Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

In the upcoming general election, voters will have many important decisions to make, one of which might make it easier to prosecute sex offenders.

The action, Missouri Evidence in Sexual Crimes Against Minors or Amendment 2, would allow prosecutors who are trying a case against an alleged child sex offender to use relevant past criminal activity as evidence against the defendants.

This means that if an alleged sex offender had been accused, but not found guilty, of a past crime, a prosecutor could still introduce the record of that accusation to the court as evidence against the defendant under Amendment 2.

The amendment has been seen as controversial, as it might make it easier to reach a guilty verdict in those types of cases.

Due to some Supreme Court decisions, prosecuting attorneys were unable to try many cases of child sexual abuse in our state, Rep. John McCaherty, R-Mo., said. As a member of the Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee, I see the amendment as a positive step to give prosecutors the tools they need to protect our children, and to see those that prey on them prosecuted. There has been no opposition to this legislation, and I was proud to sponsor it.

McCaherty is the primary sponsor of the amendment, which recently received approval from the Missouri House of Representatives to be placed on the ballot in November.

McCaherty said he felt the bill would address an important gap in Missouris justice system, giving prosecutors a powerful tool to imprison sex offenders.

He said there should be no violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which forbids double jeopardy, secures the right to a grand jury and protects against self-incrimination, or the Sixth Amendment, which includes the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the rights to a lawyer and an impartial jury and the right to know who your accusers are.

Of course there have to be safeguards in place as well, so a defendant can receive a fair trial, McCaherty said. Not all evidence is relevant to every trial. This is the responsibility of the judge to determine the relevance in each case.

The amendment has gained local attention and a Protect Missouri Children Committee formed to support the measure. The group believes that the amendment will protect children and aid in putting dangerous criminals behind bars.

Go here to see the original:
New bill a powerful tool to imprison sex offenders

Fifth Amendment,amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that articulates procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of the criminally accused and to secure life, liberty, and property. For the text of the Fifth Amendment, see below.

Similar to the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment is divided into five clauses, representing five distinct, yet related, rights. The first clause specifies that [n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger. This grand jury provision requires a body to make a formal presentment or indictment of a person accused of committing a crime against the laws of the federal government. The proceeding is not a trial but rather an ex parte hearing (i.e., one in which only one party, the prosecution, presents evidence) to determine if the government has enough evidence to carry a case to trial. If the grand jury finds sufficient evidence that an offense was committed, it issues an indictment, which then permits a trial. The portion of the clause pertaining to exceptions in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia is a corollary to Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the power [t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces. Combined, they justify the use of military courts for the armed forces, thus denying military personnel the same procedural rights afforded civilians.

The second section is commonly referred to as the double jeopardy clause, and it protects citizens against a second prosecution after an acquittal or a conviction, as well as against multiple punishments for the same offense. Caveats to this provision include permissions to try persons for civil and criminal aspects of an offense, conspiring to commit as well as to commit an offense, and separate trials for acts that violate laws of both the federal and state governments, although federal laws generally suppress prosecution by the national government if a person is convicted of the same crime in a state proceeding.

The third section is commonly referred to as the self-incrimination clause, and it protects persons accused of committing a crime from being forced to testify against themselves. In the U.S. judicial system a person is presumed innocent, and it is the responsibility of the state (or national government) to prove guilt. Like other pieces of evidence, once presented, words can be used powerfully against a person; however, words can be manipulated in a way that many other objects cannot. Consequently, information gained from sobriety tests, police lineups, voice samples, and the like is constitutionally permissible while evidence gained from compelled testimony is not. As such, persons accused of committing crimes are protected against themselves or, more accurately, how their words may be used against them. The clause, therefore, protects a key aspect of the system as well as the rights of the criminally accused.

