Under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, individuals convicted of a crime have the right to be free of "cruel and unusual" punishment while in jail or prison. This means that after a criminal defendant is convicted and sentenced, the Constitution still acts to guarantee his or her fundamental rights concerning conditions of confinement and treatment by corrections personnel. Inmates' Eighth Amendment challenges to punishment and confinement conditions are typically brought in connection with federal civil rights laws, including 42 U.S. Code, Section 1983, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
What is "Cruel and Unusual" Punishment?
No universal definition exists, but any punishment that is clearly inhumane or that violates basic human dignity may be deemed "cruel and unusual." For example, in 1995, a federal court in Massachusetts found that inmates' rights were violated when they were held in a 150-year-old prison that lacked toilets, and was fraught with vermin and fire hazards.
Challenging Confinement Conditions: What Must be Shown?
When challenging conditions of confinement, such as a corrections institution's procedure for providing food or medical services, a prisoner usually must show that the institution's officials or officers acted with "deliberate indifference" to the prisoner's constitutional rights. This means that:
The institution's employees were aware of some danger or risk of harm to an inmate; and
The employees chose not to take any steps to remedy the problem; and
The inmate's fundamental rights were violated as a result.
Deliberate indifference is a fairly high standard to meet, because the inmate must show more than mere negligent behavior on the part of corrections personnel.
Showing posts with label RIGHTS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RIGHTS. Show all posts
Friday, August 5, 2011
Right to Assistance of Counsel: First Appeal
A criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel has been extended by the U.S. Supreme Court to include representation during the first appeal after conviction. This stage is sometimes called the "appeal as a matter of right."
If You Cannot Afford to Hire an Attorney for a First Appeal
Just as with the right to assistance of counsel at earlier stages such as preliminary hearing and trial, the government appoints an attorney to represent any criminal defendant who cannot afford a lawyer for a first appeal. For any subsequent appeal, the person usually must pay to hire an attorney. In many states, however, public interest or civil rights groups sometimes represent convicted persons for free at subsequent appeals.
A person who has been convicted of a crime may have certain options for relief in both state and federal court.
If You Cannot Afford to Hire an Attorney for a First Appeal
Just as with the right to assistance of counsel at earlier stages such as preliminary hearing and trial, the government appoints an attorney to represent any criminal defendant who cannot afford a lawyer for a first appeal. For any subsequent appeal, the person usually must pay to hire an attorney. In many states, however, public interest or civil rights groups sometimes represent convicted persons for free at subsequent appeals.
A person who has been convicted of a crime may have certain options for relief in both state and federal court.
The 6th Amendment's Confrontation Clause
The 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution sets out many rights for defendants during a criminal prosecution, including the right of the accused to confront their accusers. The relevant text of the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment reads as follows: ?In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ? to be confronted with the witnesses against him?.
The 14th Amendment has made the 6th Amendment's right to confrontation applicable to state court as well as federal court.
The confrontation clause guarantees criminal defendants the opportunity to face the prosecution's witnesses in the case against them and dispute the witnesses' testimony. This guarantee applies to both statements made in court and statements made outside of court that are offered as evidence during trial.
The Right to Cross-Examine
For in-court statements, the confrontation clause essentially means that the defendant has a right to cross-examine witnesses in order to challenge their testimony. Trial rules can shape or limit the manner of the cross-examination, so long as those rules stand up to a confrontation clause analysis. A trial court may prevent repetitive or unduly harassing cross-examination, but defendants otherwise enjoy a wide latitude when confronting witnesses during a cross-examination. If a trial judge restricts cross-examination too severely, a violation of the confrontation clause may have occurred.
Out-of-Court Statements
In building a case, prosecutors may want to use statements that people have made outside of the courtroom as evidence against the defendant. If the person making the statements does not appear in court to testify, however, using such statements may constitute a confrontation clause violation.
Here are some examples of out-of-court statements that may run afoul of the confrontation clause:
Statements by a non-testifying victim made during a police interrogation
Statements by a non-testifying victim to emergency medical responders, hospital staff or social workers
An autopsy report by a non-testifying medical examiner
Crawford v. Washington and Out-of-Court Statements
In 2004, the Supreme Court decided an important case, Crawford v. Washington, that altered the rules for when prosecutors can use out-of-court statements against a defendant.
