1 / 17

Miranda Decision and Due Process: Review and Analysis

This study guide explores the 5th and 6th Amendments, focusing on the Miranda decision and the concept of due process. It examines the In re Gault case and discusses the right to remain silent, the role of attorneys, and the fairness of legal procedures.

whitee
Download Presentation

Miranda Decision and Due Process: Review and Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Applying Miranda • Review 5th & 6th Amendment (Study Guide 8&9) • In re Gault case- Read “What is the right to due process and how is it protected?” • Identify what as wrong with the Gault case & how the Supreme Court should have proceeded. Today’s Agenda Topic: Due Process & In re Gualt YOU WILL NEED YOUR STUDY GUIDE OUT & A BLANK PIECE OF PAPER

  2. Applying the Miranda Decision A suspect appears in court. Police say he has confessed to a number of burglaries. He was informed of his rights after his confession. Will you accept his confession? No. The confession came after he was read his rights.

  3. Applying the Miranda Decision A suspect is arrested and informed of his Miranda rights but refuses to talk to the police about the crime. The police continue to question him, and after a while he confesses to the crime. In court he asks the judge to throw out the confession on the grounds that the police should have left him alone after he first refused to talk to them. Would you allow the confession to be used? Yes. He was read his rights. They can continue to question him. He just has to continue remaining silent.

  4. Applying the Miranda Decision A suspect arrives at the police station with his attorney. The attorney says he has advised his client of his rights and advised him against talking to the police. The suspect decides to talk anyway and confesses to a crime. The attorney says the police should not have questioned the suspect after the lawyer advised him not to speak to the police. The suspect says he knows his rights, but wants to get it off his conscience. Do you accept the confession? Yes. You do not have to listen to your attorney (especially if you are an idiot). Suspect was read his rights and decided to talk anyways.

  5. Applying the Miranda Decision A suspect is read his rights, and has signed a slip of paper indicating he understands his rights, including the right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. He is also aware that any statements he makes can be used against him in court. He signs a confession. His brother tells the police that the suspect could not have been at the scene of the crime as the two were playing cards at the time of the crime. Do you accept confession as evidence? Yes. There is noting wrong with the confession. - Suspect could be mistaken, or confused. Or may me seeking attention. - Brother could be lying to get suspect off the hook. -Jury will decide who is telling the truth.

  6. Applying the Miranda Decision A suspect is read his rights and questioned by police. He is dazed and appears to be high on drugs. Police say he confessed to several muggings. The suspect does not seem to be aware he is entitled to the help of a lawyer. Do you allow the confession to be used as evidence? No. Suspect must knowingly and willingly waive rights. His attorney could argue that he was not in the correct frame of mind to waive his right to remain silent. Police should wait until he sobers up to interrogate. Or, ask him questions knowing that the info cannot be used in court, but perhaps may be useful for interrogation when he sobers up.

  7. Indictment by a grand jury • No “double jeopardy” (can’t be tried twice for the same crime) • No self-incrimination (you don’t have to testify against yourself) • “due process of law” (fair treatment by the government) Study Guide #8 5th Amendment

  8. Speedy Trial • Public Trial • Impartial Jury • Suspect informed of charges • Able to confront witness against suspect & allowed to present favorable witnesses • Right to an attorney (counsel) Study Guide #9 6th Amendment

  9. DUE PROCESS & IN RE GUALT -ON YOUR OWN READ THE ARTICLE ON YOUR DESK Start with “the due process clause”, review the cartoons on page 117, and read “what is due process of law?”

  10. 5th – designed to protect people from unfair and unreasonable treatment by the federal government • “No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. • 14th – intended to limit the powers of the state government • “…Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” WHICH AMENDMENTS MENTION THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE?

  11. WHAT DOES DUE PROCESS MEAN? Laws and procedures must be fair and reasonable

  12. Now we’re going to popcorn read the Gault case together starting on page 118.-As we read, write on your blank sheet of paper things you notice that don’t seem fair in this case.

  13. 5TH AMENDMENT • Indictment by a grand jury • No “double jeopardy” (can’t be tried twice for the same crime) • No self-incrimination (you don’t have to testify against yourself) • “due process of law” (fair treatment by the government) 6TH AMENDMENT • Speedy Trial • Public Trial • Impartial Jury • Suspect informed of charges • Able to confront witness against suspect & allowed to present favorable witnesses • Right to an attorney (counsel)

  14. Problems with Gault Case 1. He was arrested, but parents were not notified. 2. Gerald was questioned without his parents being present or even being aware. 3. Gerald did not have an attorney present during questioning. 4. The accuser, Mrs. Cook, was not at the hearing. 5. Nobody at the hearing sworn an oath to tell the truth. 6. No record was made of the hearing- difficult to appeal without record. - Disagreements about what was said at the first hearing. 7. No lawyers were present at either hearing. 8. He was taken back to detention home for 3 days and then released without. 9. He was not informed of the charges against him before his hearing. 10. Mrs. Cook was not at second hearing, even though Mrs. Gault asked for her to be present. 11. The report (evidence) was not available to the Gaults prior to the hearing. 12. Gerald would be held until he was 21. If he was an adult, the penalty would have been a small fine and maybe 2 months imprisonment.

  15. Gerald Gault was a minor accused of making an obscene phone call. Study Guide #9 • Many of his rights were violated by the authorities. He was not allowed an attorney, he was not informed of the charges against him, he wasn’t allowed to confront his accuser (hostile witness) at his hearing, the punishment was too severe for the supposed crime committed, and there was no record of what was said at the hearing. Who was Gerald Gault?What were some of the unfair things the authorities did concerning gault?

  16. Now, go online and look up the In re Gault case and find out what the Supreme Court decided.

  17. They ruled that Gerald Gault’s rights had been violated. • They ruled that juveniles have the same Constitutional rights as adults. Study Guide #10 What did the Supreme Court rule in the In Re Gault case?

More Related