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.
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.
Your Rights in the Criminal Justice System
Your Rights with Police:
Miranda Rights - a criminal suspect's rights during police interrogations, including the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present.
Search and Seizure - the 4th Amendment offers protection from unreasonable searches and unlawful arrests.
Strip Search after an Arrest - courts are split over whether jails and prisons can strip search inmates without an individualized suspicion.
Rights of the Accused:
Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination - the government can't force individuals to make statements that would implicate them in a crime.
Right to Counsel - criminal defendants have the right to legal representation by a qualified and competent attorney.
Right to Speedy Jury Trial - the government must bring a defendant to trial in a reasonable amount of time.
"Double Jeopardy" Protections - with a few important exceptions, the government can't prosecute individuals for the same crime twice.
The 6th Amendment?s Confrontation Clause - defendants in a criminal case have the right to confront the witnesses against them.
Your Rights if Convicted:
Right to Counsel - 1st Appeal - defendants have a right to an attorney for an appeal as well as at trial.
No Cruel & Unusual Punishment - the sentences meted out by the criminal justice system cannot be unduly harsh.
Prisoner Rights (Civil Rights Center)- a defendant's rights in the criminal justice system don't end after sentencing. Learn more about prisoner rights here.
See also:
U.S. Constitution: The 4th Amendment - the full text of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with explanatory notes.
U.S. Constitution: The 5th Amendment - the full text of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with explanatory notes.
U.S. Constitution: The 6th Amendment - the full text of the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with explanatory notes.
U.S. Constitution: The 8th Amendment - the full text of the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with explanatory notes.
Miranda Rights - a criminal suspect's rights during police interrogations, including the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present.
Search and Seizure - the 4th Amendment offers protection from unreasonable searches and unlawful arrests.
Strip Search after an Arrest - courts are split over whether jails and prisons can strip search inmates without an individualized suspicion.
Rights of the Accused:
Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination - the government can't force individuals to make statements that would implicate them in a crime.
Right to Counsel - criminal defendants have the right to legal representation by a qualified and competent attorney.
Right to Speedy Jury Trial - the government must bring a defendant to trial in a reasonable amount of time.
"Double Jeopardy" Protections - with a few important exceptions, the government can't prosecute individuals for the same crime twice.
The 6th Amendment?s Confrontation Clause - defendants in a criminal case have the right to confront the witnesses against them.
Your Rights if Convicted:
Right to Counsel - 1st Appeal - defendants have a right to an attorney for an appeal as well as at trial.
No Cruel & Unusual Punishment - the sentences meted out by the criminal justice system cannot be unduly harsh.
Prisoner Rights (Civil Rights Center)- a defendant's rights in the criminal justice system don't end after sentencing. Learn more about prisoner rights here.
See also:
U.S. Constitution: The 4th Amendment - the full text of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with explanatory notes.
U.S. Constitution: The 5th Amendment - the full text of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with explanatory notes.
U.S. Constitution: The 6th Amendment - the full text of the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with explanatory notes.
U.S. Constitution: The 8th Amendment - the full text of the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with explanatory notes.
Your Rights in the Criminal Justice System
Your Rights with Police:
Miranda Rights - a criminal suspect's rights during police interrogations, including the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present.
Search and Seizure - the 4th Amendment offers protection from unreasonable searches and unlawful arrests.
Strip Search after an Arrest - courts are split over whether jails and prisons can strip search inmates without an individualized suspicion.
Rights of the Accused:
Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination - the government can't force individuals to make statements that would implicate them in a crime.
Right to Counsel - criminal defendants have the right to legal representation by a qualified and competent attorney.
Right to Speedy Jury Trial - the government must bring a defendant to trial in a reasonable amount of time.
"Double Jeopardy" Protections - with a few important exceptions, the government can't prosecute individuals for the same crime twice.
The 6th Amendment?s Confrontation Clause - defendants in a criminal case have the right to confront the witnesses against them.
Your Rights if Convicted:
Right to Counsel - 1st Appeal - defendants have a right to an attorney for an appeal as well as at trial.