Before Crawford, the Supreme Court had held that out-of-court statements did not violate the confrontation clause as long as they were adequately reliable. In Crawford, the Court changed course and determined that defendants had a right to cross-examine out-of-court statements, regardless of whether or not the statements were reliable.
After Crawford, the government cannot use out-of-court statements that are offered as testimony against the defendant unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant has had a previous opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
The Supreme Court recently carved out an important exception to this general rule for so-called "dying declarations". In Michigan v. Bryant, the Court ruled that a statement made by a dying person can be entered into evidence at trial if the statement was made to assist police with an "ongoing emergency" as opposed to merely helping the police investigate a past crime.
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts and Forensic Tests
In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court extended its rule from Crawford to cover reports from forensic analysts. Specifically, the Court ruled that prosecutors cannot use a report on the chemical makeup of a batch of alleged illegal drugs if the laboratory technician who prepared the report does not testify at trial.
The Court upheld, however, the use of "notice and demand" statutes. Notice and demand statutes allow the prosecution to notify the defendant of the prosecution's intent to use a drug report without additional testimony. If the defendant does not object to the prosecution's use of the report, no confrontation clause violation has occurred.
Recently, the Court further enhanced the rules for forensic analyses in a case known as Bullcoming v. New Mexico. In that case, the Court clarified the Melendez rule by stating that the actual person who performed the forensic test must also give testimony at trial. Testimony from a different forensic analyst from the same lab would not satisfy the 6th Amendment's requirements, according to the Court.
Testimony from a different analyst could constitute an acceptable substitute, however, if the original analyst was not available to testify and the defense had a previous opportunity to perform cross-examination.
The 14th Amendment has made the 6th Amendment's right to confrontation applicable to state court as well as federal court.
The confrontation clause guarantees criminal defendants the opportunity to face the prosecution's witnesses in the case against them and dispute the witnesses' testimony. This guarantee applies to both statements made in court and statements made outside of court that are offered as evidence during trial.
The Right to Cross-Examine
For in-court statements, the confrontation clause essentially means that the defendant has a right to cross-examine witnesses in order to challenge their testimony. Trial rules can shape or limit the manner of the cross-examination, so long as those rules stand up to a confrontation clause analysis. A trial court may prevent repetitive or unduly harassing cross-examination, but defendants otherwise enjoy a wide latitude when confronting witnesses during a cross-examination. If a trial judge restricts cross-examination too severely, a violation of the confrontation clause may have occurred.
Out-of-Court Statements
In building a case, prosecutors may want to use statements that people have made outside of the courtroom as evidence against the defendant. If the person making the statements does not appear in court to testify, however, using such statements may constitute a confrontation clause violation.
Here are some examples of out-of-court statements that may run afoul of the confrontation clause:
Statements by a non-testifying victim made during a police interrogation
Statements by a non-testifying victim to emergency medical responders, hospital staff or social workers
An autopsy report by a non-testifying medical examiner
Crawford v. Washington and Out-of-Court Statements
In 2004, the Supreme Court decided an important case, Crawford v. Washington, that altered the rules for when prosecutors can use out-of-court statements against a defendant.
Before Crawford, the Supreme Court had held that out-of-court statements did not violate the confrontation clause as long as they were adequately reliable. In Crawford, the Court changed course and determined that defendants had a right to cross-examine out-of-court statements, regardless of whether or not the statements were reliable.
After Crawford, the government cannot use out-of-court statements that are offered as testimony against the defendant unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant has had a previous opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
The Supreme Court recently carved out an important exception to this general rule for so-called "dying declarations". In Michigan v. Bryant, the Court ruled that a statement made by a dying person can be entered into evidence at trial if the statement was made to assist police with an "ongoing emergency" as opposed to merely helping the police investigate a past crime.
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts and Forensic Tests
In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court extended its rule from Crawford to cover reports from forensic analysts. Specifically, the Court ruled that prosecutors cannot use a report on the chemical makeup of a batch of alleged illegal drugs if the laboratory technician who prepared the report does not testify at trial.
The Court upheld, however, the use of "notice and demand" statutes. Notice and demand statutes allow the prosecution to notify the defendant of the prosecution's intent to use a drug report without additional testimony. If the defendant does not object to the prosecution's use of the report, no confrontation clause violation has occurred.
