The Eighth Amendment Prohibits Government From Bringing Someone to Trial Again After Acquittal

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Identify the rights of those suspected or accused of criminal activity
• Explain how Supreme Court decisions transformed the rights of the accused
• Explain why the Eighth Amendment is controversial regarding upper-case letter punishment

In addition to protecting the personal freedoms of individuals, the Bill of Rights protects those suspected or accused of crimes from various forms of unfair or unjust handling. The prominence of these protections in the Bill of Rights may seem surprising. Given the colonists' experience of what they believed to be unjust rule by British authorities, however, and the use of the legal system to punish rebels and their sympathizers for political offenses, the impetus to ensure fair, only, and impartial treatment to anybody accused of a crime—no matter how unpopular—is perhaps more understandable. What is more than, the revolutionaries, and the eventual framers of the Constitution, wanted to keep the best features of English law also.

In add-on to the protections outlined in the Fourth Amendment, which largely pertain to investigations conducted before someone has been charged with a criminal offence, the next four amendments pertain to those suspected, accused, or convicted of crimes, as well equally people engaged in other legal disputes. At every stage of the legal process, the Pecker of Rights incorporates protections for these people.

THE Fifth Subpoena

Many of the provisions dealing with the rights of the defendant are included in the Fifth Subpoena; accordingly, it is ane of the longest in the Nib of Rights. The Fifth Amendment states in full:

"No person shall exist held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous offense, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Chiliad Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of State of war or public danger; nor shall any person exist subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal example to exist a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, freedom, or holding, without due procedure of constabulary; nor shall private property exist taken for public use, without just compensation."

The first clause requires that serious crimes be prosecuted only after an indictment has been issued by a grand jury. However, several exceptions are permitted as a consequence of the evolving interpretation and understanding of this amendment by the courts, given the Constitution is a living certificate. First, the courts have generally found this requirement to utilise only to felonies; less serious crimes tin can be tried without a thou jury proceeding. 2nd, this provision of the Bill of Rights does non apply to united states because it has not been incorporated; many states instead require a approximate to hold a preliminary hearing to decide whether there is plenty testify to concur a total trial. Finally, members of the armed forces who are accused of crimes are not entitled to a grand jury proceeding.

The Fifth Amendment also protects individuals confronting double jeopardy, a procedure that subjects a suspect to prosecution twice for the same criminal act. No one who has been acquitted (found not guilty) of a crime tin can be prosecuted again for that criminal offense. Merely the prohibition confronting double jeopardy has its ain exceptions. The nearly notable is that it prohibits a second prosecution merely at the same level of regime (federal or country) as the offset; the federal authorities tin can try you lot for violating federal law, even if a land or local court finds you not guilty of the aforementioned action. For example, in the early 1990s, several Los Angeles police officers accused of brutally beating motorist Rodney Rex during his arrest were acquitted of various charges in a state court, but some were later bedevilled in a federal court of violating Male monarch'southward civil rights.

The double jeopardy rule does non prevent someone from recovering damages in a ceremonious case—a legal dispute between individuals over a contract or compensation for an injury—that results from a criminal act, even if the person accused of that deed is establish not guilty. One famous example from the 1990s involved sometime football star and television receiver personality O. J. Simpson. Simpson, although acquitted of the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Dark-brown and her friend Ron Goldman in a criminal court, was afterward found to exist responsible for their deaths in a subsequent ceremonious case and as a effect was forced to forfeit most of his wealth to pay amercement to their families.

Mayhap the most famous provision of the Fifth Subpoena is its protection against cocky-incrimination, or the right to remain silent. This provision is so well known that nosotros have a phrase for information technology: "taking the Fifth." People take the right not to give evidence in courtroom or to law enforcement officers that might constitute an access of guilt or responsibleness for a crime. Moreover, in a criminal trial, if someone does not prove in their own defence, the prosecution cannot use that failure to testify as bear witness of guilt or imply that an innocent person would show. This provision became embedded in the public consciousness post-obit the Supreme Courtroom's 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona , whereby suspects were required to be informed of their most of import rights, including the right confronting cocky-incrimination, earlier being interrogated in law custody.⁴⁸ Withal, contrary to some media depictions of the Miranda warning, law enforcement officials do not necessarily have to inform suspects of their rights before they are questioned in situations where they are free to leave.