No Cruel & Unusual Punishment - the sentences meted out by the criminal justice system cannot be unduly harsh.
Prisoner Rights (Civil Rights Center)- a defendant's rights in the criminal justice system don't end after sentencing. Learn more about prisoner rights here.
See also:
U.S. Constitution: The 4th Amendment - the full text of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with explanatory notes.
U.S. Constitution: The 5th Amendment - the full text of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with explanatory notes.
U.S. Constitution: The 6th Amendment - the full text of the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with explanatory notes.
U.S. Constitution: The 8th Amendment - the full text of the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with explanatory notes.
Miranda Rights - a criminal suspect's rights during police interrogations, including the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present.
Search and Seizure - the 4th Amendment offers protection from unreasonable searches and unlawful arrests.
Strip Search after an Arrest - courts are split over whether jails and prisons can strip search inmates without an individualized suspicion.
Rights of the Accused:
Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination - the government can't force individuals to make statements that would implicate them in a crime.
Right to Counsel - criminal defendants have the right to legal representation by a qualified and competent attorney.
Right to Speedy Jury Trial - the government must bring a defendant to trial in a reasonable amount of time.
"Double Jeopardy" Protections - with a few important exceptions, the government can't prosecute individuals for the same crime twice.
The 6th Amendment?s Confrontation Clause - defendants in a criminal case have the right to confront the witnesses against them.
Your Rights if Convicted:
Right to Counsel - 1st Appeal - defendants have a right to an attorney for an appeal as well as at trial.
No Cruel & Unusual Punishment - the sentences meted out by the criminal justice system cannot be unduly harsh.
Prisoner Rights (Civil Rights Center)- a defendant's rights in the criminal justice system don't end after sentencing. Learn more about prisoner rights here.
See also:
U.S. Constitution: The 4th Amendment - the full text of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with explanatory notes.
U.S. Constitution: The 5th Amendment - the full text of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with explanatory notes.
U.S. Constitution: The 6th Amendment - the full text of the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with explanatory notes.
U.S. Constitution: The 8th Amendment - the full text of the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with explanatory notes.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Christy Ann Fornoff's murder not easily forgotten
Posted: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 5:30 am | Updated: 4:31 pm, Wed May 25, 2011.
Christy Ann Fornoff's murder not easily forgotten By Dan Zeiger, Tribune East Valley Tribune | comments
A man is scheduled to be executed soon for the kidnapping, rape and murder of a girl in a Tempe apartment complex more than a quarter-century ago. (See related story.)
For many of us who lived in the Valley at the time of the senseless incident, the victim’s name, Christy Ann Fornoff, is remembered almost instantaneously, recalling a time when an entire community was sickened, its faith and innocence shattered. For thousands of parents, Fornoff — killed on May 9, 1984, five days after her 13th birthday — could have been their son or daughter.
For many more children, including me, she could have been them.
At the time, Fornoff was a student at Connolly Middle School; I attended nearby Fees Intermediate School. Both fed into Marcos de Niza High School, where I attended with some of Fornoff’s former Connolly classmates. Fornoff was collecting payments for her newspaper route when she was abducted; I often helped out or filled in for a friend on his route.
Maybe those similarities are the biggest reason I have never forgotten Fornoff’s name. Or it could be the picture of her that was on the front page of every paper and led every television newscast for days.
Life in the Valley was much different then; the Phoenix metro area was less than half of its current population of 4.1 million. There were big-city crime realities, for sure, but nothing that held the attention of the entire area — particularly during the two days she was missing. Ask anyone who remembers: Fornoff’s disappearance and death was a big, big story.
Donald Beaty, the maintenance supervisor at the apartment complex where Fornoff disappeared, said he found her body behind a trash Dumpster. Ten days later, he was arrested for the murder and is slated to be executed on May 25.
People were outraged and disgusted — but most of all, scared.
“There was a sense of fear; it was pervading everything,” Peter DeCindis, a teacher at Connolly at the time of the murder, told the Tribune in 2004. “Every little kid was looking over their shoulder coming home. Parents coming to pick up their kids — no one was going to let their kid walk home.”
