Criminal Law Foundation Evaluation

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Summary

The constitution, as the most important law and guide, provides various safeguards to all U.S. citizens. These safeguards are also accorded to individuals standing trial in criminal proceedings before courts. The aim of these safeguards is to ensure there is justice and that there is no miscarriage of that justice. The safeguards that this paper seeks to evaluate are those espoused under the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments in relation to both adult and juvenile trials.

Fourth Amendment Safeguards

The fourth amendment to the constitution of the United States has the effect of providing protection against any unwarranted searches of any person or where they live as well. This protection extends against the seizure of their belongings. There is, however, a provision that provides for occasions in which such search and/or seizure can occur. The first provision provides that such search and/or seizure is carried out if it is reasonable to do so. The second provides any search or seizure be conducted only after a warrant authorizing such act is issued, indicating specifically the place to be searched as well as the particular items that the authorities seek to seize (U.S. Const. amend. IV).

Application to Adult Trial

The right under this amendment is a mode of safeguard and protection provided for by the constitution. The main protection provided by the fourth amendment is based upon the concept of protection and the right to privacy. The determination of this right as seen in Katz v. the United States (1967) is the honest thought of privacy by an individual and the expectation of privacy by society in that particular situation.

As part of the trial, the court will seek to protect and enforce this right to privacy. The court takes into account the parameters set out under the law. This protection offered under the fourth amendment is geared towards the prevention of abuse of power by law enforcement that may extend to coercion and, therefore, impede the course of justice (U.S. Const. amend. IV). For this reason, therefore, the courts are cautious to ensure that the right is not infringed.

Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule is the shield that the courts utilize in ensuring and safeguarding the accused person under the fourth amendment. This particular rule clearly states that any evidence that is obtained from any search and seizure, which contravenes the provisions of the fourth amendment, is not admissible in court. Where a breach of reasonable privacy, as constituted under the fourth amendment, is detected, the protection for an adult will be provided under this rule (U.S. Const. amend. IV). However, the conditions of the 4th amendment can be bypassed. This happens when a person gives his consent to the search and seizure in the first place, irrespective of the provisions of the constitution.

Trial of Juveniles

The same standard on the 4th amendment applies to juveniles as it applies to adults. The variation in this respect, however, is in the area of consent. For a search to be conducted, as well as a seizure, on a juvenile outside of the confines of the requirements of the constitution and become admissible there has to be consent on the part of the accused person (U.S. Const. amend. IV). The definition of consent varies among juveniles; there are some juveniles whose personal consent would be sufficient to allow for the search or seizure. The issues taken into account when determining consent include the age of the juvenile, their level of education, how many times the question was asked, as well as whether there was any actual or threatened punishment.

Overall, the impact that these safeguards have on the administration of the juvenile court is that it calls for the administration of a trial within a trial to evaluate the evidence and the fact whether the search and seizure were done according to the book.

Fifth Amendment Safeguards

This amendment provides five issues. Of these, four are of direct relevance to the trial process. This paper shall, therefore, focus on these four. The first issue that is provided for under the Fifth Amendment is the use of a grand jury. The use of a grand jury is called up in situations where an individual is suspected of committing a crime which, in the words of the constitution, is a capital crime or a crime that is infamous (U.S. Const. amend. V). The reason behind this safeguard is to protect the public from prosecution, which may be malicious or hurried, for purposes other than to meet justice.

This constitutional provision is, therefore, put into play immediately after the investigation stages, and before formal charges are brought against an individual. Charges, in this respect, are only brought if the grand jury returns an indictment. This provision applies equally to juveniles, with the exception that juveniles have the right to be represented by counsel when they testify before the grand jury (U.S. Const. amend. V).

The second aspect of the Fifth Amendment is a provision for the double jeopardy rule. The general idea of this rule is that once an individual has been tried and acquitted of charges, they cannot again be charged on the same facts. These facts must relate to the same charge. It is an important provision whose safeguard is the fact that it prevents the potential abuse of power and harassment that may be caused through continually bringing charges against an individual (U.S. Const. amend. V).

Application and Impact in Court Proceedings

This provision, as provided under the Fifth Amendment, receives equal application in both adult and juvenile proceedings. In this respect, the application in proceedings is that courts will prevent any proceedings that result from charges arising from facts, involving the same accused person, as those that have already been tried and acquitted (U.S. Const. amend. V).

The third aspect is a requirement about the protection of a criminal defendant, against providing evidence or information that may incriminate him during the trial (U.S. Const. amend. V). This particular provision of the constitution led to the coining of the phrase ‘pleading the fifth.’ The provision is given effect and operation through various ways. The first is the Miranda rights that are read to an individual when they are arrested, which informs them of this particular right. However, as originally constituted under the constitution this particular right only applied during a hearing before a judge. The requirement to be read one’s Miranda rights arose from judicial implication after the Supreme Court required it for cases of detainment in Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

This right is applicable to both juveniles and adults in equal measure during the trial proceedings. During the proceedings, therefore, an individual cannot be forced to testify at his own trial. Further, even if he decides to testify at such trial, he can lawfully refuse to answer particular questions that may arise at trial; for example, at cross-examination (U.S. Const. amend. V).

The result of this particular provision during trial is that it ensures that the prosecution presents supporting evidence, so as to dispense with their burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt.

The fourth provision of the Fifth Amendment is the requirement of the following due process in any case where the liberty of an individual is to be deprived, his property taken away or his life taken away by the state and its agents (U.S. Const. amend V). Due process in this regard extends to before the commencement of the trial all the way to sentencing. Due process is a safeguard that is constitutional and ensures the powers bestowed upon the government are not misused and abused and that they are only used for the ends of justice.

The use of this particular provision is also equal for both the juvenile and adult defendants. The main difference, in this case, is the application of the right since the process required to be followed when charging a juvenile is in some aspects different from those followed in charging adults.

Sixth Amendment Rights

The sixth amendment rights provide for, first and foremost, the right to counsel at trial (U.S. Const. amend. VI). This right is an automatic right that can only be taken away by waiving that right. Therefore, where an accused person has not waived his right to counsel, the statements he makes to investigators, may not be admissible. However, the nature of this right is that it is specific to the charge. This means while the information obtained may not be used to prove that particular crime, it can be used to investigate and prove other crimes that the accused has yet not been charged with.

Application to Adults

In the application to adults, this particular right is absolute and automatic and, therefore, accrues immediately he is charged. However, he can decide to waive this particular right which would, therefore, dispense with this particular provision and any information he gives thereafter may be lawfully used against him in the trial (U.S. Const. amend. VI).

Application to Juveniles

This provision of the constitution is one that a juvenile cannot waive. It is, therefore, an automatic right that cannot, under any circumstances, be waived, either by the accused or even by his guardian (U.S. Const. amend. VI). This is the main difference from its application to an adult because, as stated earlier, an adult can easily waive their right.

Other Provisions of the Sixth Amendment

Other provisions of a jury trial are geared to ensuring that the trial process continues smoothly and meets justice. They include the right to trial by a jury that is made up of individuals of the caliber of the accused, the inherent right to see witnesses against an individual and probe their evidence, as well as the right to a speedy trial (U.S Const. amend. VI). All these provisions are protective mechanisms for the ensuring defendant’s justice. They apply equally to juveniles and adults (U.S. Const. amend. VI).

References

Katz v. the United States, 398 U.S. (1967).

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. (1966).

U.S. Const. amend. IV.

U.S. Const. amend. V.

U.S. Const. amend. VI.

Click Here To Order Now!