Cooperation An employee’s duty to cooperate stems from the existence of an employer/employee relationship. However, the scope of the employee’s duty is better defined by either the state’s statutes or by the relationship between the employer and the employee. The duty to cooperate also exists during workplace investigations, so employees are required to cooperate as long as the requests made by the investigators are reasonable. Determining the reasonableness of a request, however, depends on the particular facts of the case as well as the employee’s duties upon hiring. For example, Accounts Receivable (A/R) is being overstated, so the investigator requests the A/R manager to review source documents and payments to ensure the account’s …show more content…
Fraud Manual 2017). As long as the questions focus on an employee’s position or actions, the employee has a duty to cooperate with investigators. For example, an investigator interviews an A/R clerk regarding some invoices being posted in the ledger twice. Since the question relates to the A/R clerk’s scope of duties, he or she has a duty to cooperate with investigators. However, if the investigator follows up with a question regarding cash deposits; the question is unreasonable and there is no duty to cooperate. In cases of an impending litigation, the organization and its employees have a duty to preserve all necessary records to be turned over to the investigators. If the organization or employee fails to preserve necessary records, they are guilty of spoliation claims and other severe consequences (2017 U.S. Fraud Manual …show more content…
After management testified against Richard Scrushy, he invoked his Fifth Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination during his civil hearing. Therefore, he has a duty to cooperate at his criminal hearing. If Scrushy had given a voluntary testimony instead, he would not be protected from self-incrimination. The voluntary testimony creates a duty to cooperate as he can be cross-examined by the prosecution. The Sixth Amendment enables employee access to legal representation. For example, an A/R clerk is being interviewed for her involvement in a fraud case. She invokes her Sixth Amendment rights to have her lawyer present during questioning. If the investigator complies, she has a duty to cooperate unless she is told to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights. If the investigator refuses, there is no duty to cooperate due to the violation of the clerk’s Sixth Amendment Rights (Hill, Jr. & Wright 1991) (Gordon 2003) (2017 U.S. Fraud Manual
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
. Motion: Detective Willis’ questioning after Captain Wilson’s request for an attorney did not violate Captain Wilson’s Fifth Amendment rights. Along with Captain Wilson’s statement to the undercover police detective is admissible as evidence under the Fifth Amendment.
This is derived from the rights Americans have to not be forced to testify against themselves in a criminal case. But, the Fifth Amendment also protects against double jeopardy and gives people charged with a felony the right to a grand jury indictment (Bohm & Haley, 2011). Double jeopardy basically states that if a conviction or acquittal was reached in a criminal case, the person can no longer be tried again for the same offense (Bohm & Haley, 2011). The procedural rights for self-incrimination are also applied to any custodial situations the police conduct. To ensure that statements, or confessions a suspect makes are allowed in court there is a two-prong tests that should be followed. First, is the person considered to be in a custodial situation and two, are the police intending to ask incriminating questions. If yes is the answers to both then the suspect must be read his or her rights. This is known as giving someone his or her Miranda rights derived from the famous case
Two months after the nation’s highest court agreed to hear arguments in the case of Miranda vs. Arizona, John Flynn and John Frank submitted their outline of the case and legal arguments in support of their position. They continued their argument that Ernest Miranda’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated by the Phoenix Police Department: “The day is here to recognize the full meaning of the Sixth Amendment,” they wrote. “We invoke the basic principles (that) ‘he requires the guiding...
The fifth amendment tells us “you have the right to remain silent” that basically came from the case of Miranda vs Arizona. In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with kidnapping, rape and armed robbery. This case was known to be the first tried to jury in Arizona. The main point of this case of Miranda vs Arizona is about neglecting the fifth amendment right to the convict, which gives the right to remain silent and acquire an attorney to protect his rights. It reflects the importance of civilian’s rights. Sometimes police and prosecutors intimidate and force the defendant to confess a guilty of crime to their convince and to increase their popularity of the efficiency of police department. But the law says no person is guilty of a crime until proven otherwise. This case gives us a clear picture of American judicial system. If the defendants are deprived of their rights they can fall to the conviction of a crime very easily the crime which they did not commit.