I lived the first nine years of my life in Indiana. On weekend and summer days, I, my sister, cousins and friends were often our own child care, heading off to play wherever in the mornings and not expected back home until dinner time. Our safety was not given a second thought.
Today, I will not let my boys go to the park behind our Gilbert home without them being in my line of sight.
After Fornoff’s death, more adults began handling newspaper routes, with each day’s edition more likely to be tossed into a driveway from a moving car than an over-the-shoulder bag. And technology has enabled billing to be conducted electronically, not door-to-door.
No, what happened to Fornoff did not result in all this. Her death was simply a symptom of an evolving society.
Through it all, life has gone on.
No Connolly teachers were available for recollection; a Tempe Elementary School District spokeswoman said that all of the faculty at the school when Fornoff died have retired or moved on. Harry Mitchell, then the mayor of Tempe who wrote a letter of condolence to the Fornoff family, declined an interview request through a spokesman. Even Fornoff’s parents, Carol and Roger, no longer live in Tempe.
But for myself and many others, Christy Ann Fornoff will live on in our memories, a name and face associated with tragedy and times changing.
• Contact writer: (480) 898-6301 or dzeiger@evtrib.com
Inmate executed with 1st Arizona use of new drug
FLORENCE, Ariz. — An Arizona inmate convicted of raping and killing a 13-year-old girl in 1984 has been executed with a drug that has never been used before in the state.
Arizona death row inmate Donald Beaty is seen in an undated photo provided by the Arizona Dept. of Corrections. The Arizona Supreme Court scheduled a hearing Wednesday morning, May 25, 2011 after temporarily halting the planned execution of inmate Beaty, who is scheduled to die Wednesday by lethal injection for the 1984 rape and murder of a 13-year-old Tempe girl. The Arizona court's temporary stay of execution was issued late Tuesday night after Arizona officials said they had planned to replace one of three drugs to be used in the execution because federal officials contended the state failed to fill out a form to import the drug being swapped out. That prompted Beaty's lawyers to file motions seeking the stay of execution from the state's highest court and the U.S. District Court in Phoenix, arguing he hadn't had adequate opportunity to review the late change in drug protocol. (AP Photo/The Arizona Republic via Arizona Dept. of Corrections)
Arrizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch, center, asks a question Wednesday, May 25, 2011 during a hearing in Phoenix on whether to allow the scheduled execution of inmate Donald Beaty to take place on Wednesday or keep a stay in place to give his lawyers time to study the state's last-minute plan to substitute one of three execution drugs. Beaty, was scheduled to die Wednesday by lethal injection for the 1984 rape and murder of a 13-year-old Tempe girl. (AP Photo/The Arizona Republic, Mark Henle)
More Nation & World stories »
Space shuttle commander talks to wife almost daily
Defense: Utah AG to appeal Utah "innocence" ruling
Police: Parents planned Calif. murder-suicide
Europeans seek UN condemnation of Syria
Fifty-six-year-old Donald Edward Beaty died by lethal injection at 7:38 p.m. Wednesday at the state prison in Florence after failing to win a flurry of appeals.
The state used a new execution drug as part of a three-drug method, replacing the controversial drug sodium thiopental with pentobarbital.
Beaty was on death row for well over two decades after being convicted of raping and murdering Christy Ann Fornoff.
She was making collections on her newspaper route with her mother at a Tempe apartment complex where Beaty was a custodian when he took her into his apartment, and raped and suffocated her.
___
Davenport reported from Phoenix. Associated Press writers Carmen Castro in Florence and Jesse Holland in Washington contributed to this report.
___
May 25, 2011 11:31 PM EDT
Copyright 2011, The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Friday, May 20, 2011
MY CHILDREN TODAY
Richard James (17) and his daughter Adelyn Rose ( 6 Mo)
Alexia Mae and Aurora Mae (08)
Stephen JD (11)
Makayla (17)
%20of%20VTS_01_1-31%5B4%5D.jpg "Copy (2) of VTS_01_1-31")
More Than 200 Tips Received On Boy's Identity Memorial Grows Where Boy's Body Found
POSTED: 7:37 am EDT May 17, 2011
UPDATED: 8:00 am EDT May 18, 2011
Email Print
Comments
(56)
SOUTH BERWICK, Maine --
Investigators later released this computer generated photo of the boy. The photo was created by the State Police Computer Crimes Unit.