Like the Fourteenth Subpoena'south due process clause, the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal regime from depriving people of their "life, liberty, or property, without due process of police." Call up that due process is a guarantee that people will be treated adequately and impartially past authorities officials when the authorities seeks to fine or imprison them or take their personal belongings away from them. The courts take interpreted this provision to mean that government officials must establish consequent, fair procedures to decide when people's freedoms are limited. In other words, citizens cannot be detained, their freedom limited, or their holding taken arbitrarily or on a whim by police or other government officials. As a result, an unabridged trunk of procedural safeguards comes into play for the legal prosecution of crimes. However, the Patriot Act, passed into police force later on the 9/11 terrorist attacks, somewhat altered this notion.

The last provision of the Fifth Amendment has footling to exercise with crime at all. The takings clause says that "private property [cannot] be taken for public use, without just compensation." This provision, along with the due process clause'due south provisions limiting the taking of holding, can be viewed equally a protection of individuals' economic liberty: their right to obtain, employ, and trade tangible and intangible property for their own benefit. For example, you have the right to trade your knowledge, skills, and labor for money through work or the use of your property, or trade money or goods for other things of value, such as clothing, housing, didactics, or food.

A meaning contempo controversy over economic liberty has been sparked past cities' and states' use of the power of eminent domain to take property for redevelopment. Traditionally, the main utilise of eminent domain was to obtain holding for transportation corridors similar railroads, highways, canals and reservoirs, and pipelines, which require fairly direct routes to be efficient. Because whatsoever single property possessor could effectively block a particular road or extract an unfair cost for land if it was the last piece needed to assemble a route, there are reasonable arguments for using eminent domain as a last resort in these circumstances, particularly for projects that convey substantial benefits to the public at big.

However, increasingly eminent domain has been used to let economic evolution, with beneficiaries ranging from politically connected large businesses such as car manufacturers edifice new factories to highly profitable sports teams seeking ever-more-luxurious stadiums (Figure four.14). And, while nosotros traditionally think of property owners as relatively well-off people who can fend for themselves in the political arrangement and whose rights don't necessarily need protecting, these cases oftentimes pit lower- and middle-form homeowners against multinational corporations or multimillionaires with the ear of city and land officials. In a notorious 2005 case, Kelo v. City of New London , the Supreme Court sided with municipal officials taking homes in a middle-class neighborhood to obtain state for a large pharmaceutical company's corporate campus.⁴⁹ Ultimately, the campus was not built on the seized land and the example led to a public backlash against the use of eminent domain and legal changes in many states, making it harder for cities to take property from one private party and give it to some other for economic redevelopment purposes. Eminent domain has again become a salient issue in the context of the Trump assistants'due south attempt to use the doctrine to seize several parcels of private belongings for the proposed border wall.⁵⁰

Figure 4.14 AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas, sits on land taken by eminent domain. (credit: John Purget)

Some disputes over economic liberty have gone beyond the idea of eminent domain. In the by few years, companies seeking to offer profitable services online such as direct sales by electrical auto manufacturer Tesla Motors, on-demand ride-sharing services similar Lyft and Uber, and brusk-term property rentals through companies similar Airbnb have led to disharmonize with states and cities trying to regulate these businesses, and with incumbent service providers such equally hotels and taxi cabs. In the absence of new public policies to clarify rights, the path frontward is frequently determined through norms established by governments or by courtroom cases.

Sometimes, however, the legislative process seeks to analyze or improve the interpretation and application of amendments. The Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act is aimed at reducing the practise of civil forfeiture, in which governments and law enforcement entities seize property of people suspected of crimes, prior to conviction and sometimes without bringing formal charges. The government tin can take fiscal assets, jewelry, vehicles, fine art, and other items of value. The bipartisan bill backed by organizations ranging from the bourgeois-leaning Heritage Foundation to the ACLU, would reduce what its Senate sponsor, Rand Paul, refers to every bit "policing for profit." Civil forfeiture was a mainstay of the war on drugs and contributed to the mass incarceration of people of color. It tin exist economically damaging fifty-fifty for those who are never charged or convicted, because in many cases seized property is non returned to its possessor. Various court cases accept ruled on aspects of the practice, but have non eliminated it derisively, leaving the opportunity for a new law to address information technology.