Recently, the Court further enhanced the rules for forensic analyses in a case known as Bullcoming v. New Mexico. In that case, the Court clarified the Melendez rule by stating that the actual person who performed the forensic test must also give testimony at trial. Testimony from a different forensic analyst from the same lab would not satisfy the 6th Amendment's requirements, according to the Court.
Testimony from a different analyst could constitute an acceptable substitute, however, if the original analyst was not available to testify and the defense had a previous opportunity to perform cross-examination.
AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY
"Double Jeopardy" protections in the U.S. Constitution keep criminal defendants from facing prosecution more than once for the same offense (with a few exceptions). Below you will find information on "Double Jeopardy" protections, eligibility, and more.
Double Jeopardy Protection Basics
The Concept of Double Jeopardy: Background - Explains the basics of what Double Jeopardy is and how it works.
Reasons for Double Jeopardy Protection - There are five main reasons for preventing the government from engaging in multiple prosecutions.
State-Specific Information on Double Jeopardy
Samples of State Court Decisions on Double Jeopardy - States can provide more protection than the U.S. Constitution, but not less. Here are some examples of how states handle double jeopardy.
Eligibility for Double Jeopardy Protection
When Jeopardy Protection Applies: Only in Certain Proceedings - The restriction against multiple prosecutions only affects certain types of proceedings.
When Jeopardy Protections Take Hold - Discusses at what point in a proceeding that protections take effect.
When Jeopardy Protection Ends: Acquittals, Dismissals, and More - Determining when jeopardy ends impacts whether the government can bring further proceedings in a case.
What Constitutes the Same Offense? - Protection only defends individuals against prosecution for the same offense.
Double Jeopardy Protection Basics
The Concept of Double Jeopardy: Background - Explains the basics of what Double Jeopardy is and how it works.
Reasons for Double Jeopardy Protection - There are five main reasons for preventing the government from engaging in multiple prosecutions.
State-Specific Information on Double Jeopardy
Samples of State Court Decisions on Double Jeopardy - States can provide more protection than the U.S. Constitution, but not less. Here are some examples of how states handle double jeopardy.
Eligibility for Double Jeopardy Protection
When Jeopardy Protection Applies: Only in Certain Proceedings - The restriction against multiple prosecutions only affects certain types of proceedings.
When Jeopardy Protections Take Hold - Discusses at what point in a proceeding that protections take effect.
When Jeopardy Protection Ends: Acquittals, Dismissals, and More - Determining when jeopardy ends impacts whether the government can bring further proceedings in a case.
What Constitutes the Same Offense? - Protection only defends individuals against prosecution for the same offense.
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL
In addition to guaranteeing the right to an attorney, the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant a speedy trial by an "impartial jury." This means that a criminal defendant must be brought to trial for his or her alleged crimes within a reasonably short time after arrest, and that before being convicted of most crimes, the defendant has a constitutional right to be tried by a jury, which must find the defendant guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."
What is a "Speedy" Trial?
A "speedy" trial basically means that the defendant is tried for the alleged crimes within a reasonable time after being arrested. Although most states have laws that set forth the time in which a trial must take place after charges are filed, often the issue of whether or not a trial is in fact "speedy" enough under the Sixth Amendment comes down to the circumstances of the case itself, and the reasons for any delays. In the most extreme situations, when a court determines that the delay between arrest and trial was unreasonable and prejudicial to the defendant, the court dismisses the case altogether.
What is the Jury's Role at Trial?
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to be tried before an "impartial jury," representative of a cross-section of the community, which will consider the evidence against the defendant and decide whether to find him or her guilty of the crime(s) charged. In almost all states, 12 jurors must agree in order to find a defendant "guilty" or "not guilty." In such states, if the jury fails to reach a unanimous verdict and finds itself at a standstill (a "hung" jury), the judge may declare a "mistrial," after which the case may be dismissed or the trial may start all over again.
What is a "Speedy" Trial?
A "speedy" trial basically means that the defendant is tried for the alleged crimes within a reasonable time after being arrested. Although most states have laws that set forth the time in which a trial must take place after charges are filed, often the issue of whether or not a trial is in fact "speedy" enough under the Sixth Amendment comes down to the circumstances of the case itself, and the reasons for any delays. In the most extreme situations, when a court determines that the delay between arrest and trial was unreasonable and prejudicial to the defendant, the court dismisses the case altogether.
