Moreover, Miranda applies only during “custodial interrogations.” “Custodial” in this case means either: (1) after they have been taken into police custody “Whether they are considered “in custody” depends on “how a reasonable man in the suspect 's position would have understood his situation.” Or (2) when they have been deprived of their freedom of movement. “Interrogation” can be either: (1) direct questioning by the police; or (2) the “functional equivalent” of direct questioning. It is considered interrogation whenever the police say or do something to them that they should know is probable to cause them to confess or say something incriminating.
For example, a people Q, have been murdered, the prosecutor presented a voice record about the defendant threaten to murder Q if Q does not want to accept his contract, such evidence may be Prima Facie evidence of intend to kill. Prima Facie evidence does not mean that it cannot be deny, it is use to prevent charges being made have no evidence to back it up and waste the time for court and other parties. According Section 173(f), if the judge decide no prima facie case then the defendant will be acquitted because the evidence is not sufficient. Presumption that the defendant are innocent until proven to the
1. Gideon’s sixth amendment under the constitution was violated which stated that requires the state courts to provide attorneys to criminals who cannot afford their own. The Supreme Court ruled that Gideon’s amendment was violated. Though his offense was serious he was still supposed to be allowed to have someone to defend him it was one of his rights. The Court stated that the states were to follow the sixth amendment of someone because under the fourteenth amendment “Due Process Clause” applies the main points of the bill of
Arizona. In the early 1960s, a man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested and convicted of raping a woman. Police found him in his apartment ,who voluntary accompanied them to the station house and participated in a lineup ,after that when Miranda asked how he did, the police said that he was positively identified.he was admitted guilty,he signed a confession after hours of interrogation by the Phoenix Police Department. At no point was he informed of his right to remain silent or his right to an attorney. 73 year old Alvin Moore was represented Miranda in his trial.
According to the Bill of Rights Institute the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right to not testify at trail and this stops the prosecutor, the judge and even the defendant’s lawyer can’t force the defendant to take the witness stand against their will. The Fifth Amendment states that no one maybe deprived of life, liberty or property without “due process of law” and there is two types of due process which are procedural which is fairness and substantive. According to the Fifth Amendment it protects a criminal defendant from double jeopardy and the reason’s are that it’s to prevent the government from using it’s superior resources so it would wear down and convict an innocent person. It also protects individuals from the financial,
between he, the judge, and the other lawyers due to the fact that Stone’s law partner was representing Sargent Koon in a related civil issue. They believed his loyalty was divided. It was later noted that the defendants tried to convince the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that they were improperly convicted; because of the accusations the prosecutors did ask the court to possibly reconsider the Los Angeles Police officers ' sentences, however, the government felt that would be too easy for the damages the officers caused on that unforgettable night. Asking for a new appeal, was really asking for a number of issues to arise. Any expert in law could see that the defense argument will rest largely on the prosecution 's use of the videotaped testimony by Officer Theodore J. Briseno.
(See illustration 1). A groundbreaking decision regarding the admissibility of polygraphs in court cases can be found in Frye v. U.S. Mr. Frye was convicted of second-degree murder. Mr. Frye appealed his conviction. When Frye attempted to bring in an expert witness to testify that he had taken a deception test, and to relay to the court the results of the test, the court held the professional testimony inadmissible. The court reasoned that ?the evidence did not meet the requirement that the evidence be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs,?
The decision was 7-2 in favor of Chimel stating that it was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments that the entire house was searched after the arrest. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that it is reasonable to search the arrestee and the area that would allow the arrestee to gain access to a weapon or destroy evidence, but not areas where the arrestee could not reasonably obtain weapons or destroy
If any of these were to arise in a court against a white teenage boy I guarantee the judge would revoke this as valuable evidence. In the court of law to persuade someone to guilty or not guilty should only be based on facts and raps often do not have trustworthy facts of the crime. Even the article says that raps tend to be written years before the crime was committed. With this in mind, how is one supposed to persuade the jury? Unless playing against the stigmatism of a “gangster” and the dangers they oppose to our society using?
As a matter of fact, the 44th count was dismissed as inadequate by the lower court in its instruction to the jury. However, they did instruct the jury that "Before you can find the defendants guilty you must be certain of his guilt as charged on the counts of the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt." Ironically, the lower court then prepped the jury extensively on the principle of reasonable doubt and how it relates to evidence (Knappman, Edward W). By and large, the appeal of the case to the Supreme Court was rooted in part on the lower court 's refusal to allow the 44th count. Ultimately, their task was to decide whether the lower court had violated the defendants ' rights by not instructing the jury on the presumption of innocence, assuming that reasonable doubt was fundamentally the same as presumption of innocence.
The United States Supreme Court addressed part of this issue with their decision of Missouri v. Frye. In this case, the respondent’s attorney failed to inform him about two potential plea deals; a factor which the Court decided was a violation of Frye’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel (Missouri v. Frye, 2012). By making this decision, the Supreme Court is giving the defendants a significant amount of leverage. The Court’s decision opens the floodgates to an unprecedented amount of power on the part of the defense. It gives defendants grounds for suit not only when they are not told about a potential deal, but also when an attorney advises against taking a deal.
Harold Staples was convicted under the National Firearms Act for unlawfully possessing a fully automatic assault rifle that was not properly registered with the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Records. Staples claimed he had no idea that the gun could fire automatically. At the trial Staples requested a jury instruction that he could not be found guiltily unless there was proof that he knew the gun was fully automatic. The trial judge ruled that the National Firearms Act did not require knowledge or mens rea but that it was a strict liability crime. The Appellate Court affirmed the conviction.
Lawyers are present during interrogations to convince the cops the person is innocent. If someone can 't afford an attorney one is appointed to the person. The court found it necessary to mandate notice to defendants about their constitutional rights. The complete meaning and reason of Miranda Rights. Miranda Rights are used during anything involving the police or court.
When the police are asking questions i think the people should have the right to have a lawyer present and the reason to having a lawyer present is to protect you and the lawyer can make the police to stop asking me or anyone questions the lawyer also fights for you in court and if the lawyer is good then you could possibly be set free. that 's why the people of our country should know are constitutional rights, that 's why miranda got arrested in the first place is he didn 't know anything about our rights and he set there and let that cop make him confess and the bad part about all of this is the cop knew the rights but chose not to read them to him,i thank 9f miranda would have known his rights that cop wouldn 't have been able to set there and just keep
Washington v. Texas (1967) is a US Supreme Court case about the right of criminal defendants to have witnesses testify on their behalf. The Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution applied in state courts as well as federal courts. At his trial Jackie Washington had attempted to call his co-defendant as a witness but was blocked because state law prevented co-defendants from testifying for each other, under the theory that they might lie for each other on the stand. The Supreme Court reasoned that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment gives defendants the right to fair proceedings, including the right to compel defense witnesses to testify. In previous cases, the Supreme Court