You do not need your computers today. Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment Rights How have the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments' rights of the accused been incorporated as a right of all American citizens?
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 offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor 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.
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 defence.
WARREN COURT THE CASE Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for breaking and entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison. All information quoted from http://www.oyez.org CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION Did the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? THE DECISION (9-0 decision) Yes. The Court held that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney and, in doing so, overruled its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady. In this case the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. SOURCE
WARREN COURT THE CASE Dealing with several cases: In one the petitioner was questioned by police, made oral admissions, and signed an inculpatory statement all without being notified of his right to counsel. In the second, the petitioner was arrested by the FBI, interrogated, and made to sign statements without being notified of his right to counsel. In the third, local police held and interrogated the defendant for five days without notification of his right to counsel. And in the Miranda case, he signed a confession without being informed of his right to counsel. All suspects were questioned by police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut them off from the outside world. In none of the cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation. All information quoted from http://www.oyez.org CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment? THE DECISION (5-4decision) Yes. The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self- incrimination. The Court specifically outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations. SOURCE
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
BURGER COURT THE CASE Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him. He attempted to flee, and in doing so tripped and fell. The gun that he was carrying went off and killed a resident of the home. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death (Two other death penalty cases were decided along with Furman: Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas. These cases concern the constitutionality of the death sentence for rape and murder convictions, respectively). All information quoted from http://www.oyez.org CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments? THE DECISION (5-4 decision) Yes. The Court's one-page per curiam opinion held that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution. Some concurrences focused on the arbitrary nature with which death sentences have been imposed, often indicating a racial bias against black defendants. The Court's decision forced states and the national legislature to rethink their statutes for capital offenses to assure that the death penalty would not be administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner. SOURCE
BURGER COURT THE CASE A jury found Gregg guilty of armed robbery and murder and sentenced him to death. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence except as to its imposition for the robbery conviction. Gregg challenged his remaining death sentence for murder, claiming that his capital sentence was a "cruel and unusual" punishment that violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION Is the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel and unusual" punishment? THE DECISION (7-2 decision) No. The Court held that a punishment of death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances. In extreme criminal cases, such as when a defendant has been convicted of deliberately killing another, the careful and judicious use of the death penalty may be appropriate if carefully employed. Georgia's death penalty statute assures the judicious and careful use of the death penalty. SOURCE All information quoted from http://www.oyez.org
REHNQUIST COURT THE CASE Atkins was convicted of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder. In the penalty phase of Atkins' trial, the defense relied on one witness, a forensic psychologist, who testified that Atkins was mildly mentally retarded. The jury sentenced Atkins to death. In affirming, the Virginia Supreme Court relied on Penry v. Lynaugh, in rejecting Atkins' contention that he could not be sentenced to death because he is mentally retarded. All information quoted from http://www.oyez.org CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION Is the execution of mentally retarded persons "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment? THE DECISION (6-3 decision) Yes. The Court held that executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The Court reasoned that a significant number of States have concluded that death is not a suitable punishment for a mentally retarded criminal. The Court concluded that there was serious concern whether either justification underpinning the death penalty - retribution and deterrence of capital crimes - applies to mentally retarded offenders, due to their lessened culpability. SOURCE
The Constitutional right to a lawyer was incorporated to the states in 1963. Miranda Warnings must be given upon arrest, including You have the right to remain silent. The rights of the accused enumerated in the Bill of Rights are meant to protect the innocent.
-Read Linda Monk, pp. 164-180 and 184-189 on the 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments. -EXAM PREP: Study your test preparation book, vocabulary, and our unit materials for UNIT 4: Institutions of National Government, Parts 1 and 2.