DOCSLIB.ORG

6Th Amendment US Constitution--Rights of Accused In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
6Th Amendment US Constitution--Rights of Accused In SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS CONTENTS Page Criminal Prosecutions ............................................................................................................... 1399 Coverage .............................................................................................................................. 1399 Offenses Against the United States ........................................................................... 1400 Right to a Speedy and Public Trial .......................................................................................... 1400 Speedy Trial ........................................................................................................................ 1400 Source and Rationale .................................................................................................. 1400 Application and Scope ................................................................................................. 1401 When the Right Is Denied .......................................................................................... 1402 Public Trial ......................................................................................................................... 1404 Right to Trial by Impartial Jury .............................................................................................. 1406 Jury Trial ............................................................................................................................ 1406 The Attributes of the Jury .......................................................................................... 1408 Criminal Proceedings to Which the Guarantee Applies ........................................... 1410 Impartial Jury .................................................................................................................... 1412 Place of TrialÐJury of the Vicinage ........................................................................................ 1419 Notice of Accusation .................................................................................................................. 1420 Confrontation ............................................................................................................................. 1421 Compulsory Process ................................................................................................................... 1429 Assistance of Counsel ................................................................................................................ 1429 Development of an Absolute Right to Counsel at Trial ................................................... 1429 Powell v. Alabama ....................................................................................................... 1430 Johnson v. Zerbst ........................................................................................................ 1431 Betts v. Brady and Progeny ....................................................................................... 1432 Gideon v. Wainwright ................................................................................................. 1434 Protection of the Right to Retained Counsel ............................................................. 1435 Effective Assistance of Counsel .................................................................................. 1437 Self-Representation ..................................................................................................... 1440 Right to Assistance of Counsel in Nontrial Situations .................................................... 1440 Judicial Proceedings Before Trial .............................................................................. 1440 Custodial Interrogation ............................................................................................... 1441 Lineups and Other Identification Situations ............................................................ 1444 Post-Conviction Proceedings ....................................................................................... 1447 Noncriminal and Investigatory Proceedings ............................................................. 1447 1397 RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS SIXTH AMENDMENT In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been commit- ted, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusa- tion; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS Coverage Criminal prosecutions in the District of Columbia 1 and in in- corporated territories 2 must conform to this Amendment, but those in the unincorporated territories need not do so. 3 In upholding a trial before a United States consul of a United States citizen for a crime committed within the jurisdiction of a foreign nation, the Court specifically held that this Amendment reached only citizens and others within the United States or who were brought to the United States for trial for alleged offenses committed elsewhere, and not to citizens residing or temporarily sojourning abroad. 4 It is clear that this holding no longer is supportable after Reid v. Cov- ert, 5 but it is not clear what the constitutional rule is. All of the 1 Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540 (1888). 2 Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879). See also Lovato v. New Mexico, 242 U.S. 199 (1916). 3 Balzac v. Puerto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 304±05 (1922); Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138 (1904). These holdings are, of course, merely one element of the doctrine of the Insular Cases, De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901); and Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), concerned with the ``Constitution following the flag.'' Supra, pp. 324±25. Cf. Rassmussen v. United States, 197 U.S. 516 (1905). 4 In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453 (1891). 