Impact Of The Fourth, Fifth, Six And Eigth Amendments To The Development Of Due Process In Criminal Procedure (Essay Sample)

IMPACT OF THE FOURTH, FIFTH, SIX AND EIGTH AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF DUE PROCESS IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
The inclusion of ‘due process’ in the US Constitution serves two purposes: First, it would guarantee persons certain forms or kinds of litigations when their rights are to be infringed and ,secondly, it serves as an attempt to limit governmental power for self-governance (Amalia Kessler, 2005). The due process clause has been interpreted to require not only that, in depriving persons of their rights to life, liberty and property, the government must adhere to all the laws that have been enacted but also that these procedures which are to be followed are fair. Procedural due process simply requires that before a person has their rights to life, liberty or property infringed as a consequence of government action, they must be notified and provided with an opportunity to be heard (Mullane v Cent Hannover Bank & Trust and Co., 339 US 306 and Niki Kuckes, 2006).
With respect to limitation of state power, the rights to notice and a fair hearing under the Due Process serve to limit arbitrary state action by prohibiting the state from acting without first hearing and considering the interests of the person whose rights are at stake (Amalia Kessler, supra). This function has been referred to as the minimalist function of due process limitations.
Due process provisions are very important. In the enforcement of criminal law, damaging actions are taken against people by the government who are to be tried or are on trial as there are very few procedural safeguards. The Due Process safeguards are meant to prevent application of criminal laws on all persons indiscriminately and inhumane treatment of suspected offenders. However, it has been noted that due process protection in criminal trials offers less meaningful rights compared protection accorded to persons in civil disputes (Niki Kuckes, supra).
The main constitutional safeguards which relate to criminal justice enforcement include the fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments to the US Constitution. Each of these four amendments seeks to protect specific rights and liberties of suspected offenders from unnecessary infringement by the law enforcement agencies as well as the state.
* THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution restricts the exercise of power by the executive branches of states and does not bind the federal government. It is vital for the protection of the integrity and privacy of US citizens. It protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures and requires that any of such searches and warrants have to be conducted with a warrant issued upon the proof of probable cause. This Amendment has interpreted to mean that people have a constitution right not to be searched by the state where there is no probable cause. The court in Brinegar v US, 338 U.S. 839, 1949 defined the phrase probable cause to require that a probable cause exists where there is a more than fifty percent chance that the items to be searched or seized are connected to the alleged crime and are located in placed to be searched. Thus a violation of the fourth Amendment cannot be asserted where the court had found that there was probable cause to search or seize an item or thing (Wallace v Kato, 127 S. Ct 1091). It also does not apply to convicted offenders.
The application of the fourth amendment and the due process clauses in criminal procedure has led to the development of the ‘Exclusionary rule’ which deters the admissibility of unconstitutionally obtained evidence in court (Map v Ohio, 367, US 643 1961). This exclusionary rule is informed by the fact that the conviction of a defendant with unconstitutionally obtained evidence amounts to deprivation of liberty without due process of law (Thomas S. Shrock and Robert C. Welsh, 1974). The exclusionary rule has been said to apply, not to all circumstances, but where the police have been deliberately reckless or grossly negligent (Craig M. Bradley, 2010).
The Fourth Amendment was first included in the US Constitution with an intention of protecting the US citizens from arbitrary political power (Bruce P. Smith, 2008). However, over the years, courts have interpreted the Fourth Amendment differently with some scholars expressing discontent with the application of the amendment by recent courts. Prior to 1967, the Fourth Amendment was construed more liberally. For instance, in Gould v United States, 255 US 298 (1921) it was held that the fact that a warrant of arrest has been duly issued did not justify the confiscation of legally owned documents which could prove the commission of a fraud unless they were themselves products of the fraud. However, in 1967, the Supreme Court overturned the Gould Case and allowed exceptions to the amendment. As such, Dripps is of the view that the current Fourth Amendment is the weakest recorded in the US history and impossible to enforce once violated (Donald A. Dripps, 2001).
* THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
The Fifth Amendment requires that prosecutions and trials be conducted in accordance with the due process of law. The Amendment protects offenders against the deprivation of life, property without due process. The phrase ‘due process’ included in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments is taken to be concerned with the procedure followed in the deprivation of the right or privilege. The Fifth Amendment protects against the violation of substantive due process rights. The Amendment does not directly apply to states unlike the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment has been interpreted by scholars to encompass five distinct rights, namely: the right to a grand jury for capital offenses, the right not to be tried or convicted twice for the same offence, a prohibition on self-incrimination, an assurance that all criminal defendants will be accorded a fair trial and the right not to have private property taken for public use without adequate compensation.
1 The Right Not to Incriminate oneself
This right prohibits compulsory giving of evidence which incriminates the one who gives such evidence. This right has been interpreted to protect an offender before and during trial. The offender is allowed not to divulge incriminating evidence in the police station (Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 1966). This right is available to all offenders including minors (In Re Gault, (1966) 387 US 1). The Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to include a further right of an offender to remain silent during pre-trial and trial stages (Garrity v New Jersey, 385 US 493, 1967).
2 Right to a Grand Jury in Capital Offenses
All major offenses in the US are required to be conducted before a grand jury. Grand juries were taken into the American criminal justice system from the early British criminal system. Where the trial was conducted without a grand jury, an offender can challenge it. Further, an offender has the right to challenge the partiality of a member of the grand jury and seek their recusal.
3 The right on prohibition of double jeopardy
The double jeopardy clause protects defendants from successive trials or prosecutions for the same offense. It is intended to save the defendant or offender from unnecessary emotional, mental, financial and physical trouble for having been prosecuted for the same offense severally. This right can be asserted against states and is available to children offenders too. The right not only covers trial procedures but also punishment (Kansas v Hendricks (1997) 521 US 346).
* SIXTH AMENDMENT
The Sixth Amendment assures an offender a trial that is expedient, accurate, non-biased and legitimate. This Amendment guarantees the accused a number of rights which must be provided for during trial otherwise the proceedings will be nullified. These rights engrained in the Sixth Amendment require that the jury, the prosecution and other law enforcement agencies conduct their mandates in time, efficiently and without bias. The privileges protected under the Sixth Amendment include: the right to a speedy trial, the right to an impartial jury formed where the crime was committed, the right to be informed of the crime, its nature and relevant circumstances, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and the right to legal representation.
1 The Right to a Speedy trial
The right to a speedy trial is a very crucial right as it protects offenders from being held for years for unproven criminal allegations. The need for a speedy trial is buttressed by the fact that it is prudent to conduct the trial before crucial witnesses move away from the concerned area or worse, die. This right can be applied against the individual states in the US (Klopfer V North Carolina, (1967) 386 US 213).
The right to a speedy trial has been interpreted restrictively by courts so as to protect an offender for proceedings which have already begun (United States v Marion, (1971) 404 US 307). This right does not guarantee a speedy trial before the trial commences. Courts have had differing opinions as to when the criminal proceedings begin. Some courts have held that criminal proceedings begin when the indictment or information is filed (People v Horning (1977) 19 Cal. 3d 588) while others have held that criminal proceedings commence with the filing of a felony complaint (People v Martinez (2000) 22 Cal. 4TH 750).
2 The Right to an Impartial Jury
This right requires that an offender should be tried by an objective and unbiased jury. This right has been held to apply to all criminal proceedings where the accused faces an imprisonment term of six months or more and for every alleged fact that the accused has not been acquitted or convicted of. However, child offenders are not entitled to enjoy this right (McKeiver v Pennsyl...