THE Sixth AMENDMENT

Once someone has been charged with a law-breaking and indicted, the next stage in a criminal case is typically the trial itself, unless a plea bargain is reached. The Sixth Amendment contains the provisions that govern criminal trials. I full, it states:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall bask the right to a speedy and public trial, past an impartial jury of the State and commune wherein the criminal offense shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to exist informed of the nature and crusade of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory procedure for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assist of Counsel for his defence force [sic]."

The first of these guarantees is the correct to accept a speedy, public trial by an impartial jury. Although there is no accented limit on the length of fourth dimension that may pass between an indictment and a trial, the Supreme Court has said that excessively lengthy delays must exist justified and counterbalanced against the potential harm to the defendant.⁵¹ In effect, the speedy trial requirement protects people from existence detained indefinitely past the government. Yet the courts accept ruled that there are exceptions to the public trial requirement; if a public trial would undermine the accused'southward right to a off-white trial, it can be held behind closed doors, while prosecutors can request closed proceedings but in certain, narrow circumstances (mostly, to protect witnesses from retaliation or to baby-sit classified information). In general, a prosecution must also be made in the "state and district" where the criminal offence was committed; withal, people accused of crimes may enquire for a change of venue for their trial if they believe pre-trial publicity or other factors make it difficult or impossible for them to receive a fair trial where the offense occurred.

Link to Learning

Although the Supreme Court'due south proceedings are not televised and at that place is no video of the courtroom, sound recordings of the oral arguments and decisions appear in cases have been made since 1955. A complete drove of these recordings can exist found at the Oyez Project website along with total data about each case.

Near people accused of crimes reject their right to a jury trial. This pick is typically the consequence of a plea bargain, an agreement between the defendant and the prosecutor in which the defendant pleads guilty to the charge(southward) in question, or perhaps to less serious charges, in commutation for more lenient punishment than they might receive if convicted after a full trial. In that location are a number of reasons why this might happen. The testify against the accused may exist and then overwhelming that confidence is a near-certainty, and so the accused might determine that avoiding the more serious penalty (perhaps fifty-fifty the capital punishment) is improve than taking the minor take chances of being acquitted after a trial. Someone accused of being part of a larger criminal offense or criminal organization might agree to bear witness against others in commutation for lighter punishment. At the aforementioned fourth dimension, prosecutors might want to ensure a win in a example that might non hold upward in court by securing convictions for offenses they know they can testify, while fugitive a lengthy trial on other charges they might lose.

The requirement that a jury be impartial is a critical requirement of the Sixth Subpoena. Both the prosecution and the defense are permitted to reject potential jurors who they believe are unable to fairly decide the case without prejudice. However, the courts have also said that the limerick of the jury as a whole may in itself be prejudicial, so potential jurors may non be rejected merely considering of their race or sex, for case.⁵²

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the correct of those accused of crimes to nowadays witnesses in their ain defense (if necessary, compelling them to testify) and to confront and catechize witnesses presented by the prosecution. In full general, the merely testimony adequate in a criminal trial must be given in a courtroom and be bailiwick to cross-examination; hearsay, or testimony by one person about what some other person has said, is mostly inadmissible, although hearsay may be presented as evidence when it is an access of guilt by the accused or a "dying declaration" by a person who has passed away. Although both sides in a trial have the opportunity to examine and catechize witnesses, the approximate may exclude testimony deemed irrelevant or prejudicial.

Finally, the 6th Amendment guarantees the right of those defendant of crimes to have the aid of an chaser in their defense. Historically, many states did not provide attorneys to those accused of most crimes who could not afford i themselves, and even when an chaser was provided, their assistance was ofttimes inadequate, at best. This situation changed as a result of the Supreme Court'due south decision in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963).⁵³ Clarence Gideon, a poor drifter, was accused of breaking into and stealing money and other items from a pool hall in Panama City, Florida. Denied a lawyer, Gideon was tried and convicted and sentenced to a 5-yr prison house term. While in prison and however without assistance of a lawyer, he drafted a handwritten appeal and sent it to the Supreme Courtroom, which agreed to hear his case (Figure 4.15). The justices unanimously ruled that Gideon, and anyone else accused of a serious crime, was entitled to the assistance of a lawyer, even if they could not afford one, as office of the general due procedure correct to a fair trial.