The fourth section is commonly referred to as the due process clause. It protects life, liberty, and property from impairment by the federal government. (The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, protects the same rights from infringement by the states.) Chiefly concerned with fairness and justice, the due process clause seeks to preserve and protect fundamental rights and ensure that any deprivation of life, liberty, or property occurs in accordance with procedural safeguards. As such, there are both substantive and procedural considerations associated with the due process clause, and this has influenced the development of two separate tracks of due process jurisprudence: procedural and substantive. Procedural due process pertains to the rules, elements, or methods of enforcementthat is, its procedural aspects. Consider the elements of a fair trial and related Sixth Amendment protections. As long as all relevant rights of the accused are adequately protectedas long as the rules of the game, so to speak, are followedthen the government may, in fact, deprive a person of his life, liberty, or property. But what if the rules are not fair? What if the law itselfregardless of how it is enforcedseemingly deprives rights? This raises the controversial spectre of substantive due process rights. It is not inconceivable that the content of the law, regardless of how it is enforced, is itself repugnant to the Constitution because it violates fundamental rights. Over time, the Supreme Court has had an on-again, off-again relationship with liberty-based due process challenges, but it has generally abided by the principle that certain rights are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty (Palko v. Connecticut [1937]), and as such they are afforded constitutional protection. This, in turn, has led to the expansion of the meaning of the term liberty. What arguably began as freedom from restraint has transformed into a virtual cornucopia of rights reasonably related to enumerated rights, without which neither liberty nor justice would exist. For example, the right to an abortion, established in Roe v. Wade (1973), grew from privacy rights, which emerged from the penumbras of the constitution.

Read the original here:
Fifth Amendment (United States Constitution ...

NORTH FORT MYERS, FL - UPDATE: Sam Sweeney was in court this morning where he says Tyrese Landrum invoked his fifth Amendment right and did not talk to anyone. He will be held in juvenile detention for 21 days. His next court date is scheduled September 18 at 9 a.m.

We looked for reaction after Lee County Sheriff's Office released information about a 15-year-old arrested and charged with his mother's murder Sunday.

Tyrese Landrum is now in the county's juvenile detention center, accused of killing his mother, 42-year-old Tamara Davis.

"Tammy was a nice person," a shocked Violet Pressley continued.

She said there was never any sign of tension between the two.

"You'd see him ride a bicycle or walk down the street, sometimes with her, you know, just normal mom and kid stuff,"said Pressley.

"He'd be drinking his iced tea, she'd be drinking some soda and Gatorade. So quiet and so peaceful," said neighbor named Lionel.

Neighbors told us Davis also lived at the home with her boyfriend. She was first reported missing one week ago but just days after she was last seen they noticed a strong smell coming from somewhere near the Capital Street home.

"Oh it was horrible, my daughter lives almost to the corner there, and she was going to take my daughter to school... and my granddaughter walked out and said 'oh my god mom... something died," said Pressley.

"All my neighbors would keep passing back and forth to tell everybody, that's got to be a body in there," said Lionel.

View post:
Teen charged with killing his mother appears in court

Wildstein takes the 5th
David Wildstein invokes his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions before a state Assembly committee investigating the lanes closures at the GWB.

By: NorthJersey

Read more from the original source:
Wildstein takes the 5th - Video

Fifth Amendment: Protection against abuse of government authorityWhat is the Fifth Amendment?No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensationThe Fifth Amendment Defined:The Fifth Amendment stems from English Common Law and traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215.The Fifth Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.Stipulations of the 5th Amendment:The Fifth Amendment is asserted in any proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative, judicial, investigatory, or adjudicatory. The Fifth Amendment protects against all disclosures where the witness reasonably believes the evidence can be used in a criminal prosecution and can lead to the spawning of other evidence that might be used against the individual.The Fifth Amendment guarantees an American individual the right to trial by Grand Jury for specific crimes, the right not to be tried and subsequently punished more than once for the same crime, the right to be tried with only due process of the law and the right to be awarded fair compensation for any property seized by the government for public use.The Fifth Amendment also guarantees the individual the right to refrain from self-incrimination by pleading the fifth to any questions or inquiries that may give way to an additional punishment or the notion of a guilty plea.State Timeline for Ratification of the Bill of RightsNew Jersey:November 20, 1789; rejected article IIMaryland:December 19, 1789; approved allNorth Carolina:December 22, 1789; approved allSouth Carolina: January 19, 1790; approved allNew Hampshire: January 25, 1790; rejected article IIDelaware: January 28, 1790; rejected article INew York: February 27, 1790; rejected article IIPennsylvania: March 10, 1790; rejected article IIRhode Island: June 7, 1790; rejected article IIVermont: November 3, 1791; approved allVirginia: December 15, 1791; approved all

Fifth Amendment: Protection against abuse of government authorityWhat is the Fifth Amendment? No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

The Fifth Amendment Defined:

The Fifth Amendment stems from English Common Law and traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215.

