The 5th Amendment Essay Example For Students

The 5th Amendment Essay The 5th AmendmentBasically, the 5th Amendment states that no one shall becharged with capital crimes without a Grand Jurys permission, except in cases regarding the military while under service in wartime or public danger. No one can be put on trial again for the same crime. You cant be forced to testify yourself. That no one should be executed, jailed, or have property seized without a legal precedent. Also you cant be put through cruel or unusually punishment. If private property is seized for public use, that the owner must be compensated for their losses fairly. It also forbids deprivation of life, liberty, or property without Due Process of the law. The 5th Amendment is also often cited as the Double JeopardyAmendment. The Constitution does not say that individuals cant be put on trail again for the same offense. The Constitution says that should he defendant be tried again on the same charge or charges, that they cant be executed or imprisoned for life without the possibility o f parole. We will write a custom essay on The 5th Amendment specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now The 5th Amendment is also sometimes called the Take the Fifth Amendment. It states that no defendant can be forced to testify against themselves in a criminal case. When under oath, you are expected to tell the truth, even if that truth was to put you in trouble. Taking the fifth allows you to tell the truth about th case without putting yourself in trouble. The Miranda are issued in 1966. This is also the amendment that protects citizens from manifest destiny. That is the federal government simply taking land or other property of citizens without giving anything back. In fact, the Constitution states that the owner shall be compensated a fair value ofthe item or items taken will be paid to the former owner. This is called Emient Domain. 5th Amendment Supreme Court Cases MIRANDA v. ARIZONA 1966The defendant, while in police custody, was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney. The defendant was not given a full and effective warning of his rights before the the interrogation. In this case Miranda was not ckarged and was sent free because he had no awarence of his rights. Since that day for the the police had to read your rights. CLARENCE EARL GIDEON v. LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections 1963The was charged in a Florida state court with having broken and entered a poolroom with intent to commit a misdemeanor. This offense is a felony under Florida law. Appearing in court without money and without a lawyer, the defendant asked the court to appoint counsel for him. the court denied him. The court said only time the court can appoint counsel to represent a defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense. After defending himself he was found guilty by the ju ry. He was sentenced to five years in state prison. The defendant then filed in the Florida Supreme Court this habeas corpus petitioner attacking his conviction and sentence on the ground that the trial courts refusal to appoint counsel for him denied him rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the United States Government. But the State Supreme court denied him, because its only under federal constitutionaly. Kastigar v. United States 1972This case presents the question whether the United States Government may get testimony from an unwilling witness, who pleeds the Fifth Amendment so they will not self-incrimination, by conferring on the witness stand from use of the compelled testimony in criminal proceedings, as well as from use of evidence derived from the testimony.The witnesses were subpoenaed to appear before a United States grand jury in the Central District of California on February 4, 1971. The Government believed that the witnesses were likely to t ake their Fifth Amendment privilege. Prior to the scheduled appearances, the Government applied to the District Court for an order directing the witnesses to answer questions and produce evidence before the grand jury. The witnesses opposed of the order because they felt the would self-incrimanate. The District Court rejected this, and ordered the witnesses to appear before the grand jury and answer its questions.