Figure 4.xv The handwritten petition for appeal (a) sent to the Supreme Court past Clarence Gideon, shown here circa 1961 (b), the year of his Florida arrest for breaking and entering.

The Supreme Courtroom later extended the Gideon v. Wainwright ruling to apply to whatsoever case in which an defendant person faced the possibility of "loss of liberty," even for one day. The courts accept also overturned convictions in which people had incompetent or ineffective lawyers through no fault of their ain. The Gideon ruling has led to an increased need for professional public defenders, lawyers who are paid by the authorities to stand for those who cannot beget an chaser themselves, although some states instead require practicing lawyers to represent poor defendants on a pro bono basis (substantially, donating their time and energy to the example).

Insider Perspective

Criminal Justice: Theory Meets Practice

Typically, a person charged with a serious crime will have a brief hearing earlier a gauge to be informed of the charges against the person, to be made aware of the right to counsel, and to enter a plea. Other hearings may be held to determine on the admissibility of evidence seized or otherwise obtained by prosecutors.

If the two sides cannot concord on a plea bargain during this menstruation, the side by side phase is the option of a jury. A pool of potential jurors is summoned to the court and screened for impartiality, with the goal of seating twelve (in near states) and one or two alternates. All hear the testify in the trial and unless an alternate must serve, the original twelve determine whether the bear witness overwhelmingly points toward guilt, or innocence beyond a reasonable uncertainty.

In the trial itself, the lawyers for the prosecution and defense make opening arguments, followed by testimony by witnesses for the prosecution (and any cantankerous-examination), and then testimony by witnesses for the defense force, including the defendant if the defendant chooses. Additional prosecution witnesses may be called to rebut testimony past the defense. Finally, both sides make endmost arguments. The estimate then issues instructions to the jury, including an admonition not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room. The jury members leave the courtroom to enter the jury room and brainstorm their deliberations (Figure 4.16).

Figure 4.16 A typical courtroom in the Usa. The jury sits along one side, between the judge/witness stand and the tables for the defence force and prosecution.

The jurors pick a foreman or forewoman to coordinate their deliberations. They may ask to review evidence or to hear transcripts of testimony. They deliberate in secret and their determination must be unanimous. If they are unable to agree on a verdict afterwards all-encompassing deliberation, a mistrial may be alleged, which in upshot requires the prosecution to try the case all over again.

A accused establish not guilty of all charges will be immediately released unless other charges are pending (e.k., the accused is wanted for a crime in another jurisdiction). If the accused is institute guilty of one or more offenses, the guess will choose an advisable judgement based on the law and the circumstances. In the federal system, this sentence will typically be based on guidelines that assign point values to various offenses and facts in the case. If the prosecution is pursuing the death penalty, the jury will decide whether the accused should be subject to capital punishment or life imprisonment.

The reality of court process is much less dramatic and exciting than what is typically portrayed in television receiver shows and movies. Nonetheless, most Americans will participate in the legal system at least once in their lives as a witness, juror, or defendant.

Have you or any fellow member of your family served on a jury? If so, was the experience a positive i? Did the trial proceed as expected? If you haven't served on a jury, is information technology something yous expect forward to? Why or why not?

THE 7th AMENDMENT

The Seventh Amendment deals with the rights of those engaged in ceremonious disputes—disagreements between individuals or businesses in which people are typically seeking compensation for some harm caused. For case, in an car blow, the person responsible is compelled to compensate whatsoever others (either direct or through their insurance visitor). Much of the work of the legal organisation consists of efforts to resolve civil disputes. The Seventh Amendment, in total, reads:

"In Suits at mutual law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial past jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Courtroom of the United States, than co-ordinate to the rules of the common police."

Because of this provision, all trials in civil cases must have place before a jury unless both sides waive their right to a jury trial. Even so, this right is non always incorporated. In many states, civil disputes—particularly those involving small sums of money, which may be heard by a dedicated small claims courtroom—need non be tried in front of a jury and may instead be decided past a gauge working alone.