Police are still trying to determine the identity of a boy whose body was found over the weekend in South Berwick.
The body of the boy, believed to be 4 to 6 years old, was found Saturday on Dennett Road, but no one has come forward to claim him.
In an afternoon news conference, Maine State Police said they have received more than 200 tips but still don't know who the boy is.
"This is just really bizarre that we're into day four now, and he's not reported missing," said Lt. Brian McDonough.
McDonough said investigators are exploring the possibility that a person associated with a truck seen in the area Saturday morning could be connected with the military.
He said the possibility is based on a witness statement that there may have been a naval insignia on and around the license plate.
Tuesday Press Conference Part 1
Tuesday Press Conference Part 2
He said that a military person might also not have as many ties in the neighborhood, explaining why neighbors might not know that a child was present in the home. Police are checking with local military officials to see if they have any information, McDonough said.
McDonough said police are also planning to submit the boy's DNA to databases to see if they can come up with a match.
Investigators said they have finished processing the scene where the body was found, and there is no longer need for them to be there, so neighbors have fashioned a memorial to the boy at the site.
Resident Debby Spaulding placed a red rose at the memorial.
"It stands for love," she said.
"I came down to say a prayer for the little guy," said resident Dawn Belanger.
Police released a computer-generated image of the boy, which has led to tips coming in from across the country. He was 3 feet 8 inches tall, weighed 45 pounds and had dirty blond hair and blue eyes.
Police say the boy was wearing these "Lightning McQueen" shoes, size 12 1/2. They appear to be recently purchased.
At a local diner, the grim discovery has been the main subject of conversation. Residents said they are puzzled why no one has stepped forward with an identity.
"Nobody can understand how nobody can recognize a child," said Eileen Mayo, owner of Mayo's Family Restaurant. "There's got to be a grandparent or a parent or somebody that knows what's become of him."
Waitress Brandi Turnbull said customers are still having trouble dealing with the fact that this has happened in their community.
"It's a tragedy, an absolute tragedy," she said. "They are just in disbelief about everything that happened. It's just too close to home."
The town has planned a vigil for Tuesday evening. A Facebook page has also been created to try to get more tips for police. More than 68,000 people had joined the page by Tuesday morning.
Hundreds Attend Memorial In Boy's Honor
Hundreds of people turned out in South Berwick on Tuesday night to honor the child.
Images From Memorial
"We don't know who he belongs to, and you don't want that for any human being," vigil organizer Amy Aiguier said. "You want to see other members of your community. You want to talk, you want to discuss it, and you want to show your support, because you know for everybody here, it hit home."
Vigil goers said they are praying someone can come forward with information leading to the child's identity.
People said that even though they don't know the child, they would want him to know he's not alone.
"Just the entire situation is completely -- is so disturbing, it terrifies me, and it makes me so sick that someone would do this to a little boy, a little child," resident Brianna Hale said.
Parents held on tightly to their children during the vigil.
"I have two little kids that look nothing like him, but every time I look at them I see -- look at that picture -- I see my kids," mourner Patrice McLean said.
For people in the community and in other nearby towns, the mystery makes for unsettling times.
"I know there's a lot of folks here in South Berwick that are nervous just cause maybe this guy's a local guy, maybe this person did this and they're unsure of themselves -- we don't know," resident David Flores said.
Some residents said the case has an eerie echo to another from 1997, when a 10-year-old Massachusetts boy was dumped in a local river.
While police continue to field tips about the boy's possible identity, community members want whoever is responsible to step forward.
Sanford resident Marge Trowbridge said, "Do the right thing -- turn yourself in. It breaks my heart because it's like, 'What animal would do such a thing to a little boy?'"