What is the Jury's Role at Trial?
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to be tried before an "impartial jury," representative of a cross-section of the community, which will consider the evidence against the defendant and decide whether to find him or her guilty of the crime(s) charged. In almost all states, 12 jurors must agree in order to find a defendant "guilty" or "not guilty." In such states, if the jury fails to reach a unanimous verdict and finds itself at a standstill (a "hung" jury), the judge may declare a "mistrial," after which the case may be dismissed or the trial may start all over again.
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution give criminal defendants the right to counsel, or in other words, to be represented by an attorney in most criminal proceedings. However, it is important to understand how far the right to counsel reaches, as well as its limitations. This section has information on the types of proceedings and situations in which someone is entitled to an attorney, plus what this right guarantees. Click on the links below for more in-depth information:
Right to Counsel Basics:
The Right to Counsel Overview - A summary of the right to an attorney, and how an attorney can help in a criminal case.
The Right to Counsel in Specific Situations:
Judicial Proceedings and Custodial Interrogation - An explanation of the various stages of judicial proceedings, plus interrogations.
Lineups and Other Identification Situations - Answers to whether an attorney needs to be present at lineups, blood sampling, and more.
Post-Conviction Proceedings - The right to counsel does not disappear after a trial and conviction.
Right to Counsel Guarantees:
What the Sixth Amendment Guarantees - Information on the host of rights provided by the Sixth Amendment, including the right to counsel.
The Right to Adequate Representation - Learn what "adequate" representation means under the Constitution, and how it affects cases.
See also:
Your Rights: Miranda and the Fifth Amendment - This section contains in-depth information on a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights, including the famous "Miranda" rights.
U.S. Constitution: The Fifth Amendment - The text of the Fifth Amendment, with explanatory annotations.
U.S. Constitution: The Sixth Amendment - The text of the Sixth Amendment, with explanatory annotations.
Right to Counsel Basics:
The Right to Counsel Overview - A summary of the right to an attorney, and how an attorney can help in a criminal case.
The Right to Counsel in Specific Situations:
Judicial Proceedings and Custodial Interrogation - An explanation of the various stages of judicial proceedings, plus interrogations.
Lineups and Other Identification Situations - Answers to whether an attorney needs to be present at lineups, blood sampling, and more.
Post-Conviction Proceedings - The right to counsel does not disappear after a trial and conviction.
Right to Counsel Guarantees:
What the Sixth Amendment Guarantees - Information on the host of rights provided by the Sixth Amendment, including the right to counsel.
The Right to Adequate Representation - Learn what "adequate" representation means under the Constitution, and how it affects cases.
See also:
Your Rights: Miranda and the Fifth Amendment - This section contains in-depth information on a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights, including the famous "Miranda" rights.
U.S. Constitution: The Fifth Amendment - The text of the Fifth Amendment, with explanatory annotations.
U.S. Constitution: The Sixth Amendment - The text of the Sixth Amendment, with explanatory annotations.
RIGHTS AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives individuals the right to refuse to answer any questions or make any statements, when to do so would help establish that the person committed a crime or is connected to any criminal activity. This right is also known as the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, which is invoked when someone is said to "plead the Fifth".
Can a Criminal Defendant be Forced to Testify at Trial?
At trial, the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right not to testify. This means that the prosecutor, the judge, and even the defendant's lawyer cannot force the defendant to take the witness stand at trial, if he or she does not want to do so. Furthermore, when a defendant exercises his or her right not to testify, the jury is not permitted to take that refusal into consideration when deciding whether the defendant is guilty of the crime(s) charged.
It is important to note that, once a defendant does take the stand and testify at trial, he or she cannot ordinarily choose to answer some questions but not others. Rather, the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege is deemed waived through the act of testifying.
Does the Privilege Apply to Fingerprints and Blood Tests?
The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination does ensure that a defendant in a criminal case cannot be forced to testify and "be a witness against himself or herself". But it does not apply when a defendant is fingerprinted, or made to provide a DNA sample in connection with a criminal case. In other words, a defendant may not refuse to submit to these procedures by asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege.