5 354 U.S. 1 (1957) (holding that civilian dependents of members of the Armed Forces overseas could not constitutionally be tried by court-martial in time of peace for capital offenses committed abroad). Four Justices, Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Chief Justice Warren, disapproved Ross as ``resting . on a fundamental mis- conception'' that the Constitution did not limit the actions of the United States Gov- ernment wherever it acted, id. at 5±6, 10±12, and evinced some doubt with regard to the Insular Cases as well. Id. at 12±14. Justices Frankfurter and Harlan, concur- 1399 1400 AMENDMENT 6ÐRIGHTS OF ACCUSED rights guaranteed in this Amendment are so fundamental that they have been made applicable against state abridgment by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 6 Offenses Against the United States.ÐThere are no common- law offenses against the United States. Only those acts which Con- gress has forbidden, with penalties for disobedience of its com- mand, are crimes. 7 Actions to recover penalties imposed by act of Congress generally but not invariably have been held not to be criminal prosecutions, 8 as is true also of deportation proceedings, 9 but contempt proceedings which were at one time not considered to be criminal prosecutions are no longer within that category. 10 To what degree Congress may make conduct engaged in outside the territorial limits of the United States a violation of federal criminal law is a matter not yet directly addressed by the Court. 11 RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL Speedy Trial Source and Rationale.ÐThe right to a speedy trial may be derived from a provision of Magna Carta and it was a right so in- terpreted by Coke. 12 Much the same language was incorporated ring, would not accept these strictures, but were content to limit Ross to its particu- lar factual situation and to distinguish the Insular Cases. Id. at 41, 65. Cf. Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25, 33±42 (1976) (declining to decide whether there is a right to counsel in a court-martial, but ruling that the summary court-martial involved in the case was not a ``criminal prosecution'' within the meaning of the Amendment). 6 Citation is made in the sections dealing with each provision. 7 United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 11 U.S. (7 Cr.) 32 (1812); United States v. Coolidge, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 415 (1816); United States v. Britton, 108 U.S. 199, 206 (1883); United States v. Eaton, 144 U.S. 677, 687 (1892). 8 Oceanic Navigation Co. v. Stranaham, 214 U.S. 320 (1909); Hepner v. United States, 213 U.S. 103 (1909); United States v. Regan, 232 U.S. 37 (1914). 9 United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 289 (1904); Zakonaite v. Wolf, 226 U.S. 272 (1912). 10 Compare In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564 (1895), with Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968). 11 See United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94 (1922) (treating question as a mat- ter of statutory interpretation); NATIONAL COMMISSION ON REFORM OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS, WORKING PAPERS 69±76 (1970). Congress has recently asserted the authority by criminalizing various terrorist acts committed abroad against U.S. na- tionals. See, e.g., prohibitions against hostage taking and air piracy contained in Pub. L. No. 98±473, ch. XX; 18 U.S.C. § 1203 and 49 U.S.C. app. §§ 1471, 72; and prohibitions against killing or doing physical violence to a U.S. national abroad con- tained in Pub. L. No. 99±399, § 1202(a), 100 Stat. 896 (1986); 18 U.S.C. § 2331. Extraterritorial
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Petitioner, V
    No. 19-____ In The Supreme Court of the United States ____________________ ROBERT A. PEREZ, Petitioner, v. STATE OF COLORADO, Respondent. ____________________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado ____________________ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ____________________ Ned R. Jaeckle Jeffrey L. Fisher COLORADO STATE PUBLIC O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP DEFENDER 2765 Sand Hill Road 1300 Broadway, Suite 300 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Denver, CO 80203 Meaghan VerGow Kendall Turner Counsel of Record O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 (202) 383-5204 [email protected] i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether, and to what extent, the Sixth and Four- teenth Amendments guarantee a criminal defendant the right to discover potentially exculpatory mental health records held by a private party, notwithstand- ing a state privilege law to the contrary. i STATEMENT OF RELATED PROCEEDINGS Perez v. People, Colorado Supreme Court No. 19SC587 (Feb. 24, 2020) (available at 2020 WL 897586) (denying Perez’s petition for a writ of certio- rari) People v. Perez, Colorado Court of Appeals No. 16CA1180 (June 13, 2019) (affirming trial court judg- ment) People v. Perez, Colorado District Court No. 14CR4593 (Apr. 7, 2016) (granting motion to quash subpoena seeking mental health records) ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................ i STATEMENT OF RELATED PROCEEDINGS ....... i PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ........... 1 OPINIONS BELOW .................................................. 1 JURISDICTION ........................................................ 1 RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS .................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................. 4 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT................ 8 A. State high courts and federal courts of appeals are openly split on the question presented.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring the Confrontation Clause to the Sixth Amendment Randolph N
    digitalcommons.nyls.edu Faculty Scholarship Articles & Chapters 1988 Restoring the Confrontation Clause to the Sixth Amendment Randolph N. Jonakait New York Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_articles_chapters Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation UCLA Law Review, Vol. 35, Issue 4 (April 1988), pp. 557-622 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Chapters by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. ARTICLES RESTORING THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE TO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT Randolph N. Jonakait* INTRODUCTION The relationship between the sixth amendment's con- frontation clause' and out-of-court statements by absent de- clarants is a difficult one.2 Before 1980, the Supreme Court * Professor of Law and Associate Dean, New York Law School. A.B., Princeton University, 1967;J.D., University of Chicago Law School, 1970; LL.M., New York University Law School, 1971. The author wishes to thank his colleague Professor Donald Hazen Zeigler for his helpful comments. 1. The sixth amendment states: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of 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 of the accusation; to be confronted with the wit- nesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining wit- nesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