Previous Stories:
May 17, 2011: Police Receive Multiple Tips After Child's Body Found
May 16, 2011: Child's Body Found Along Remote Road
PRESS RELEASE
Copyright© 2004 – Pima County Attorney Pima County Attorney's Office
PRESS RELEASE
For more information contact:
Marcia Fraioli-Nugent
Communications Coordinator
(520) 740-5613
(520) 419-8685 (cell)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Local Agencies Announce Implementation of
Pima County Drug Endangered Children Multidisciplinary Protocol
(Tucson, Arizona) September 15, 2005
The Pima County Attorney’s Office in partnership with the Arizona Attorney
General’s Office, Pima County Sheriff’s Office, Southern Arizona Children’s
Advocacy Center, Child Protective Services, City Attorney’s Office, Tucson
Police Department, University of Arizona Police Department, University of
Arizona Health Sciences Center,
South Tucson Police Department, Marana Police Department, Oro Valley
Police Department, Tohono O’Odham Nation Police Department, Sahuarita
Police Department and the Pasqua Yaqui Nation Police Department announced
today the implementation of the Pima County Drug Endangered Children
Multidisciplinary Protocol.
The protocols, developed by members of the Pima County Drug Endangered
Task Force, will ensure that children who may be at risk for exposure to
clandestine drug laboratories receive protection, advocacy and support through
a multidisciplinary approach. The protocols also state that investigations
provide the best opportunity for prosecution of individuals involved in
manufacturing, selling and abusing methamphetamine and other drugs,
endangering children in the process.
Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall stated, “Children are often the forgotten
victims in drug activity. They are neglected, abused and exposed to a toxic
environment in which they cannot possibly thrive. This partnership of local law
enforcement, medical and social services agencies is crucial to the success of
eradicating methamphetamine from our community. By putting into place a
system that protects the youngest victims of this toxic drug we are taking a very
important first step.”
LaWall added, “The protocols will ensure that the children involved in these
highly volatile households receive the best possible care, that law enforcement
is able to conduct thorough investigations without the additional stress of
contamination and that prosecution may proceed in order to hold these
offenders accountable.”
Copyright© 2004 – Pima County Attorney Pima County Attorney's Office
Attorney General Terry Goddard stated, “Law enforcement in Arizona and
around the country say that meth has replaced marijuana and cocaine as the
nation’s number one drug problem,” Goddard continued, “I am proud we have
initiated the Drug Endangered Children Protocols for Southern Arizona. My
office will provide the training to effectively implement the new partnership.”
Sheriff Clarence Dupnik stated, “As a law enforcement agency, deputies will
play a large part of protecting our future generation from the ill effects of
methamphetamine use. The Pima County Sheriff’s Department is tasked with
investigating the crime as well as investigating possible child abuse or child
neglect. Methamphetamine is the fastest growing drug of the times and as a
law enforcement agency, we dedicate our efforts to ensure the children of Pima
County are protected and the perpetrators are prosecuted to the full extent of the
law.”
Joining LaWall at today’s announcement were, Attorney General Terry
Goddard, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, Wilene Lampert Ph.D, Executive Director
of the Southern Arizona Children’s Advocacy Center and members of the Pima
County Drug Endangered Task Force.
* * * * *
Parent of Columbine HS slain student
Guess our national leaders didn't expect this, hmm? On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.
They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.. The following is a portion of the transcript:
"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.
"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.
"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent.
I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!
"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.
"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person inAmerica, and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at ColumbineHigh School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your
own heart before casting the first stone!
My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"
Do what the media did not - - let the nation hear this man's speech.. Please send this out to everyone you can.
God Bless
Death Sentence for Arizona Child Killer
Terry Greene Sterling – Thu Apr 7, 2:02 am ET
NEW YORK – Death Sentence for Arizona Child KillerSuspected serial killer and alleged white supremacist Jason Bush is condemned for the murder of a Mexican-American girl and her father, as the jury rejects attempts to portray him as a head case. Terry Greene Sterling reports.
Jason Bush, a tall, skinny suspected serial killer with alleged white supremacist ties, was sentenced to death in Tucson for murdering a Mexican-American child and her father in an Arizona borderlands home invasion. Bush, 36, a drifter and ex-con with a history of mental troubles, has been associated with the Aryan Brotherhood, and authorities suspect him in two additional race-related killings, in 1997 in Washington state. In one of the Washington cases, a Mexican man was stabbed to death. In another, a white man thought to be a “race traitor” was executed on a hunting trip.