Who Can Claim the Fifth Amendment Privilege at Trial?
At a criminal trial, it is not only the defendant who enjoys the Fifth Amendment privilege. Witnesses who are asked to testify can refuse to answer certain questions by asserting their Fifth Amendment rights, if to answer would implicate them in any type of criminal activity. Unlike defendants in a criminal case, who have the right not to take the witness stand at all, a witness may be forced to testify (by subpoena or other means) but may exercise his or her Fifth Amendment right by refusing to answer certain questions.
[Note: The Fifth Amendment also provides one of the grounds for an individual's "Miranda" rights while in police custody.]
Can a Criminal Defendant be Forced to Testify at Trial?
At trial, the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right not to testify. This means that the prosecutor, the judge, and even the defendant's lawyer cannot force the defendant to take the witness stand at trial, if he or she does not want to do so. Furthermore, when a defendant exercises his or her right not to testify, the jury is not permitted to take that refusal into consideration when deciding whether the defendant is guilty of the crime(s) charged.
It is important to note that, once a defendant does take the stand and testify at trial, he or she cannot ordinarily choose to answer some questions but not others. Rather, the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege is deemed waived through the act of testifying.
Does the Privilege Apply to Fingerprints and Blood Tests?
The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination does ensure that a defendant in a criminal case cannot be forced to testify and "be a witness against himself or herself". But it does not apply when a defendant is fingerprinted, or made to provide a DNA sample in connection with a criminal case. In other words, a defendant may not refuse to submit to these procedures by asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege.
Who Can Claim the Fifth Amendment Privilege at Trial?
At a criminal trial, it is not only the defendant who enjoys the Fifth Amendment privilege. Witnesses who are asked to testify can refuse to answer certain questions by asserting their Fifth Amendment rights, if to answer would implicate them in any type of criminal activity. Unlike defendants in a criminal case, who have the right not to take the witness stand at all, a witness may be forced to testify (by subpoena or other means) but may exercise his or her Fifth Amendment right by refusing to answer certain questions.
[Note: The Fifth Amendment also provides one of the grounds for an individual's "Miranda" rights while in police custody.]
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects citizens and criminal suspects from unreasonable searches of their property and persons, and prohibits police officers from making unlawful arrests ("seizures"). Although this may seem straightforward, the law on these rights is not necessarily so. This section contains information on searches and seizures, what the law requires from police, what constitutes "probable cause", and much more. Click on the links below to get started:
"Search and Seizure" Basics:
"Search and Seizure" and the Fourth Amendment - An outline of the guarantees provided by the Fourth Amendment, when it applies, and violations of the right.
Search and Seizure Law - An in-depth look at what may constitute unreasonable searches and seizures, individuals' expectations of privacy, and more.
Searches and Seizures FAQ - Explanations of just what a "search" is, search warrants, police powers, traffic stops, impounds, and more.
Searches and Seizures: The Limitations of the Police - What police may, and may not do, when it comes to searches and seizures of people and their property.
Probable Cause - Clarification on just what it means for police to have "probable cause".
See also:
Police Misconduct and Civil Rights - Find out what happens in circumstances where police conduct illegal searches or seizures.
Search and Seizure and the Fourth Amendment In-Depth:
When is an Arrest a Legal Arrest? - An explanation of when an arrest has taken place, and its legality.
When the Fourth Amendment Applies - An outline of when the Fourth Amendment's protections apply.
Search Warrants: What They Are and When They're Necessary - A close look at warrants and when they are required.
The Fourth Amendment Warrant Requirement - A more detailed explanation of the warrant requirement.
The "Reasonableness" Requirement - Information on what the "reasonableness" requirement demands from police.
The Fourth Amendment and the "Exclusionary Rule" - Learn about how the law penalizes police for improper searches and seizures.
U.S. Constitution: The Fourth Amendment - The text of the Fourth Amendment, with explanatory annotations.
Sample State Court Decisions on "Search and Seizure" - Some state court cases interpreting state law on search and seizure.
"Search and Seizure" Basics:
"Search and Seizure" and the Fourth Amendment - An outline of the guarantees provided by the Fourth Amendment, when it applies, and violations of the right.
