According to the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation” (Fourth Amendment, 2013, para. 1). This particular Amendment was introduced, as the mean of protecting American citizens from being subjected to a power-abuse, on the part of the governmental officials/police officers. After all, it clearly specifies that, in order for the representatives of the law enforcement agencies to intervene in the private lives of citizens, they must have a warrant, issued by the court. In its turn, in order for the court to be in a position of issuing such an order, it must have a legally substantiated reason (not merely a suspicion) to do it. This is because, according to the Fourth Amendment, citizens are entitled to the right of a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’, which cannot be violated indiscriminately. The Amendment’s foremost legal effect is concerned with the fact that, in order for persecutors to be able to present evidence against defendants in the court of law, they must prove that this evidence was obtained lawfully.
Because the Fourth Amendment is considered one of the most fundamental principles, upon which the continual functioning of the American jurisprudence system is based, defendants often refer to it, while presenting the judges with their line of a legal defense. One of the best examples, in this respect, can serve the case of Bond v. U.S. (Roosevelt, 2013). This case was concerned with the incident of a police officer deciding to search the bag of one of the passengers that was travelling on the bus (consequently, some illegal drugs were indeed found in the bag), despite the fact that the law enforcement representative in question did not have a search warrant. Even though that the court’s initial ruling fully acquitted the police officer, after this case has been reviewed by the Supreme Court, the defendant’s plea not to allow an illegally obtained evidence to be presented against him, was decided in favor of the latter. The court’s decision, in this respect, was fully observant of the provisions of the exclusionary rule. Apparently, while travelling, people are entitled to the right to expect that their luggage is covered by the ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ principle.
The main legal implication of the Fifth Amendment
The main legal implication of the Fifth Amendment is that specifies that no person can be tried more than once, on the charge of having committed a particular crime, and that defendants cannot be forced to incriminate themselves. According to this particular Amendment, “No shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy… nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” (Fifth Amendment, 2012, para. 1). Thus, the Fifth Amendment establishes two important legal clauses, which are there to guarantee a fair trial to defendants – the double jeopardy clause and the self-incrimination clause. The first of these clauses prevents defendants from being persecuted for the same crime more than one time – regardless of what was the initial trial’s outcome.
For example, after having been acquitted in 1995 of the charge of having murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, O.J. Simpson was nevertheless trialed in the civil court of law. This was because, ever since the Simpson’s initial acquittal, some new evidence has been obtained, as to the defendant’s de facto guilt. Nevertheless, even though that in light of this new evidence, O.J. Simpson could well face a new criminal trial, this never happened. The reason for this was simple – the clause of double jeopardy effectively protected the defendant from facing new criminal trials.
Even though that the legal repercussions of the self-incrimination clause are quite apparent, there is still much controversy, as to how defendants may take a practical advantage of it. This is because, as of today, there is no a universally accepted legal definition, as to what can be considered the inappropriate/appropriate level of pressure, to which defenders may be exposed by persecutors, during the course of the latter striving to obtain confessions. Nevertheless, as the case Kastigar v. United States (1972) indicate, it is still possible to ensure both: the defender’s willingness to collaborate (by the mean of coming up with self-incriminating statements) and his or her right to be covered by the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment (Amar & Lettow, 1995). Most commonly, this is being accomplished by the mean of granting defendants immunity from facing criminal charges, on the account of their self-incriminating statements. In this case, even though the state does compel defendants to talk, often contrary to what happened to be the essence of their defense-strategy, the latter are not being in a position to claim that they have been ‘forced’ to cooperate with persecutors, as this cooperation has been mutually agreed upon. Thus, the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment continues to remain discursively valid even today.
US Constitution’s Sixth Amendment
According to the US Constitution’s Sixth Amendment, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State…. and (the right) to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation to be confronted with the witnesses against him… and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” (The Charters of Freedom, 2013, para. 7). In other words, this particular Amendment establishes a legal ground, out which such constitutional safeguards as the right to counsel, the right to a public trial, the Miranda warning, the right to confront witnesses, and the speedy trial principle derive.
- The first of these safeguards concerns the right of an accused individual to be able to have its interests represented in the court of law by a legal councilor (lawyer). Given the fact that hiring a lawyer may prove unaffordable to many people, the state assures that, in case when the accused person lacks money to be able to pay for a lawyer, he or she will be provided with a legal councilor free of charge.
- The right to a public trial guarantees defendants the possibility to have the concerned court-hearings to remain thoroughly open to the access of a third party. There are, however, certain limitations to this constitutional provision. For example, in cases when defendants face the charge of having revealed state-secrets, they may be denied the right to have their court-hearings being conducted in the socially transparent manner.
- The concept of Miranda warning refers to the obligation, on the part of police officers, to warn the apprehended person about the fact that whatever he or he talks about, prior to having been assigned with a legal councilor, can be used against him or her in the court of law (Schauer, 2013).
- The right to confront witnesses allows the defendant to be physically present at the courtroom, where the interrogation of adverse witnesses takes place. Apparently, it is believed that, while facing the person against whom they are about to testify, witnesses will be much more likely to remain thoroughly truthful, throughout the interrogation’s course.
- The last of these safeguards makes it possible for an accused person to have his or her case reviewed in the court of law within the matter of a fixed amount of time. However, an accused person remains eligible to take advantage of this specific safeguard, only for as long as he or she does not deliberately try to prolong the court’s investigation of the offense in question.
Because, as practice shows, defendants do often take advantage of the earlier outlined safeguards, while adopting a particular defense-strategy, there can be only a few doubts that the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment does in fact serve the purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of those citizens that happened to be accused of having committed a crime.
I believe that the earlier provided line of argumentation, as to what accounts of the legal implications of the discussed Constitutional Amendments, is fully consistent with the paper’s initial thesis.
References
Amar, R. & Lettow, R. (1995). Fifth Amendment first principles: The self- incrimination clause. Michigan Law Review, 93 (5), 857-892.
Fifth Ammendment. (2012).
Fourth Ammendment. (2013).
Roosevelt, K. (2013). Valid rule due process challenges: Bond v. United States and Erie’s constitutional source. William & Mary Law Review, 54 (3), 987-1022.
Schauer, F. (2013). The Miranda Warning. Washington Law Review, 88 (1), 155-170.
The Chapters of Freedom. (2013). Web.