Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros and Cons of double jeopardy
The principle of double jeopardy
The principle of double jeopardy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Pros and Cons of double jeopardy
Fifth Amendment and Double Jeopardy Double jeopardy is the prosecution of a person for an offense for which he or she has already been prosecuted. The double jeopardy clause, which is in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, was designed to protect an individual from being subject to trials and possible convictions more then once for an alleged offense. The idea was not to give the State too much over the individual, this way no individual will be subject to embarrassment, expense, and ordeal against being tried for an alleged offense more then once. It also reduces the possibility of someone innocent being found guilty. The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment embodies three protections to criminal defendants; (1) it protects against second punishment for the same offense after acquittal, (2) it protects against second punishment for the same offense after conviction, and (3) it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense. The clause not only protects the integrity of final judgment, but it protects the accused against the strain and burden of multiple trials, which would also enhance the ability of government convictions. There have been many cases involving double jeopardy in the United States. The three cases I will be highlighting are Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (1957), Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1978), and United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117 (1980). In the Green v. United States (1957) case, Everett Green was indicted by a District of Columbia grand jury in two counts. The first count was that he had committed arson by maliciously setting fire to a house. The second count accused him of causing the death of a woman by the alleged arson. Green entered... ... middle of paper ... ...uments that attested to other convictions of DiFrancesco for the Columbus Day bombings, for loansharking, and for murder. The District Court made findings of fact and ruled that DiFrancesco was a dangerous special offender within meaning of the statute. The court found that DiFrancesco's criminal history reveals a pattern of habitual and knowing criminal conduct of the most violent and dangerous nature against the lives and property of the citizens of this community. The United States then took its appeal saying that the District Court abused its judgement in sentencing that amounted to additional imprisonment for the respondent. The dismissal of the Government's appeal by the Court of Appeals rested upon it's conclusion that to subject to a defendant to the risk of substitution of a greater sentence is to place him a second time in jeopardy of life or limb.
In a Georgia Court, Timothy Foster was convicted of capital murder and penalized to death. During his trial, the State Court use peremptory challenges to strike all four black prospective jurors qualified to serve on the Jury. However, Foster argued that the use of these strikes was racially motivated, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S.79. That led his claim to be rejected by the trial court, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. The state courts rejected relief, and the Foster’s Batson claim had been adjudicated on direct appeal. Finally, his Batson claim had been failed by the court because it failed to show “any change in the facts sufficient to overcome”.
City of Pinellas Park v. Brown was a case brought to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District by the plaintiff Brown. In this case, the Brown family sued the City of Pinellas Sheriff Department on the grounds of negligence that resulted in the tragic death of two Brown sisters during a police pursuit of a fleeing traffic violator Mr. Deady. The facts in this case are straight forward, and I shall brief them as logical as possible.
(7) Right to appellate review: The Supreme Court did not rule regarding appeal since their ruling was this case was to be remanded back to the lower courts.
This is derived from the rights Americans have to not be forced to testify against themselves in a criminal case. But, the Fifth Amendment also protects against double jeopardy and gives people charged with a felony the right to a grand jury indictment (Bohm & Haley, 2011). Double jeopardy basically states that if a conviction or acquittal was reached in a criminal case, the person can no longer be tried again for the same offense (Bohm & Haley, 2011). The procedural rights for self-incrimination are also applied to any custodial situations the police conduct. To ensure that statements, or confessions a suspect makes are allowed in court there is a two-prong tests that should be followed. First, is the person considered to be in a custodial situation and two, are the police intending to ask incriminating questions. If yes is the answers to both then the suspect must be read his or her rights. This is known as giving someone his or her Miranda rights derived from the famous case
The Supreme Court exercised its interpretation of the Constitution and found that a violation of the First Amendment was apparent and therefore, also a violation of the fourteenth Amendment showing that due process of the law was not given.
In this paper I’m going to discuss what is the 6th amendment right, the elements of ineffective counsel, how judges deem a person as ineffective counsel from an effective counsel, cases where defendants believed their counsel was ineffective and judges ruled them effective. I will also start by defining what is the 6th amendment right and stating the elements of an ineffective counsel. The 6th amendment is the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury if 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 if the accusation; to be confronted with the witness against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense (U.S. Constitution). There were two elements to ineffective assistance of counsel: a defendant must prove that his or her trial attorney/ lawyer performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors the results of the proceeding would have been different (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 1984).
The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth-Amendment to many American citizens and law makers is considered abstract. The complexity of this concept can easily be traced back to its beginning in which it lacked an easily identifiable principle. Since its commencement in 1789 the United States Judicial system has had a hard time interpreting and translating this vague amendment. In many cases the courts have gone out of their way to protect the freedoms of the accused. The use of three major Supreme Court disputes will show the lengths these Justices have gone through, in order to preserve the rights and civil liberties of three criminals, who were accused of heinous crimes and in some cases were supposed to face up to a lifetime in federal prison.
New York: Library of America, 1998. 63-84. The 'Secondary' of the 'S “Trial by Jury.” Time 3 Oct. 1955: 18-19. “The Place, the Acquittal.”
The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to grand jury, forbids double jeopardy, and protects against self incrimination. In this amendment it requires that due process of law be part of any court hearing that denies a citizen life, liberty or property. This case helped us place the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which grants anyone born in the United States citizenship right and equal protection of the
To effectively make a claim for a new trial based on a violation of the Fifth Amendment Right to Due Process, the movant must satisfy the Brady standard: 1) the suppressed evidence is favorable to the accused; 2) the government either willfully or inadvertently suppressed the evidence; and 3) the suppressed evidence was material to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The discretion of the Court to grant a new
or public danger. No one can be put on trial again for the same crime.
On August 23, 1927, Nicola Sacco and Barolomeo Vanzetti were executed in one of the most controversial legal cases in American history. Two men were shot and robbed in Braintree, MA, and two poor Italian immigrants were arrested for the crime. Although neither Sacco nor Vanzetti had criminal records, they both had pistols on them at the time, and followed a violent anarchist leader. Following their arrest, the seven-year case on the crime would drive national and international protests demanding their exoneration. There were numerous elements in the trial that influenced the guilty verdicts for the men including, but not limited to, weak evidence. The Sacco Vanzetti trial displays the social injustices and prejudice in American society during the time. It is evident that even though they are innocent, the court used Sacco and Vanzetti as scapegoats in this crime because of their beliefs and background.
The aim of this paper is study the same primary sources that other historians have studied and see what conclusions if any can be drawn from them. The primary sources that will be used in this paper include but are not limited to online transcripts of the trial records, and other material written by the many historians of the years.
The 5th & 6th amendments of the United States Constitution and Article 19 of the Iraqi Constitution outline the right of the people to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, prohibit double
During those years, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment violated the Eight Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, this ended in 1976, when the Supreme Court reversed the ruling. They stated that the punishment of sentencing one to death does not perpetually infringe the Constitution. Richard Nixon said, “Contrary to the views of some social theorists, I am convinced that the death penalty can be an effective deterrent against specific crimes. ”1 Whether the case be morally, monetarily, or just pure disagreement, citizens have argued the benefits of capital punishment.