1. Explain in detail the Exclusionary Rule.
The Exclusionary Rule is the rule that is generated by the law under the constitutional rights. It does not allow the use of any of the non-legal obtained proof in the trials for criminal under the fourth amendment. It will usually apply for the elimination of the physical evident. The best example of exclusionary rule is stolen property, murder, or weapons that allows the police to catch a break in a case under the rights of the fourth amendment. The exclusionary rule could be under the Fifth Amendment, when no person can be forced to be an eyewitness against themselves in a criminal case. The rule refers to a legal formality since it allows the suspect some security whether or not that the crime was actually committed.
Briefly summarize the holding in Mapp v. Ohio.
Mapp vs. Ohio of 1961 was a landmark case that revolutionized criminal procedures. In this case, the police officer had no legal permission to enter into Mapp’s home so it fail under the exclusionary rule. The rule makes it clear that if the police disobeys a person’s constitutional right to show the proof that they have, then the proof that they have, the police cannot use the proof that they have against you. Mapp demanded in her conviction to the police that they need to justify the proof against her should not be allowed in the court. This is because the information was not gathered legally (Mapp, 1961).
There are some facts and patterns that can illustrate how the exclusionary rule is applied by the court. The first fact is that the exclusionary rule does not follow the evidence from the police when it is presented in the court. The second fact is that any evidence that is gathered by searching illegally will not be included in the evidence. The third fact is that it does not apply to the private rights of the third party. The fourth fact is that the exclusionary rule is a part of the Fourth Amendment so the evidence will need to be verified. In other words, if the jury feels like the evidence is not valid, then the evidence will be dismissed from the case. The fifth fact is that the Fifth Amendment also uses the exclusionary rule by allowing the bill of rights to compel to the self-incrimination. The sixth fact is that Sixth Amendment is also included in the exclusionary rule because it guarantees the defendant the right to have council.
2. Explain in detail the Right against Self-Incrimination Self-incrimination is when a person involves themselves in a crime. It might occur as a result of claiming or if a person is might to make free. In the legal system, the criminals that are blamed will not be forced to attack themselves if they speak to the police. In other words, they will not be punished for talking to the police. The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment can save a person from being forced to accuse themselves in a crime. The Fifth Amendment will only be applicable to a person’s testimony instead of more physical evidence like DNA or fingerprints.
Briefly summarize the holding in Miranda v. Arizona.
Miranda vs. Arizona was a landmark decision made by the United States Supreme Court in 1966. It had an expressive force on the law administration in the United States known as the Miranda Rights. The Miranda Rights is a part of the police procedures to make sure that the suspect is informed of all of their rights when they are arrested. It was named after Ernesto Miranda who was arrested after being charged with the kidnapping and rape of the eighteen year girl. When the police officer investigated the case, he got a confession letter for the rape charges. In the court, the police officer used as the letter as evidence but his lawyer refused it saying that it was not correctly obtained. Despite this, the court refused the appeal and Mr. Miranda was sent to prison for 20 to 30 years. His lawyer filed a care to the court of Arizona to show that the confession was not right (Miranda, 1966).
Pattern of Miranda warnings
There are several patterns that illustrates how and when the law enforcement agents can give out the Miranda warnings. The first pattern is that in any murder case, the accident case or robbery case the Miranda rights will need to be given. The second pattern is the Miranda rights need to be given in a traditional arrest and constraint. The third pattern is when the criminal is place into a unfamiliar environment. The fourth pattern is there was a brief investigation done by the police. The fifth pattern is if the individual was called on the telephone by the police. 3. Members of the Trial
The jury is only going to need 5 members to be a part of the trial. The size of the jury for the trial will depend on the sampling of the public that is provided for the case.Explain the history of the Court's interpretation of jury size
The Supreme Court of the United States stated that in order for a trial to be sufficient, there should only be six members of the jury. The high court of Australia will reject a jury of 12 members for the train under the section 90 of their constitution. In Scotland, there will be 15 members of the jury for a criminal trial. Then the University of Glasgow requires that there will be 7 members in order for the trial to be sufficient.
The jury will need to have 12 members for a criminal case because more or less would not be constitutional. Even though, the 6th Amendment does not say anything about the size of the jury, the 12 person juries have always been used in America. In the Williams vs. Florida case of 1970, the court reevaluated the size of the jury that only six members in the jury would be sufficient (Williams, 1970). Then in the two cases of Apodaca vs. Oregon and Johnson vs. Louisiana, the constitutional of the state law got less votes (Apodaca, 1972). Oregon got 10 to 2 votes and then Louisiana got 9 to 3 votes. The court voted 5 to 4 that supported that the state law was required by the Sixth Amendment. The same decision was used in the 1970’s case when it came to the right of a solid jury when the bill of rights was adopted (Johnson, 1972).
Explain the Supreme Court's interpretation of jury size in their 1979 case
The Supreme Court took one final look at the size of the jury in 1979. In the Burch vs. Louisiana found that Louisiana would allow the criminal investigation case by the 5 to 1 votes. Therefore, the six trial juries by the Sixth Amendment would include the Fourteenth Amendment of the prisoner to a trial by the jury. If the jury was too small, then the verdict would not be as consistent (Burch, 1979).
4. Test for determining when prison conditions
Under the Eighth Amendment, there is a test for determining when the prison conditions will constitute the cruel and unusual punishments. This amendment is one of the most important amendments for the rights of the prisoners. It talks about the rights for prisoners to have medical care while they are in prison. The prison guards will often create violence in prison to generate the cruel and unusual punishments. In the case Hudson vs. McMillan, the court found that when the prison guards were abusing the Eighth Amendment by beating the prisoners. The court decided that it was not right for the prison guards to beat the prisoners based on the Eighth Amendment.
The deliberate indifference is appropriate. The deliberate indifference standards means the current standard for a building to collect any type of civil rights claims inside of the jail. First, it is only going to be applied to the medical department. But now the courts will apply the standards in other areas like an in-custody suicide and protection failure. This allowed the court to decide if the conditions of the confinement cases are bought under the disregard of the Eighth Amendment. Any claims of a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment will be by pretrial detainees.
Size of cell
When the state commission was looking at the regulations of a new prison, it requires that the living space for a prisoner must be four-by-six foot cell for an individual and fifty square feet for multiple inmates. Inside of the cell, the prisoners will need to be provided with a bed, toilet, and a shower but the prisoners cannot expect too much more than that. Because of this, the state commission loses the effectiveness of the oversight mechanism when it comes to the prisoners. They claim in the court for the inadequate prison conditions like overcrowding, constitutional rights to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, and violating the prisoners.
Chain Smoker It is very unconstitutional to double the cells of the inmates with a chain smoker. The Supreme Court ruled that even if a murder had a problem with the chain smoker in the same cell, it would be hazardous to their health. It is a violation of the Eighth Amendment for the cruel and unusual punishment of the prisoners.
Temperature of Cell
It would be unconstitutional to keep the temperature of the cells at 55 degrees. This would be considered punishment because all of the prisoners have to wear inside of the prison is a jumpsuit. The prisoners bedding is only a half inch thick pad so it is not going to be possible for the prisoners to keep warm under these conditions.
Mapp v Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Williams v Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970).
Apodaca v Oregon, 404 U.S. 404 (1972).
Johnson v Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 (1972).
Burch v Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130(1979).