Bush now joins 43-year-old border vigilante Shawna Forde on Arizona’s death row for the 2009 killing of Brisenia Flores and her father, Raul. Forde is a former beautician and Boeing worker from Everett, Washington. She founded Minutemen American Defense several years ago, supposedly to keep America safe from “illegals.” This year, a Pima County Superior Court jury found her guilty of masterminding the deadly 2009 invasion of the Flores home in Arivaca, Arizona, in order to steal drugs and money to fund her vigilante activities. Forde called Jason Bush “Gunny” and she apparently believed his wild tales about being a star sniper in the Army.
The slayings of Brisenia and her father, both American citizens of Latino descent, were followed a year later by the mysterious shooting of Arizona rancher Robert Krentz, an Anglo. The rancher’s murder, still unsolved but widely blamed on a Mexican narco trafficker in the country illegally, sparked panic in Arizona and fueled the passage of Arizona’s notorious immigration law, SB 1070, which makes it a state crime for unauthorized immigrants to set foot on Arizona soil. (Parts of the law have been stayed in federal court.) Arizona’s Latinos have long said the Flores murders should have provoked more outrage but did not because the victims were Latinos.
Like the killers of the Clutter family, memorialized in Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood, the Arizona killers didn’t find the bounty they expected. The home invaders walked away from the Flores home empty-handed, except for a few cheap jewels, but they slaughtered the family anyway.
After the jury walked out, the suspected serial killer looked at his lawyer and appeared to say: “This sucks.”
While Forde barked orders, Bush, 36, was the tall triggerman in blackface. Wearing a bulletproof vest beneath his camouflage, Bush killed Raul Flores, gravely injured his wife, Gina Gonzalez, then put a gun up the nose of their 9-year-old daughter, Brisenia, who pleaded for her life. He shot her twice. Her terrified mother survived by playing dead, and called 911 after Bush and Forde left the trailer. When Bush re-entered the mobile home to kill Gonzalez, she shot him with her husband’s gun. Bush sustained a wound in the leg, and later boasted to friends that the bullet he pulled out of his vest was a “souvenir” from his secret mission.
“Gunny” Bush was nabbed a few days after the slaughter at his girlfriend’s house in northern Arizona. The girlfriend later testified that Bush seemed pleased with the outcome of what he described as a covert military foray and was ready to go out on another. In jail, though, Bush lost his military bravado. He confessed to the Flores killings. But later, in a desperate attempt to save himself from the death penalty, he pleaded not guilty to the killings.
Bush’s defense was weak. He had already confessed. Gina Gonzalez survived to be the prosecution’s star eyewitness. Authorities found Bush’s DNA at the crime scene and on the murder weapon. The crime was “indefensible,” said Bush’s attorney Richard Parrish, who opted not to dispute Gunny’s guilt, but to focus instead on trying to save him from death on a gurney.
In Arizona, the same jury that finds a killer guilty must then also decide whether to put the killer to death during the death-penalty phase of the trial. During this phase, prosecutor Rick Unklesbay painted Bush as a cold-blooded “manipulator” who “does what he wants for his own gains” and faked mental illness to get drugs and perks.
Parrish launched what amounted to an insanity defense, portraying his furrow-browed client as a full-blown paranoid schizophrenic with “military delusions.” Bush created fraudulent military certificates, photos, and a fake letter from President George Bush complimenting him on his supposedly covert missions in South America, psychologist Marc Walter testified, to maintain his paranoid delusion that he was a military hero.
Ellen Bower, Bush’s mother, testified that his mental problems surfaced in early childhood—he never grew out of his “terrible twos.” She temporarily severed parental rights when he was 11 so he could get psychological treatment she couldn’t afford. After authorities told Bower her son had been sexually abused by older boys, Bower resumed custody.
