Do Now:
Grab today’s Agenda (4:7)
Why is it important that the rights of the accused are protected?
More Defendants’ Rights
• Self-Incrimination
• Right to an Attorney
• Terror Suspects
• Capital Punishment
Self Incrimination
Fifth Amendment
• The Fifth Amendment protects people from self-incrimination. The
government cannot force you to incriminate yourself.
Self-Incrimination
Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944) - #1
• Yes.
• The Court held that Ashcraft had been
excessively coerced and therefore his
confession was not voluntary. 36 hours of
interrogation is inherently coercive, no
matter how the suspect appears.
• Coerced confessions are inherently
unreliable and therefore inadmissible.
Bottom Line:
Self-Incrimination
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - #2
Bottom Line:
• Yes.
• The Court noted that “the modern practice of in-custody
interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented” and
that “the blood of an accused is not the only hallmark of an
unconstitutional inquisition.”
• Due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no
confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment selfincrimination clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless
a suspect had been made aware of his rights and the suspect then
waived them.
• “The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly
informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he
says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed
that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer
with him during interrogation, and that, if he indigent, a lawyer will be
appointed to represent him.”
• “If the individual indicates in a manner, at any time prior to or during
questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must
cease… if the individual states that he wants an attorney, the
interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time,
the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney
and to have him present during any subsequent questioning.”
Right to an Attorney
Sixth Amendment
• The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel in federal
courts.
• The Fourteenth Amendment extends that guarantee to the states.
Right to an Attorney
Powell v. Alabama (1932) - #3
aka Scottsboro Boys Case
• Yes.
• The Court held that the trials denied due
process because the defendants were not
give reasonable time and opportunity to
secure counsel in their defense.
• This was the first time the Court
incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to
an attorney in a capital case.
Bottom Line:
Right to an Attorney
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) - #4
• Yes.
• The Court held that the framers of the
Constitution placed a high value on the right
of the accused to have the means to put up
a proper defense, and the state as well as
federal courts must respect that right.
• The Court held that it is consistent with the
Constitution to require state courts to
appoint attorneys for defendants who could
not afford to retain counsel on their own.
Bottom Line:
Right to an Attorney
Argersinger v. Hamilin (1972) - #5
• Yes.
• Gideon v. Wainwright required states to
provide an attorney to indigent defendants
in cases involving serious crime.
• In this case, a unanimous Court extended
that right to cover defendants charged with
misdemeanors who faced the possibility of
a jail sentence.
Bottom Line:
Right to an Attorney
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) - #6
• Yes.
• The Sixth Amendment protects the right to
effective assistance of counsel. Here,
because the police investigation focused on
the accused as a suspect rather than a less
specific investigation, refusing to allow an
accused to speak with his attorney is a
denial of his Sixth Amendment right. The
incriminating statements he made cannot
be admitted into evidence.
• The exclusionary rule has been applied to
the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Bottom Line:
Right to an Attorney
Nix v. Williams (1984) - #7
• No.
• The Court relied on the “inevitable
discovery doctrine” as it held that the
exclusionary rule did not apply to the child’s
body as evidence since it was clear that the
volunteer search teams would have
discovered the body even absent William’s
statements.
• The Court stated that law enforcement was
not required to demonstrate that it had
violated a defendant’s rights in good faith,
only that the evidence would have
inevitably been found despite the violation.
Bottom Line:
Vocabulary
• Unlawful Combatants
Terror Suspects
• A combatant who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war, which refers to
the aspect of public international law concerning acceptable justifications to engage in war and
limits to acceptable wartime conducts.
• An unlawful combatant may be detained or prosecuted under domestic law of the detaining state
for such action.
• Subject to some protections under the Geneva Convention.
• Enemy Combatant
• Members of the armed forces of an enemy state.
• “Any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of
war.”
• In the U.S., after 9/11, the term refers to persons the United States regards as unlawful
combatants, a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the
Geneva Conventions. Particularly members of al Qaeda or the Talian.
• Not covered by the Geneva Convention.
Terror Suspects
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) - #8
• Yes.