The Fifth Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.

The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.Stipulations of the 5th Amendment: The Fifth Amendment is asserted in any proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative, judicial, investigatory, or adjudicatory. The Fifth Amendment protects against all disclosures where the witness reasonably believes the evidence can be used in a criminal prosecution and can lead to the spawning of other evidence that might be used against the individual.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees an American individual the right to trial by Grand Jury for specific crimes, the right not to be tried and subsequently punished more than once for the same crime, the right to be tried with only due process of the law and the right to be awarded fair compensation for any property seized by the government for public use.

The Fifth Amendment also guarantees the individual the right to refrain from self-incrimination by pleading the fifth to any questions or inquiries that may give way to an additional punishment or the notion of a guilty plea.State Timeline for Ratification of the Bill of Rights New Jersey:November 20, 1789; rejected article II

Maryland:December 19, 1789; approved all

North Carolina:December 22, 1789; approved all

Read the original here:
5th Amendment - Laws.com

From News Tribune staff and AP wire reports

Thursday, August 28, 2014

A Missouri ballot measure that would allow allegations of past actions to be used against people facing child sexual abuse charges could lead to more wrongful convictions of the falsely accused, a prominent defense attorney said Wednesday.

The proposed constitutional amendment is backed by prosecutors, sheriffs and police chiefs groups.

It would allow past criminal acts even alleged crimes that didnt result in convictions to be used to corroborate victim testimony or demonstrate a defendants propensity to commit such crimes when people face sex-related charges involving victims younger than 18. However, the evidences admissibility is at the judges discretion, meaning if the judge doesnt think it is relevant to the matter being tried then it can not be used.

Currently the previous acts of defendants cannot be presented as evidence to a jury unless they waive their Fifth Amendment rights and testify. The past allegations can also be taken into consideration by judges during sentencing hearings after the defendant has been found guilty.

If approved by Missouri voters in November, Constitutional Amendment 2 could make it more difficult for defendants to persuade juries and judges of their innocence, said Kim Benjamin, a Belton attorney who is the past president of the Missouri Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Youre now defending your entire life, your entire reputation, rather than this one act, she said. It causes a tremendous risk for more people to be wrongly convicted.

One of Benjamins most prominent clients was Burrell Mohler Sr., the patriarch of a western Missouri family who was accused along with his four sons of sexually abusing young relatives over many years. The charges ultimately were dropped in March 2012, after Mohler had spent more than two years in jail while awaiting trial.

The proposal, which was referred to the ballot by the Legislature in 2013, is a backlash against a December 2007 Missouri Supreme Court decision of State v. Ellison that struck down a state law allowing evidence of past sexual crimes to be used against people facing new sex-related charges involving victims younger than 14. Before Ellison, the Legislature had twice tried to establish legislation that would make the states statues regarding these issues mimic federal law, but both attempts were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Excerpt from:
Sexual abuse measure could lead to wrongful convictions, attorneys say

OK, just to be clear: Two Spokane County planning officials pleaded the Fifth Amendment you know, the one where you cant be compelled to give criminal evidence against yourself when asked in a public hearing if they had falsified planning documents to boost a new gas station over a legalhurdle.

But they didnt, were told, do anythingwrong.

Spokane Countys unofficial policy of approving developments and then hustling to get them grandfathered in before theyre undone took a turn this week that even the most conspiratorial-minded of critics might not have foreseen. A landowner

You have viewed 20 free articles or blogs allowed within a 30-day period. FREE registration is now required for uninterrupted access.

S-R Media, The Spokesman-Review and Spokesman.com are happy to assist you. Contact Customer Service by email or call 800-338-8801

OK, just to be clear: Two Spokane County planning officials pleaded the Fifth Amendment you know, the one where you cant be compelled to give criminal evidence against yourself when asked in a public hearing if they had falsified planning documents to boost a new gas station over a legalhurdle.

But they didnt, were told, do anythingwrong.

Spokane Countys unofficial policy of approving developments and then hustling to get them grandfathered in before theyre undone took a turn this week that even the most conspiratorial-minded of critics might not have foreseen. A landowner wants to build a gas station at Argonne and Bigelow Gulch roads, on land the county added to its growth management boundary last July. Unfortunately, the state invalidated that expansion last November, also invalidating the zoning under which the projects permit wasapproved.