The Seventh Amendment limits the ability of judges to reconsider questions of fact, rather than of police, that were originally decided by a jury. For example, if a jury decides a person was responsible for an action and the example is appealed, the appeals judge cannot make up one's mind someone else was responsible. This preserves the traditional mutual-law distinction that judges are responsible for deciding questions of law while jurors are responsible for determining the facts of a particular case.

THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT

The 8th Amendment says, in full:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Bail is a payment of coin that allows a person accused of a crime to be freed pending trial. If you lot "make bail" in a case and exercise non bear witness up for your trial, you lot will forfeit the money you paid. Since many people cannot afford to pay bail directly, they may instead get a bond bond, which allows them to pay a fraction of the money (typically x percent) to a person who sells bonds and who pays the full bail corporeality. (In well-nigh states, the bond seller makes money because the defendant does not get dorsum the money for the bond, and most people evidence upwardly for their trials.) However, people believed likely to flee or who correspond a take a chance to the community while free may be denied bail and held in jail until their trial takes place.

It is rare for bail to exist successfully challenged for being excessive. The Supreme Courtroom has divers an excessive fine as ane "so grossly excessive as to corporeality to impecuniousness of property without due process of constabulary" or "grossly disproportional to the gravity of a accused's offense."⁵⁴ Historically, the courts take rarely struck down fines as excessive, though California and other states have recently passed legislation seeking to reform the more discriminatory aspects of the bond system.

The well-nigh controversial provision of the Eighth Amendment is the ban on "cruel and unusual punishments." Various torturous forms of execution common in the past—cartoon and quartering, burning people alive, and the electrical chair—are prohibited by this provision.⁵⁵ Recent controversies over lethal injections and firing squads demonstrate that the topic of whether and how to execute is nevertheless very much live. The Dutch producer of ane of the chemicals in the nearly common lethal injection cocktail recently refused to export it to the United States when it was shown to protract the dying procedure for some inmates, maintaining consciousness, prolonging suffering, and paralyzing response. In a 2022 case, one expiry row prisoner lost an entreatment to request death by firing squad in lieu of lethal injection. While the Supreme Court has never established a definitive test for what constitutes a cruel and unusual penalty, it has generally immune nearly penalties short of death for adults, even when the punishment appears disproportionate or excessive to exterior observers.⁵⁶

In recent years the Supreme Court has issued a serial of rulings substantially narrowing the application of the death penalty. As a issue, defendants who have intellectual disabilities may not be executed.⁵⁷ Defendants who were under eighteen when they committed an offense that would otherwise be discipline to the expiry penalization may not exist executed.⁵⁸ The court has generally rejected the awarding of the capital punishment to crimes that did non result in the expiry of another man existence, near notably in the case of rape.⁵⁹ And, while permitting the expiry penalization to be practical to murder in some cases, the Supreme Court has mostly struck down laws that require the application of the death penalty in certain circumstances. Still, the United states of america is among ten countries with the most executions worldwide, with the Trump Justice Section pushing through a flurry of xiii executions in the last iv months of his administration, breaking with the 130-yr-old precedent of pausing executions amid a presidential transition (Figure 4.17).

Effigy 4.17 The United States has the twelfth highest per capita rate of execution in the world.

At the same time, all the same, it appears that the public mood may have shifted somewhat confronting the death penalty, perchance due in part to an overall decline in violent crime. The reexamination of past cases through Deoxyribonucleic acid evidence has revealed dozens in which people were wrongfully executed.^threescore For instance, Claude Jones was executed for murder based on 1990-era Deoxyribonucleic acid testing of a single hair that was determined at that fourth dimension to be his but that with better Deoxyribonucleic acid testing technology was later found to be that of the victim.⁶¹ Maybe as a outcome of this and other cases, seven additional states accept abolished capital penalty since 2007. As of 2015, xix states and the District of Columbia no longer apply the death penalty in new cases, and several other states do not bear out executions despite sentencing people to death.⁶² It remains to be seen whether this gradual trend toward the elimination of the decease penalty by usa will keep, or whether the Supreme Courtroom will somewhen make up one's mind to follow former Justice Harry Blackmun's decision to "no longer… tinker with the machinery of death" and cancel information technology completely.

gilliardcongavoke41.blogspot.com

Source: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/4-3-the-rights-of-suspects

Share this post