution does not restrain a private citizen in the same ways as law enforcement, unless that citizen is acting as an agent of law enforcement.

At the same time police officers now can’t abuse their power during interrogations and force a conviction out of a suspect in custody. Roscoe C. Howard Jr. also state, “ The Miranda majority took great pains to trace the history of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and demonstrate that its application to custodial interrogations was rooted in the Constitution.” Based on Howard Jr.’s quote, the Miranda Rights are traced back to the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. No where in the U.S constitution does it say anything about Miranda Rights. However, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution and by interpreting the Fifth Amendment of the constitution, the court created the Miranda Warning standard.

This is a respectful submission of the prosecution arguments regarding the case R. v. Collins. The arguments will show that the evidence ceased at from the accused should be admissible in the court of law as a Mrs. Collins section 8 Charter right was not violated (R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265). Case laws along other judge’s interpretation will reinforce the arguments presented. The paper will establish arguments based on reasonable grounds, the good faith doctrine and the admissibility of evidence. The accused was arrested by two Royal Mounted Canadian Police (RCMP) officers at the Cedar’s Pub with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking (R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265).

Primarily, the attenuation doctrine serves to determine whether or not the unlawful actions directly caused the discovery of evidence. The Court ruled regarding each of the three factors of attenuation; it first decided that the issue of temporal proximity rests firmly in favor of suppression. In favor of the State, however, the Court held that the discovery of the warrant was indeed an intervening circumstance, attenuating the evidence on the grounds that the warrant was independent from the stop. The Court applied the Segura ruling, which held that the exclusionary rule does not apply “if the connection between the illegal police conduct and the discovery and seizure of the evidence is so attenuated as to dissipate the taint” (Burger) (Segura v. U.S. ).

The book describes the Miranda Rights, which are the legal rights that a person under arrest must be informed before they are interrogated by police. If the arresting officer doesn’t inform an arrested person of his Miranda Rights, that person may walk free from any chargers. The book also talks about double jeopardy, double jeopardy is the right that prohibits a person from been tried twice for the same crime. In other words if a person is found innocent and sometime later new evidence surface that can incriminate him with the crime that he is “innocent” he cannot be charged for that same crime. The book also mentions self-incrimination, which is the right that no citizen will have to be a witness against himself.