In this paper I’m going to discuss what is the 6th amendment right, the elements of ineffective counsel, how judges deem a person as ineffective counsel from an effective counsel, cases where defendants believed their counsel was ineffective and judges ruled them effective. I will also start by defining what is the 6th amendment right and stating the elements of an ineffective counsel. The 6th amendment is the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury if the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause if the accusation; to be confronted with the witness against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense (U.S. Constitution). There were two elements to ineffective assistance of counsel: a defendant must prove that his or her trial attorney/ lawyer performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors the results of the proceeding would have been different (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 1984).
The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth-Amendment to many American citizens and law makers is considered abstract. The complexity of this concept can easily be traced back to its beginning in which it lacked an easily identifiable principle. Since its commencement in 1789 the United States Judicial system has had a hard time interpreting and translating this vague amendment. In many cases the courts have gone out of their way to protect the freedoms of the accused. The use of three major Supreme Court disputes will show the lengths these Justices have gone through, in order to preserve the rights and civil liberties of three criminals, who were accused of heinous crimes and in some cases were supposed to face up to a lifetime in federal prison.
“The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that ‘no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.’ U.S. Const. amend. V. The related provision in the Tennessee Constitution states that ‘in all criminal prosecutions, the accused . . . shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.’ Tenn. Const. art. I, § 9.” State v. Blackstock, 19 S.W.3d 200, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 168 (Tenn. 2000). The Supreme court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that before a subject can be questioned by the police they must be warned that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them, that they have a right to an attorney, and that if they cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to them before interrogation
You not only have the right to consult with a lawyer before any questioning, but if you lack the financial ability to retain a lawyer, a lawyer will be appointed to represent you before any questioning, and to be present with you during any questioning.” The court established new guidelines to ensure that the individual is accorded to his privilege under the Fifth Amendment not to be compelled to incriminate himself. Before the case, it was unclear what rights criminal suspects had when taken down to the police station, so the police did little to clarify the situation, which means they acted as if they had no rights and the police questioned suspects as if they were entitled to an answer. John Flynn argued the cause for Miranda, while Gary K. Nelson argued the cause for Arizona. Those in favor of Miranda were Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas while those in favor of Arizona were Clark, Harlan, Stewart, and White.
The Sixth Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. It guarantees rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts and it was ruled that these rights are fundamental and important. The Sixth Amendment gives the accused the right to speedy and public trial by the impartial jury. The accused has the right to be informed of the nature and reason of accusation and also be confronted with the witness against him as well as obtaining witness in his favor. In this research paper I will provide a thorough analysis of these above rights and give some history of the 6th Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"(Cornell). The clauses within the Fifth Amendment outline constitutional limits on police procedure. Within them there is protection against self-incrimination, it protects defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may plead the fifth and not answer to any questioning if they believe it can hurt them (Cornell). The Bill of Rights, which consists of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, enumerates certain basic personal liberties. Laws passed by elected officials that infringe on these liberties are invalidated by the judiciary as unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment was ratified in 1791; the Framers of the Fifth Amendment intended that its revisions would apply only to the actions of the federal government. After the Fourteenth was ratified, most of the Fifth Amendment's protections were made applicable to the states. Under the Incorporation Doctrine, most of the liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights were made applicable to state governments through the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (Burton, 2007).
should be open and honest about any information that is given. When false information is given
In 1966, Ernesto Miranda was taken into custody for robbery, kidnapping, and rape. After two hours of questioning, Miranda confessed to his crimes. Being uneducated in the matter, Miranda did not know that the Fifth Amendment gives everyone the right to remain silent and not talk about anything that might convict him, or her. Miranda also didn't understand the Sixth Amendment, which provides everyone the right to have an attorney when the police are asking questions about a crime. The United States Supreme Court found that, in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), because the police had not told Miranda about these constitutional rights, the confession to the crimes could not be used as evidence against Miranda at trial. To avoid an unfortunate rerun of these events, police officers now tell the person in question their ‘Miranda Rights’ before he, or she, is taken into
Accounting ethics has been difficult to control as accountants and auditors must keep in mind the interest of the public while that they remain employed by the company they are auditing. The accountants should take into account how to best apply accounting standards when company faces issues related financial loss. The role of accountant is crucial to society. They serve as financial reporters to owe their primary constraint to public interest. The information provided is critical in aiding managers, investors and others in making crucial economic decisions. An accountant is responsible for any fraudulent financial reporting. Some examples of fraudulent reporting are:
...eputation of honesty, quality, and integrity. It is also each employee’s responsibility to report to the company any situation where the standards or the laws are being violated.