In the United States criminal justice system, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. With this concept in mind, the accused are given many rights to a fair trial. One of those rights falls under the sixth amendment in the United States Constitution. The confrontation clause reads, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” West’s Encyclopedia of American Law defines the confrontation clause as, “A fundamental right of a defendant in a criminal action to come face-to-face with an adverse witness in the court’s presence so the defendant has a fair chance to object the testimony of the witness, and the opportunity to cross-examine him or her” (Lehman & Shirelle, 2005, p. 85) The confrontation clause is essential to due process and pertains to the federal and state court. In some circumstances the accused is not being given the right to confront witness testimony face-to-face because the justice system grants exceptions to this constitutional right. The right to confront one’s accuser originates from English Common law and dates back to before the American Revolution (Lehman & Shirelle, 2005, p. 86). Four centuries ago, in 1603, Sir Walter Raleigh was accused of treason. There was no witness and the only proof was a written statement (Richey, 2003, p. 2). The prosecutor and judge denied Raleigh a chance to confront his accuser in court. Consequently, Raleigh was found guilty and sentenced to death. It is said by many that Sir Walter Raleigh’s infamous trial is most likely the catalyst for the Confrontation Clause (King, 2010, p. 31) The Salem Witch Trials in Massachusetts also initiated the need for the accused to confront their accus... ... middle of paper ... ...oted and Transformed. Cato Supreme Court Review , 439-468. King, C. C. (2010, August). Confronting Science Melendez-Diaz and the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin , pp. 24-32. Lehman, J., & Shirelle, P. (2005). Confrontation. West's Encyclopedia of American Law , 85-87. McKinstry, R. (2007). "An Exercise in Fiction": The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, Forfeiture by Wrongdoing, and Domestic Violence in Davis v. Washington. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender , 531-542. Parise, A. S. (1991). Maryland v. Craig: Ignoring the Letter and Purpose of the Confrontation Clause. Brigham Young University Law Review , 1093-2007. Richey, W. (2003). Can a Defendant Be Denied the Right To Confront Witnesses? Christian Science Monitor , 2. Supreme Court: Right to Confront Witnesses Strengthened. (2004, March 11). World News Digest .
The Supreme Court ruled that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination Clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect has been made aware to his rights and the suspect had then waived them
Elsen, Sheldon, and Arthur Rosett. “Protections for the Suspect under Miranda v. Arizona.” Columbia Law Review 67.4 (1967): 645-670. Web. 10 January 2014.
In summation, is can be identified in this paper that eye witnesses do not play a constructive role within the criminal justice system. This can be seen through a thorough discussion of the many issues portrayed through this paper. To conclude Schmechel et al. (2006) reiterates that statements this paper has presented and discussed;
3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
The act of interrogation has been around for thousands of years. From the Punic Wars to the war in Iraq, interrogating criminals, prisoners or military officers in order to receive advantageous information has been regularly used. These interrogation techniques can range from physical pain to emotional distress. Hitting an individual with a whip while they hang from a ceiling or excessively questioning them may seem like an ideal way to get them to reveal something, but in reality it is ineffective and . This is because even the most enduring individual can be made to admit anything under excruciating circumstances. In the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights there is a provision (“no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” ) which reflects a time-honored common principle that no person is bound to betray him or herself or can be forced to give incriminating evidence. This ideology of self-incrimination has been challenged heavily over the past s...
The issue addressed by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wade (1967), and a companion case Gilbert v. California (1967), was whether or not the defendants’ rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments were violated when Wade was presented in a lineup without his counsel present. Wade had already been indicted for robbery when he was presented to witnesses in the same fashion as the robber appeared at the bank, with strips f tape on his face. In the case of Wade, the court held that his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was not violated by his mere presence or repeating words uttered by the suspect of the crime he was accused. However, since the lineup was conducted post indictment, and he had no counsel present during the lineup, that was considered a violation of his right to counsel and jeopardized his possible ability to receive a fair trial.
At trial, the pathologist that performed the autopsy and the creator of histological slides did not testify. But Dr. Dyer gave testimony, after having seen the report. The question before the court is whether the Confrontation Clause was violated by the testimony of Dr. Dyer, the pathologist who did not conduct the autopsy or create the histologic slides? Furthermore, if the Confrontation Clause was violated is it harmful to the Defendant?
When deciding Michigan v. Bryant, Justice Sotomayor focuses on these two precedents the most, Crawford v. Washington, and Davis v. Washington. She starts the court’s opinion by stating the meaning of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Justice Sotomayor cites, “In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him” (Michigan v. Bryant). Then, she explains that the Fourteenth Amendment allows the Confrontation Clause to apply to the states. She goes on and talks about Ohio v. Roberts, and how this case reflects on the admissibility of statements when the witness is not available and their reliability:
Byrd, S. (2005). On getting the reasonable person out of the courtroom. Journal of Criminal Law. 571-571. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/osjcl2&div=41&id=&page=
A V Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th ed 1964) 40.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Smith, C. E. (2004). Public defenders. In T. Hall, U.S. Legal System (pp. 567-572-). [Ebscohost]. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook
...’ testimony at trial. This rule has played a big role in the American system like in the case of Mapp V. Ohio. Ohio police officers had gone to a home of a women to ask her question about a recent bombing and requested to search her house. When she denied them access, they arrested her and searched her house which led them to find allegedly obscene books, pictures, and photographs.
Everyone agrees that police should not use unconstitutional methods to coerce a suspect into giving out a confession, yet police have used unauthorized force throughout American history. Fortunately, the Supreme Court created a legal safeguard against police abuses. The safeguards were created in the 1960s after taking a case titled Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda v. Arizona is unarguably one of the most important actions the Supreme Court has taken to prevent police abuses. Many jurisdictions have interpreted Miranda v. Arizona differently and because of the lack of uniformity, Miranda v. Arizona remains a controversial ruling today. This paper will examine the facts of the case, its significant to the legal system.