Bush cycled in and out of trouble. For instance, after he was “kicked off” a school bus for “misbehaving and pestering” other children, “he got on his motorbike, put a .410 shotgun on his back, and went after the school bus,” Bower said. Her son was always good with younger kids, Bower told the jury, and if he killed Brisenia Flores, then a “monster” she did not know lurked within him.
Bush smiled only once during the trial—at his mother. A psychologist testified Bush has been taking a heavy dose of numbing antipsychotic medication for months—the drugs were prescribed after Bush told jail officials the floor was moving beneath his feet and that barking dogs bothered him.
After the verdict, prosecutors, jurors and defense attorneys refused comment. Gina Gonzalez could not comment because she must testify at the upcoming June trial of the last alleged accomplice in the killings, Arivaca resident Albert Gaxiola. She appeared calm after the verdict, and quickly left the courtroom.
Dressed in a striped shirt, dark pants and second-hand black shoes with pink socks, Bush had pulled his shoulder-length black hair into a ponytail and rocked slightly in his seat as he waited for the verdict. When the jury came in, he rose and blinked when he heard the sentence. After the jury walked out, the suspected serial killer looked down at his lawyer and appeared to say: “This sucks.”
His appeal will be automatically filed.
Terry Greene Sterling is an award-winning Arizona-based journalist and author of ILLEGAL, Life and Death in Arizona's Immigration War Zone. Visit her on Facebook, or her website.
Tucson man convicted of child abuse in death of newborn
By Kim Smith Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Thursday, March 4, 2010 2:17 pm
A Tucson man accused of starving his newborn baby to death was acquitted of first-degree murder Thursday and was convicted of reckless child abuse, a probation-eligible offense.
Scott Sullivan's daughter, Kimberlie, was born on July 14, 2008, weighing 7 pounds, 12 ounces and died Aug. 30, 2008, weighing 5 pounds, 7 ounces.
Her mother, Terri Sullivan, 27, pleaded guilty to child abuse and first-degree murder and is now serving a life sentence with parole possible after 25 years.
The jury found that Sullivan's wife was responsible for the child's death.
Defense attorney Dan Cooper said he told jurors the evidence showed Scott Sullivan, 28, was oblivious to Kimberlie's declining health because he was rarely home and when he was, he was exhausted.
Scott Sullivan was working two jobs much of the summer of 2008 and often had to walk 20 miles roundtrip to work because his vehicle was broken down, Cooper said.
Scott Sullivan counted on his wife to care for the baby and their three other children while he was working, Cooper said.
His client's family testified Scott Sullivan was a shy, reserved man who was married to a bossy, domineering and forceful woman, Cooper said.
Terri Sullivan told a probation officer she was having an affair with an 18-year-old man that summer and smoking marijuana daily, court documents indicate.
On Aug. 30, 2008, Terri Sullivan called 911 saying she found Kimberlie in her swing and she wasn't breathing. When paramedics arrived, they found Scott Sullivan performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation. They took over CPR but declared the emaciated baby dead a short time later.
The couple's three other children now live with Scott Sullivan's parents.
Contact reporter Kim Smith at 573-4241 or kimsmith@azstarnet.com
Investigation into the Death of Alex B.
released March 12, 2001
conducted by Connecticut's Child Fatality Review Panel
Key elements of the report:
Executive Summary
Findings
Recommendations
The full, 17-page investigative report, is available for viewing or download in Microsoft Word format by using the following link: Alex B.
Executive Summary
Alex B. was a three-year-old victim of homicide while in the custody of the Department of Children and Families (DCF). On September 8, 2000, DCF placed Alex in the care of a Florida couple. Less than three weeks later, Alex died and the prospective adoptive father was arrested and charged with first-degree felony murder.
Alex was born on January 25, 1997 and was placed with a foster family in Connecticut shortly after birth. When Alex was seven months old, DCF moved him to Maine to live with a maternal uncle and his partner, who had expressed interest in adopting Alex. Shortly after moving to Maine, Alex was diagnosed with numerous special health and developmental needs.
DCF ultimately decided to remove Alex from his relative’s care after three years and, without appropriate assessment or preparation, placed him with prospective adoptive foster parents in Florida. Within a week of leaving Maine, Alex was dead.