    [Show full text]
  • Middle School and High School Lesson Plan on the Sixth Amendment
    AMERICAN CONSTITUTION SOCIETY (ACS) CONSTITUTION IN THE CLASSROOM SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL MIDDLE & HIGH SCHOOL CURRICULUM — SPRING 2013 Lesson Plan Overview Note: times are approximate. You may or may not be able to complete within the class period. Be flexible and plan ahead — know which activities to shorten/skip if you are running short on time and have extra activities planned in case you move through the curriculum too quickly. 1. Introduction & Background (3-5 min.) .................................................. 1 2. Hypo 1: The Case of Jasper Madison (10-15 min.) ................................ 1 3. Pre-Quiz (3-5 min.) ................................................................................. 3 4. Sixth Amendment Text & Explanation (5 min.) ..................................... 4 5. Class Debate (20 min.) ........................................................................... 5 6. Wrap-up/Review (5 min.)....................................................................... 6 Handouts: Handout 1: State v. Jasper Madison ........................................................... 7 Handout 2: Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution .............. 8 Handout 3: Franklin Adams’s Disciplinary Hearing ..................................... 9 Handout 4: The Case of Gerald Gault ....................................................... 10 Before the lesson: Ask the teacher if there is a seating chart available. Also ask what the students already know about the Constitution as this will affect the lesson
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Counsel in Collateral, Post-Conviction Proceedings, 58 Md
    Maryland Law Review Volume 58 | Issue 4 Article 4 The Right to Counsel in Collateral, Post- Conviction Proceedings Daniel Givelber Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Daniel Givelber, The Right to Counsel in Collateral, Post-Conviction Proceedings, 58 Md. L. Rev. 1393 (1999) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol58/iss4/4 This Conference is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN COLLATERAL, POST- CONVICTION PROCEEDINGS DANIEL GIVELBER* I. INTRODUCTION Hornbook constitutional law tells us that the state has no obliga- tion to provide counsel to a defendant beyond his first appeal as of right.1 The Supreme Court has rejected arguments that either the Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause require that the right to counsel apply to collateral, post-conviction proceedings.2 The Court also has rejected the argument that the Eighth Amendment re- quires that the right to an attorney attach to post-conviction proceed- ings specifically in capital cases.' Without resolving the issue, the Court has acknowledged the possibility that there may be a limited right to counsel if a particular constitutional claim can be raised only in post-conviction proceedings.4 Despite their apparently definitive quality, none of the three cases addressing these issues involved a de- fendant who actually had gone through a post-conviction collateral proceeding unrepresented.5 * Interim Dean and Professor of Law, Northeastern University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Disentangling the Sixth Amendment
    ARTICLES * DISENTANGLING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT Sanjay Chhablani** TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.............................................................................488 I. THE PATH TRAVELLED: A HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE COURT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE......................492 II. AT A CROSSROADS: THE RECENT DISENTANGLEMENT OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT .......................................................505 A. The “All Criminal Prosecutions” Predicate....................505 B. Right of Confrontation ...................................................512 III. THE ROAD AHEAD: ENTANGLEMENTS YET TO BE UNDONE.................................................................................516 A. The “All Criminal Prosecutions” Predicate....................516 B. The Right to Compulsory Process ..................................523 C. The Right to a Public Trial .............................................528 D. The Right to a Speedy Trial............................................533 E. The Right to Confrontation............................................538 F. The Right to Assistance of Counsel ................................541 CONCLUSION.................................................................................548 APPENDIX A: FEDERAL CRIMES AT THE TIME THE SIXTH AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED...................................................549 * © 2008 Sanjay Chhablani. All rights reserved. ** Assistant Professor, Syracuse University College of Law. I owe a debt of gratitude to Akhil Amar, David Driesen, Keith Bybee, and Gregory
    [Show full text]
  • English No.: ICC-ICC-01/12-01/18 Date: 25 November 2020 TRIAL CHAMBER X Before