• Although Congress authorized the detention
of enemy combatants after 9/11, due
process required that Hamdi have a
meaningful opportunity to challenge his
enemy combatant status.
Bottom Line:
Terror Suspects
Rasul v. Bush (2004) - #9
• Yes.
• The Court found that the degree of control
exercised by the United States over the
Guantanamo Bay base was sufficient to
trigger the application of habeas corpus
rights. Because the United States exercised
“complete jurisdiction and control” over the
base, the fact that ultimate sovereignty
remained with Cuba was irrelevant.
• Further, the right to habeas corpus is not
dependent on citizenship status. The
detainees were therefore free to bring suit
challenging their detention as
unconstitutional.
Bottom Line:
Capital Punishment
Eighth Amendment
• The subject of capital punishment, or the death penalty, has long
been a topic of national debate. Some feel it is a necessary deterrent
to crime, while others believe it is morally reprehensible.
• Capital punishment can be enforced on the national level, as well as
on the state level. However, at the state level it is up to each state to
define the rules surrounding the use and methods associated with
the death penalty.
• Some say the death penalty is a form of cruel and unusual
punishment, which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
Capital Punishment
Gregg v. Georgia (1975) - #10
• No, but it must be carefully employed.
• The Court found that Georgia’s death penalty
statue assures the judicious and careful use of
the death penalty by requiring a branched
proceeding where the trial and sentencing are
conducted separately, specific jury findings as to
the severity of the crime and the nature of the
defendant, and a comparison of each capital
sentence’s circumstances with other similar
cases.
• Moreover, the Court was not prepared to
overrule the Georgia legislature’s finding that
capital punishment serves as a useful deterrent
to future capital crimes and appropriate means
of social retribution against its most serious
offenders.
Bottom Line:
Capital Punishment
Furman v. Georgia (1972) - #11
• Yes.
• Their decision was not whether the death
penalty itself constituted cruel and unusual
punishment but with the apparent arbitrariness
with which death sentences were imposed.
• Under existing law, the imposition of the death
penalty indicated a racial bias against black
defendants.
• The Court’s decision forced states and the U.S.
Congress to rethink their statues for capital
offenses to assure that the death penalty would
not be administered in a capricious or
discriminatory manner. In the four years that
followed, 37 states enacted new death penalty
laws aimed at overcoming the court’s concerns
about arbitrary imposition of the death penalty.
Bottom Line:
Capital Punishment
Woodson v. North Carolina - #12
• Yes.
• The Court found three problems with the
law:
• The law “departed markedly from contemporary
standards” concerning death. The historical record
indicated that the public had rejected mandatory
death sentences.
• The law provided no standards to guide juries in
their exercise of “the power to determine which
first-degree murderers shall live and which shall
die.”
• The statute failed to allow consideration of the
character and record of individual defendants
before inflicting the death penalty.
Bottom Line:
Capital Punishment
Ford v. Wainwright (1986) - #13
• Yes.
• The Court held that English common law
found executing the insane “savage and
inhumane.”
• In addition, no State permitted such
executions. Such executions “offends
humanity” and it has neither a deterrent nor
a retributive effect.
Bottom Line:
Capital Punishment
Atkins v. Virginia (2002) - #14
• Yes.
• The Court reasoned that a significant number of
States have concluded that death is not a
suitable punishment for a mentally retarded
criminal.
• Moreover, 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.
• “We therefore conclude that such punishment
is excessive and that the Constitution places a
substantive restriction on the State’s power to
take the life of a mentally retarded offender.”
Bottom Line:
Capital Punishment
Roper v. Simmons (2005) - #15
• Yes.
• The Court cited a consensus against the
juvenile death penalty among state
legislatures, and its own determination that
the death penalty is a disproportionate
punishment for minors.
• The Court even pointed to “overwhelming”
international opinion against the juvenile
death penalty.
Bottom Line:
Conclusion
• While the Fifth and Sixth Amendments protect us from selfincrimination and our right to an attorney, we must be told of our
rights in any situation in which those rights may be used.
• Our due process protections are available to everyone, not just U.S.
citizens, since they are considered a part of human rights.
• While the Supreme Court has ruled, per se, that the death penalty is
not unconstitutional, they have placed limits on its use.