If the application was completed between July and November, it would be considered vested and grandfathered in. The seeming abuse of vesting is the loophole the City Council tried to close in March undermined by Mayor David Condons veto because it essentially allows developers to take a side route around land-use laws with the county commissionshelp.

The latest allegation, if true, would amount to a whole new level of chicanery. The projects first Determination of Completeness was signed Jan. 27 of this year. Too late for vesting. Well after too late. And yet the project was moving forward with the countys blessing. Rick Eichstaedt, the attorney for neighbors challenging the project, inquired about this discrepancy. Within a couple of days, a new permitappeared.

See the original post here:

Shawn Vestal: County permit clerical mishap raises eyebrows - Fri, 23 May 2014 PST

Two Spokane County building employees invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination this week in a case that accuses the county of improperly back-dating documents to allow construction of a gas station where a state board ruled it was notallowed.

The county workers testified Monday during an appeal before the county hearing examiner of a building permit application for a convenience store and gas station at Argonne and Bigelow Gulchroads.

Building Director Randy Vissia, one of the two county employees who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, said he was advised to not answer questions by a county attorney

You have viewed 20 free articles or blogs allowed within a 30-day period. FREE registration is now required for uninterrupted access.

S-R Media, The Spokesman-Review and Spokesman.com are happy to assist you. Contact Customer Service by email or call 800-338-8801

Two Spokane County building employees invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination this week in a case that accuses the county of improperly back-dating documents to allow construction of a gas station where a state board ruled it was notallowed.

The county workers testified Monday during an appeal before the county hearing examiner of a building permit application for a convenience store and gas station at Argonne and Bigelow Gulchroads.

Building Director Randy Vissia, one of the two county employees who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, said he was advised to not answer questions by a county attorney even though, according to Vissia, his employee, Julie Shatto, had done nothing wrong in approving the permit application as completed. Shatto also declined to answer questions at the hearing involving the date that the application was certified ascomplete.

Property owner and developer Stephen Smart, who was at the hearing to defend his project, said the appellant attorneys were acting like attackdogs.

Local residents and neighborhood groups appealed the county decision to let the project proceed, arguing the project was flawed on several grounds, including environmental review and applicationcompleteness.

Originally posted here:

Spokane County workers use Fifth Amendment in back-dating case - Thu, 22 May 2014 PST

Two Spokane County building employees invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination this week in a case that accuses the county of improperly back-dating documents to allow construction of a gas station where a state board ruled it was notallowed.

The county workers testified Monday during an appeal before the county hearing examiner of a building permit application for a convenience store and gas station at Argonne and Bigelow Gulchroads.

Building Director Randy Vissia, one of the two county employees who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, said he was advised to not answer questions by a county attorney

You have viewed 20 free articles or blogs allowed within a 30-day period. FREE registration is now required for uninterrupted access.

S-R Media, The Spokesman-Review and Spokesman.com are happy to assist you. Contact Customer Service by email or call 800-338-8801

Two Spokane County building employees invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination this week in a case that accuses the county of improperly back-dating documents to allow construction of a gas station where a state board ruled it was notallowed.

The county workers testified Monday during an appeal before the county hearing examiner of a building permit application for a convenience store and gas station at Argonne and Bigelow Gulchroads.

Building Director Randy Vissia, one of the two county employees who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, said he was advised to not answer questions by a county attorney even though, according to Vissia, his employee, Julie Shatto, had done nothing wrong in approving the permit application as completed. Shatto also declined to answer questions at the hearing involving the date that the application was certified ascomplete.

Property owner and developer Stephen Smart, who was at the hearing to defend his project, said the appellant attorneys were acting like attackdogs.

Local residents and neighborhood groups appealed the county decision to let the project proceed, arguing the project was flawed on several grounds, including environmental review and applicationcompleteness.

Follow this link:

2 county workers take 5th - Thu, 22 May 2014 PST

Christie: I knew nothing about plot
David Wildstein invokes his Fifth amendment rights in response questions about the New Jersey bridge scandal. David Wildstein invokes his Fifth amendment rights in response to questions...

By: Alexandria Foster

View post:

Christie: I knew nothing about plot - Video