Search and Seizure Law - An in-depth look at what may constitute unreasonable searches and seizures, individuals' expectations of privacy, and more.
Searches and Seizures FAQ - Explanations of just what a "search" is, search warrants, police powers, traffic stops, impounds, and more.
Searches and Seizures: The Limitations of the Police - What police may, and may not do, when it comes to searches and seizures of people and their property.
Probable Cause - Clarification on just what it means for police to have "probable cause".
See also:
Police Misconduct and Civil Rights - Find out what happens in circumstances where police conduct illegal searches or seizures.
Search and Seizure and the Fourth Amendment In-Depth:
When is an Arrest a Legal Arrest? - An explanation of when an arrest has taken place, and its legality.
When the Fourth Amendment Applies - An outline of when the Fourth Amendment's protections apply.
Search Warrants: What They Are and When They're Necessary - A close look at warrants and when they are required.
The Fourth Amendment Warrant Requirement - A more detailed explanation of the warrant requirement.
The "Reasonableness" Requirement - Information on what the "reasonableness" requirement demands from police.
The Fourth Amendment and the "Exclusionary Rule" - Learn about how the law penalizes police for improper searches and seizures.
U.S. Constitution: The Fourth Amendment - The text of the Fourth Amendment, with explanatory annotations.
Sample State Court Decisions on "Search and Seizure" - Some state court cases interpreting state law on search and seizure.
MIRANDA RIGHTS
The famous Miranda rights for criminal suspects, often heard recited in movies or on TV, came from the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona and are based on the Fifth Amendment. The ruling in Miranda and subsequent cases provide criminal suspects with a number of rights when being questioned by law enforcement officers. Click on the links below for in-depth information on just what the Miranda rights are, when those rights apply, plus more information on the Fifth Amendment and police questioning.
Miranda and the Fifth Amendment Basics:
"Miranda" Rights and the Fifth Amendment - A breakdown of the rights provided under Miranda and the Fifth Amendment.
Focus on the Fifth: Miranda v. Arizona - A look at the famous case itself, plus subsequent rulings.
U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment - The text of the Fifth Amendment, with explanatory annotations.
Miranda and Police Questioning:
Miranda Warnings and Police Questioning - An in-depth explanation of the warnings, what it means to be in police custody, and police questioning.
FAQs: Police Interrogations - Answers to questions about police interrogiations, including when police need an arrest warrant, police stops, Miranda warnings, and more.
Miranda Rights:
The Miranda Case and the Right to Counsel - Learn about what it means to have the right to an attorney.
Invoking the Right to Counsel - Information on how to invoke the right to counsel, and when it can be done.
Invoking the Right to Remain Silent - Find out how to invoke the right to remain silent, and what it means to do so.
Waiving Miranda Rights - Giving up your Miranda rights is a critical decision. Find out more about it here.
Related Topics:
Stages of a Case: Arrest - Learn more about the law surrounding a criminal arrest.
Your Rights: Right to Counsel - Visit FindLaw's section on the right to counsel, with information and resources on this key right.
Miranda and the Fifth Amendment Basics:
"Miranda" Rights and the Fifth Amendment - A breakdown of the rights provided under Miranda and the Fifth Amendment.
Focus on the Fifth: Miranda v. Arizona - A look at the famous case itself, plus subsequent rulings.
U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment - The text of the Fifth Amendment, with explanatory annotations.
Miranda and Police Questioning:
Miranda Warnings and Police Questioning - An in-depth explanation of the warnings, what it means to be in police custody, and police questioning.
FAQs: Police Interrogations - Answers to questions about police interrogiations, including when police need an arrest warrant, police stops, Miranda warnings, and more.
Miranda Rights:
The Miranda Case and the Right to Counsel - Learn about what it means to have the right to an attorney.
Invoking the Right to Counsel - Information on how to invoke the right to counsel, and when it can be done.
Invoking the Right to Remain Silent - Find out how to invoke the right to remain silent, and what it means to do so.
Waiving Miranda Rights - Giving up your Miranda rights is a critical decision. Find out more about it here.
Related Topics:
Stages of a Case: Arrest - Learn more about the law surrounding a criminal arrest.
Your Rights: Right to Counsel - Visit FindLaw's section on the right to counsel, with information and resources on this key right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)