Month: September 2020

Beyond the rights granted to individuals upon arrest, there are also rights to protect them during the trial mentioned in the sixth amendment; “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” And “have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”  Which means that everyone should have legal representation and have a relatively fast trial, in relation to the severity of the crime. This is found prevalent in the 1963 case of Gideon vs. Wainwright; in which Florida’s Clarence Earl Gideon was accused of felony breaking and entering; and was ultimately declined a right to an appointed lawyer on account of the fact that, “an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases.” Gideon was then forced to represent himself and was found guilty with a sentence of five years. This issue was then brought to the supreme court and was found through the fourteenth and sixth amendments along with the Bill of Rights, that legal counsel in all criminal cases was a fundamental right and should be abided by in all states. Although the question does arise; is the accused being imprisoned or freed because they are truly guilty or innocent, or because of the skill of their attorney? 

This amendment can favor either side of the spectrum; inadequate counsel can result in an innocent person being put behind bars. While an amazing attorney could result in a guilty criminal to be released. But, this amendment also allows for proper justice to be ensured.

Adequate council can be the difference between life and death, as seen in the Walter McMillian case. An African American man in Monroeville, Alabama was falsely accused and found guilty for the murder of an eighteen year old white woman in a dry cleaning store and was put on death row BEFORE his trial. For fifteen months this innocent man was held on death row before his trial took place, and this trial took only a day and a half; which even for “a speedy and public trial” is way too fast for a murder trial with so many holes and blurry edges to make a decision. The main witness was a white man previously convicted of other crimes, and after police pressure he made a statement placing McMillian at the scene of the crime; despite the dozens of black friends and family stating he was at home with them eleven miles from the crime scene. In 1988, Bryan Stevenson from the Equal Justice Initiative met with McMillian and represented him to overturn his conviction. Finally in 1993, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals overturned the conviction and it was agreed that the initial case was mishandled.

The Sixth Amendment is put in place to ensure that all of those accused of a crime be treated fairly and given a proper shot at the truth being discovered, but in situations such as the case of Mr. McMillian’s the system is still abused and innocents are thrown behind bars even BEFORE the trial.

Works cited:

https://eji.org/cases/walter-mcmillian/

 

(PAS #3)

 

The Bill of Rights does what it can to protect the rights of the accused furthermore in the fifth amendment, stating that; “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” Also, that 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.” Meaning that an accused person HAS to have at least the option of counsel, whether they deny it or not is up to them, but they legally cannot be left stranded with no legal representation. This amendment’s guidelines were highlighted in the 1966 Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona; where Ernesto Miranda conscribed a confession following hours of police interrogation, but was unaware of his right to request counsel. While Miranda was found guilty, the case was appealed and the Supreme Court set aside his conviction on account of his tainted confession. He was tried again in Arizona, later receiving parole in 1972. This case established the requirement of police officers reading accused persons, Miranda Rights, which state; “You have the right to remain silent. … You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.” While this script allows those uneducated of the judicial system to know their rights and prevents forced or false testimonies, in cases such as Miranda’s these rights allow the guilty to walk free, which is not right. Why should a technicality allow a dangerous criminal to roam free if the evidence presented continues to support a guilty verdict?

On the other hand, even with the requirement to read Miranda rights; police officers still abuse the enormous powers bestowed upon them intended to protect their communities. Such as in the Central Park 5 case; five teenagers ranging from 14 to 16 years old (four who were African American, and one who was Hispanic) were falsely convicted of the brutal rape and assault of 28 year old Trisha Meili. These young men were brutally interrogated by the New York 24th precinct; they did not have an attorney nor their parents present during this over twenty-four hours worth of interrogation. The boys were pitted against one another, with the promise of freedom if they placed themselves at the crime scene to convict one of the other four boys. These officers took advantage of these teenagers, who clearly did not know their constitutional right to have an attorney there to defend them; and although it is undetermined whether or not they were even read their Miranda rights (I could not find a definitive statement declaring yes or no) we cannot be sure to know if adolescents at that age in that extremely stressful and terrifying situation would even understand what exactly those twenty-six words meant. Who knows, if anyone took a moment to explain that or to stand up for these boys and give them legal counsel before it was too late… they might’ve been saved from over a decade of suffering.

Antron McCray: arrested at 15, spent 6 years in jail

Kevin Richardson: arrested at 14, spent 5 1/2 years in jail

Yusef Salaam: arrested at 15, spent 6 years and 8 months in jail

Raymond Santana: arrested at 14, spent 5 years in jail

Korey Wise: arrested at 16, spent 12 years in jail (the only one tried as an adult, he went straight to prison while the others went to a juvenile detention center first)

 

Sources:

https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-false-confessions-in-the-central-park-jogger-case.html

https://www.northjersey.com/picture-gallery/news/new-york/2019/06/05/look-back-new-yorks-central-park-five-case/1355243001/

https://www.newsweek.com/how-long-central-park-five-incarcerated-when-they-see-us-1443119

The fourth amendment of the United States’ constitution was intended to dissolve fear of the malpractice of power initially used by relentless the British soldiers prior to the American Revolution; by ultimately abolishing the use of general warrants and warrantless searches. This amendment also led to the creation of the Exclusionary Rule, which affirms that any evidence found illegally and not previously stated on a warrant may not be used as evidence in a court of law. This rule initially originated in 1913’s Weeks v. United States. Later incorporated in 1961 with the Supreme Court Case of Mapp v. Ohio. In which, Dollree Mapp was believed to be in possession of illegal betting slips, equipment employed in a ‘numbers game’, and to be housing fugitive Virgil Ogletree. Police officers asked to enter her home, when she refused this request, they returned with a warrant listing everything they were to search for. During this search, the police found a pistol and multiple accounts of child pornography. However, this contraband was not outlined on the original warrant and Mapp was aquitted of the possession. The exclusionary rule and the protection of Mapp’s fourth amendment rights in this situation allowed her to go free. Although, there are many instances in today’s society where powers by law enforcement are still abused and there is corruption in a lot of aspects of power. But, the initial intent of the fourth amendment was to avoid those situations, and these instances will never be perfect, because no human being is, this amendment and these clauses are implemented to TRY and prevent malpractices of power. Several questions arise from this situation and many others much like it; how is it fair that this woman who knowingly and willingly committed a heinous crime was able to walk free? Although the concept of the exclusionary rule is effective and protects those wrongly accused, does it simultaneously also give leeway for real criminals to roam free?

 

(PAS #1)