    ICC-01/12-01/18-1167 27-11-2020 1/7 SL T Original: English No.: ICC-ICC-01/12-01/18 Date: 25 November 2020 TRIAL CHAMBER X Before: Judge Antoine Kesia-Mbe Mindua, Presiding Judge Judge Tomoko Akane, Judge Judge Kimberly Prost, Judge SITUATION IN MALI IN THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTOR v.AL HASSAN AG ABDOUL AZIZ AG MOHAMED AG MAHMOUD Public Document Request pursuant to Rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence for leave to submit observations as amicus curiae Source: Fair Trials No. ICC-ICC-01/12-01/18 1/7 25 November 2020 ICC-01/12-01/18-1167 27-11-2020 2/7 SL T Document to be notified in accordance with regulation 31 of the Regulations of the Court to: The Office of the Prosecutor Counsel for the Defence Fatou Bensuda Melinda Taylor James Stewart Nicoletta Montefusco Legal Representatives of the Victims Legal Representatives of the Applicants Unrepresented Victims Unrepresented Applicants (Participation/Reparation) The Office of Public Counsel for The Office of Public Counsel for the Victims Defence States’ Representatives Amicus Curiae REGISTRY Registrar Counsel Support Section M. Peter Lewis Victims and Witnesses Unit Detention Section Victims Participation and Reparations Other Section No. ICC-ICC-01/12-01/18 2/7 25 November 2020 ICC-01/12-01/18-1167 27-11-2020 3/7 SL T I. INTRODUCTION 1. Fair Trials requests permission to make submissions as an amicus curiae in accordance with rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and Trial Chamber X’s 6 November 2020 “Decision on matters related to Defence challenges under Article 69(7) of the Statute.” As detailed below, Fair Trials requests permission to submit a brief in support of neither party but for the purpose of offering its expertise and interest in the law and procedures relating to the use of material believed to be tainted by connection to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • Privatizing Probation and Parole
    Privatizing Probation and Parole by Morgan O. Reynolds NCPA Policy Report No. 233 June 2000 ISBN #1-56808-089-1 web site: www.ncpa.org/studies/s233/s233.html National Center for Policy Analysis 12655 N. Central Expwy., Suite 720 Dallas, Texas 75243 (972) 386-6272 Executive Summary One out of fifty adults free on the streets today is a convicted criminal released on probation or parole. That’s 4.1 million people “under government supervision,” and a majority are convicted felons. Some 50,000 government bureaucrats supervise these probationers and parolees. The probation and parole systems have many problems, especially the fact that many of those released commit loathsome crimes. ● Criminals under government supervision commit 15 murders a day. ● Nearly four out of 10 people arrested for a felony crime are already out on probation, parole or pretrial release from a prior conviction or arrest. ● One in 10 probationers and parolees “abscond.” This year state and federal prisons will release 600,000 convicts, 38 percent more than in 1990, because of the enormous increase in the prison population over the last decade. Most are released on parole or other supervision because they have not served their full sentence. The probation and parole systems could be made more effective and efficient by enlisting the private sector. Those released on probation (nonincarceration) or released early from prison could be required to post a financial bond guaranteeing behavior in accord with terms of the release. If individual accountability is the answer to crime, then it must include the most powerful kind of accountability: financial responsibility.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Jurisprudence of History and Natural Law: Complementary Or Rival Modes of Discourse?
    California Western Law Review Volume 24 Number 2 Bicentennial Constitutional and Legal Article 6 History Symposium 1988 Constitutional Jurisprudence of History and Natural Law: Complementary or Rival Modes of Discourse? C.M.A. McCauliff Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr Recommended Citation McCauliff, C.M.A. (1988) "Constitutional Jurisprudence of History and Natural Law: Complementary or Rival Modes of Discourse?," California Western Law Review: Vol. 24 : No. 2 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/vol24/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CWSL Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Western Law Review by an authorized editor of CWSL Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. McCauliff: Constitutional Jurisprudence of History and Natural Law: Compleme Constitutional Jurisprudence of History and Natural Law: Complementary or Rival Modes of Discourse? C.M.A. MCCAULIFF* The Bill of Rights provides broadly conceived guarantees which invite specific judicial interpretation to clarify the purpose, scope and meaning of particular constitutional safeguards. Two time- honored but apparently divergent approaches to the jurisprudence of constitutional interpretation have been employed in recent first amendment cases: first, history has received prominent attention from former Chief Justice Burger in open-trial, family and reli- gion cases; second, natural law has been invoked by Justice Bren- nan in the course of responding to the Chief Justice's historical interpretation. History, although indirectly stating constitutional values, provides the closest expression of the Chief Justice's own jurisprudence and political philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Revocation of Probation and Supervised Release | October 2004
    OFFICE OF DEFENDER SERVICES TRAINING BRANCH Administrative Office of the United States Courts One Columbus Circle, NE, Suite G-430 Washington, DC 20544 (800) 788-9908 www.fd.org REVOCATION OF PROBATION AND SUPERVISED RELEASE Frances H. Pratt* October 2004 INTRODUCTION This outline addresses revocation of probation and supervised release. Revocation of probation and revocation of supervised release are, in many ways, treated identically. See, e.g.,Fed.R. Crim. P. 32.1 (entitled “Revocationor Modification of Probation or Supervised Release”); U.S.S.G. Ch. 7, Pt. B (entitled “Probation and Supervised Release Violations”); id. intro. comment. (“Because these policy statements focus on the violation of the court-ordered supervision, this chapter, to the extent permitted by law, treats violations of the conditions of probation and supervised release as functionally equivalent.”). However, the statutory provisions concerning sentencing for each differ in some significant ways. Consequently, this outline is organized as follows: Part I addresses the issues common to both revocationof probation and revocation of supervised release. Part II focuses on those issues peculiar to probation revocation, and Part III onthose issues peculiar to supervised release revocation. (For another take on many of the same issues, see U.S. Sentencing Commission, Office of General Counsel, Probation and Supervised Release Violations (February2002),available at http://www.ussc.gov/training/educat.htm; for an article written for probation officers, see David N. Adair, Jr., Revocation Sentences: A Practical Guide, Fed. Probation, Dec. 2000, at 67.) * Ms. Pratt was a staff attorney with the Defender Services Division Training Branch from July 1995 to March2002.
