Basic Information

The architect Cass Gilbert had grand ambitions for his design of a new home for the Supreme Court--what he called "the greatest tribunal in the world, one of the three great elements of our national government." Gilbert knew that the approach to the Court, as much as the structure itself, would define the experience of the building, but the site presented a challenge. Other exalted Washington edifices--the Capitol, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial--inspired awe with their processional approaches. But in 1928 Congress had designated for the Court a cramped and asymmetrical plot of land, wedged tightly between the Capitol and the Library of Congress. How could Gilbert convey to visitors the magnitude and importance of the judicial process taking place within the Court's walls?
The answer, he decided, was steps. Gilbert pushed back the wings of the building, so that the public face of the building would be a portico with a massive imposing stairway. Visitors would not have to walk a long distance to enter, but few would forget the experience of mounting those forty-four steps to the double row of eight massive columns supporting the roof. The walk up the stairs would be the central symbolic experience of the Supreme Court, a physical manifestation of the American march to justice. The stairs separated the Court from the everyday world--and especially from the earthly concerns of the politicians in the Capitol-- and announced that the justices would operate, literally, on a higher plane. (Toobin, Jeffrey. The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. New York: Anchor Books, 2008.)

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Miranda vs. Arizona 1966

One of the most important laws still used today are the Miranda Laws. Those are the laws read to you by a police officer when under arrest. It is those laws which inform you of your rights at the time. I would have to say that the Miranda laws are the most well known laws. They include " you may choose to remain silent anything you say or do can be used against you in the court of law..." and if you actually listen to the law it is very effective. In recent days all cops have to have a camera located in the front of the vehicle in order to record themselved reciting these laws. If the laws are misread or a mistake is made while reading the law to a victim, it opens full opportunity or a mistrial. So, these laws do have a massive impact on those who get arrested, and if you get arrested and don't hear the law being given to you, then you won the case plain and simple.


Facts of the Case:
The Court was called upon to consider the constitutionality of a number of instances, ruled on jointly, in which defendants were questioned "while in custody or otherwise deprived of [their] freedom in any significant way." In Vignera v. New York, the petitioner was questioned by police, made oral admissions, and signed an inculpatory statement all without being notified of his right to counsel. Similarly, in Westover v. United States, the petitioner was arrested by the FBI, interrogated, and made to sign statements without being notified of his right to counsel. Lastly, in California v. Stewart, local police held and interrogated the defendant for five days without notification of his right to counsel. In all these cases, suspects were questioned by police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut them off from the outside world. In none of the cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation.


Question:
Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifiying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?


Conclusion:
The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." The Court noted that "the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented" and that "the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition." The Court specifically outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations [Oyez]
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)