The fatality review investigation revealed that DCF made errors throughout the course of Alex’s life. The most significant mistakes, which led to Alex’s death, include the following:
DCF failed to obtain even basic information about Alex’s prospective adoptive parents before sending him to live with them.
DCF violated the requirements of the Interstate Compact of the Placement of Children that would have protected Alex from harm in order to expedite his placement in Florida.
DCF provided inadequate supervision of the caseworker’s decisions.
DCF failed to ensure that Alex had health insurance or providers in Florida to meet his special needs.
The mishandling of Alex’s case predates the Florida placement and began with his placement in foster care. The investigation found the following:
DCF failed to adequately monitor his care by the foster family in Maine.
DCF failed to provide support or guidance to the foster family despite Alex’s complex needs.
DCF must address these problems in an effort to prevent other tragedies from occurring. Recommendations include the following:
DCF needs to ensure that all employees understand and obey the Interstate Compact requirements.
DCF must clearly communicate to its employees that existing rules for monitoring and visiting the child apply equally to children placed with out-of-state families.
DCF must simplify the voluminous and often irrelevant policies that dictate employees’ daily practice. Employees also need ongoing training so that they understand the policies they are expected to implement.
DCF should develop a management system that allows supervisors to obtain accurate information upon which to evaluate case practice decisions and employee performance. With access to objective, independent information, supervisors will be able to ensure that employees engage in sound case practice and that agency policies are followed.
A single failure connects the many mistakes that led to Alex’s death: DCF failed to recognize and act in the best interests of Alex. DCF treated him as a case to be processed and not a child to be nurtured.
DCF was Alex’s legal parent. The agency was responsible for providing a safe, nurturing home for him. Yet, DCF failed to act like a responsible parent.
No responsible parent would send a three-year-old child 1,500 miles away to live with strangers. No responsible parent would fail to monitor the child’s care by relatives in another state. No responsible parent would ignore the obvious needs of the relative caregivers for guidance and support.
In this case, the failure to focus on Alex’s best interests, combined with poor judgment, resulted in a tragedy. The most urgent issue that must be addressed is the inadequate supervision of caseworker decisions. Supervisors rely almost exclusively on the caseworker for information about the case and the child. This lack of objective information prevents supervisors from effectively monitoring performance and case practice. In addition, DCF policies are voluminous, unclear, and poorly communicated, making practice inconsistent and noncompliance routine.
______________________________
Jeanne Milstein, Child Advocate
Chairperson, Child Fatality Review Panel
Findings
DCF inadequately documented events in Alex’s life.
DCF placed Alex with relatives in Maine when he was seven months old. Soon thereafter he was identified as having emerging special health and developmental needs.
DCF did not maintain regular contact with Alex’s relative foster family nor did they ensure that Maine authorities were providing oversight of Alex’s placement through Interstate Compact.
DCF was concerned about the quality of care that Alex was receiving in his relative foster placement as early as July 1998. Yet he remained in this placement for 2 more years with minimal state oversight.
In the transfer to Florida, DCF failed to follow the policies and procedures established by the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.
DCF failed to adequately assess the suitability of Alex’s prospective Florida adoptive family to parent him and to meet his special needs. Key indicators of potential parenting problems were ignored.
DCF failed to ensure that Alex had the necessary health insurance to meet his special health and developmental service needs in Florida.
DCF failed to adequately supervise Alex’s caseworkers in their case management of a child determined to be "medically fragile" and placed out of state, for whom they were the statutory parent.
Supervisors lack an independent source of information upon which to monitor case practice and evaluate job performance.
DCF workers are overwhelmed with the volume of policy and procedural information disseminated through the internal computer system.
Recommendations
DCF must obey the requirements of the Interstate Compact on the placement of children.
DCF must ensure adequate supervision of employees.
DCF must ensure tht their employees understand and effectively implement DCF policy and procedures.
DCF must improve external and internal communication.
DCF must develop policies and procedures for placement and oversight of children in out-of-state foster care.
DCF must ensure that Connecticut children placed in out-of-state foster care have adequate medical insurance coverage.
Printable Version
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)