    [Show full text]
  • Access to Fair Procedures Including the Right to Be Heard and to Participate in Proceedings Training Materials on Access to Justice for Migrant Children, Module 1
    Access to Fair Procedures Including the Right to Be Heard and to Participate in Proceedings Training Materials on Access to Justice for Migrant Children, Module 1 FAIR Project, April 2018 1 Composed of 60 eminent judges and lawyers from all regions of the world, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) promotes and protects human rights through the Rule of Law, by using its unique legal expertise to develop and strengthen national and international justice systems. Established in 1952 and active on the five continents, the ICJ aims to ensure the progressive development and effective implementation of international human rights and international humanitarian law; secure the realization of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights; safeguard the separation of powers; and guarantee the independence of the judiciary and legal profession. ® Access to Fair Procedures Including the Right to Be Heard and to Participate in Proceedings - Training Materials on Access to Justice for Migrant Children, Module 1 © Copyright International Commission of Jurists - European Institutions Published in April 2018 The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) permits free reproduction of extracts from any of its publications provided that due acknowledgment is given and a copy of the publication carrying the extract is sent to their headquarters at the following address: International Commission of Jurists P.O. Box 91 Rue des Bains 33 Geneva Switzerland The FAIR (Fostering Access to Immigrant children’s Rights) project has been implemented by the International Commission of Jurists – European Institutions in 2016-2018 and supported by the Rights, Equality and Citizenship (REC) Programme of the European Union and Open Society Foundations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Myth of the Presumption of Innocence
    Texas Law Review See Also Volume 94 Response The Myth of the Presumption of Innocence Brandon L. Garrett* I. Introduction Do we have a presumption of innocence in this country? Of course we do. After all, we instruct criminal juries on it, often during jury selection, and then at the outset of the case and during final instructions before deliberations. Take this example, delivered by a judge at a criminal trial in Illinois: "Under the law, the Defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charges against him. This presumption remains with the Defendant throughout the case and is not overcome until in your deliberations you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty."' Perhaps the presumption also reflects something more even, a larger commitment enshrined in a range of due process and other constitutional rulings designed to protect against wrongful convictions. The defense lawyer in the same trial quoted above said in his closings: [A]s [the defendant] sits here right now, he is presumed innocent of these charges. That is the corner stone of our system of justice. The best system in the world. That is a presumption that remains with him unless and until the State can prove him guilty beyond2 a reasonable doubt. That's the lynchpin in the system ofjustice. Our constitutional criminal procedure is animated by that commitment, * Justice Thurgood Marshall Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law. 1. Transcript of Record at 13, People v. Gonzalez, No. 94 CF 1365 (Ill.Cir. Ct. June 12, 1995). 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure Dallin H
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. Reprinted for private circulation from THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW Vol. 37, No.4, Summer 1970 Copyright 1970 by the University of Chicago l'RINTED IN U .soA. Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure Dallin H. OakS;- The exclusionary rule makes evidence inadmissible in court if law enforcement officers obtained it by means forbidden by the Constitu­ tion, by statute or by court rules. The United States Supreme Court currently enforces an exclusionary rule in state and federal criminal, proceedings as to four major types of violations: searches and seizures that violate the fourth amendment, confessions obtained in violation of the fifth and' sixth amendments, identification testimony obtained in violation of these amendments, and evidence obtained by methods so shocking that its use would violate the due process clause.1 The ex­ clusionary rule is the Supreme Court's sole technique for enforcing t Professor of Law, The University of Chicago; Executive Director-Designate, The American Bar Foundation. This study was financed by a three-month grant from the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the United States Department of Justice. The fact that the National Institute fur­ nished financial support to this study does not necessarily indicate the concurrence of the Institute in the statements or conclusions in this article_ Many individuals assisted the author in this study. Colleagues Hans Zeisel and Franklin Zimring gave valuable guidance on analysis, methodology and presentation. Colleagues Walter J.
    [Show full text]