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
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
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.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
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...
A V Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th ed 1964) 40.
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=
v. Wade, 1967 pp. 239). The Court dismissed that having the accused in a lineup, speak and wear clothing does not violate self-incrimination since he did not provide any testimonial evidence, which the Amendment protects against. The Court further ruled that a lineup is a critical stage since there is the risk that the absence of counsel might impair the accused ability to receive a fair trial (U.S. v. Wade, 1967). Having counsel present also allows for the possibility for cross examination of the witness at trial, and also keeps the accused of standing alone against the State and ensuring the possibility of an unfair line up does not take place, e.g. all members of the lineup are blonde and the accused is brunette, or in the case of Stovall where the suspect was handcuffed to two police officers and brought before the witness – suggestiveness and influence issues (Stovall v. Denno
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
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:
This paper will examine the facts of the case, its significance to the legal system. MIRANDA V. ARIZONA The landmark decisions elicited out of a case involving a man named Ernesto a. According to authors of LANDMARK DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT TWO, Maureen Harrison and Steve Gilbert, Ernesto Miranda “was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping rape” (p. 94).
...’ 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.