Mediaboss Marketing

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as a provision of the Bill of Rights, enumerates several of the most important protections of persons accused of crimes under the American criminal justice system. These protections include:

The complete text of the Fifth Amendment states:

Nobody can be forced to stand trial for a serious (capital, or otherwise infamous) crime, except in a military court or during declared wars, without having first been indicted or formally charged by a grand jury.

The grand jury indictment clause of the Fifth Amendment has never been interpreted by the courts as applying under the due process of law doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment, meaning that it applies only to felony charges filed in the federal courts. While several states have grand juries, defendants in state criminal courts do not have a Fifth Amendment right to indictment by a grand jury.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment mandates that defendants, once acquitted of a certain charge, may not be tried again for the same offense at the same jurisdictional level. Defendants may be tried again if the previous trial ended in a mistrial or hung jury, if there is evidence of fraud in the previous trial, or if the charges are not precisely the same for example, the Los Angeles police officers who were accused of beating Rodney King, after being acquitted on state charges, were convicted on federal charges for the same offense.

Specifically, the Double Jeopardy Clause applies to subsequent prosecution after acquittals, after convictions, after certain mistrials, and in cases of multiple charges included in the same Grand Jury indictment.

The best-known clause in the 5th Amendment (No person ... shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself) protects suspects from forced self-incrimination.

When suspects invoke their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, this is referred to in the vernacular as pleading the Fifth. While judges always instruct jurors that pleading the Fifth should never be taken as a sign or tacit admission of guilt, television courtroom dramas generally portray it as such.

Just because suspects haveFifth Amendmentrights against self-incriminationdoes not mean that theyknowabout those rights. Policehave often used, and sometimes still use, a suspect's ignorance regarding his or her own civil rights to build a case. This all changed withMiranda v. Arizona(1966), theSupreme Courtcase that created the statement officers are now required to issue upon arrest beginning with the words "You have the right to remain silent..."

The last clause of the Fifth Amendment, known as the Takings Clause, protects the peoples basic property rights by banning federal, state and local governments from taking privately owned property for public use under their rights of eminent domain without offering the owners just compensation.

However, the U.S.Supreme Court, through its controversial 2005 decision in the case of Kelo v. New London weakened the Takings Clause by ruling that cities could claim private property under eminent domain for purely economic, rather than public purposes, like schools, freeways or bridges.

Read the original here:
Understanding the Fifth Amendment's Protections

The term 5th Amendment refers to the more well-known aspect of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that no one can be forced to testify against himself in court. The 5th Amendment also ensures that no one can be tried a second time for a crime of which they were already acquitted. This is referred to as double jeopardy. To explore this concept, consider the following 5th Amendment definition.

Noun

Origin

1791 American Constitution

The 5th Amendment is the amendment to the Constitution that protects people from being forced to testify against themselves. On legal television shows, a character may say I plead the fifth! This means that he is invoking his right under the Fifth Amendment to not be forced to say anything on the stand that could incriminate him.

Unfortunately, while it is a persons right to plead the fifth, many believe that someone who pleads the 5th may, in fact, be guilty. Their opinion is that, if he has nothing to hide, why wouldnt he just testify and clear his name? Why would he make it harder for the attorneys to prove their case unless he had something he didnt want them to know.

The 5th Amendment also protects people from something called double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is the process by which a person who was accused of a crime, and found innocent, would then be charged with that same crime again. The 5th Amendment prevents this from happening. Once a person is found innocent by a jury of his peers, even if new evidence is raised after the fact that proves he is actually guilty, he cannot be tried again for that same crime.

The Fifth Amendment right to counsel provides that someone who is being interrogated by police has the right to have an attorney present during the process. This goes hand-in-hand with someone being read his Miranda rights (If you do not have an attorney, one will be provided for you.). In fact, the Fifth Amendment also requires that someone who is being arrested be read his Miranda rights (More on that later).

The right to counsel section of the Fifth Amendment has been invaluable to those who have been charged with a crime. Entire cases have been thrown out when defendants lawyers have shown that their clients werent read their Miranda rights upon being arrested.

For example, the 5th Amendment protects a defendant who provides police with information during an interrogation, which happened after not being read his Miranda rights. In such a case, all of the information he gave to the police can be considered inadmissible and thrown out even if he confessed to the crime.

This is why the right to counsel is so important. Without a good lawyer by his side, a defendant might not even know that certain evidence may be inadmissible, which is crucial to whether his case proceeds or gets thrown out.

There is an equal protection clause in the 5th and 14th Amendments that protects U.S. citizens right to life, liberty and property without interference from the government. For example, the 5th Amendment states:

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.

This section covers three equal protection clause rights in particular:

On the other hand, the 14th Amendment says that all persons born in the U.S., or provided with U.S. citizenship, are to be considered U.S. citizens, and no one can make a law that deprives a person of his right to life, liberty and property without due process of law. Due process of law is the entitlement that all U.S. citizens have to be treated fairly in the judicial system. Fair treatment includes, for instance, the right to a trial by jury upon being accused of a crime.

Both amendments are similarly worded with regard to their treatment of the equal protection clause. The main difference between them is that the 14th Amendment is more specific with regard to the inclusion of due process. With the 5th Amendment, due process takes place within the court system. With the 14th Amendment, however, due process is a natural right that protects American citizens from government interference with their ability to live their lives, unless what theyre doing is illegal.

For example, the 14th Amendment further protects a persons right to freedom of speech under the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Therefore, while a protestor may anger a lot of people by burning the American flag, he has the right to do so under the 14th Amendment. What he is doing is not illegal, and therefore the government cannot interfere.

An example of the 5th Amendment at work can be found in the case that started it all when it comes to Miranda rights: Miranda v. Arizona. In 1966, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona on evidence that supposedly proved he was involved in a crime involving kidnapping and rape. After an interrogation that dragged on for hours, Miranda confessed to the charges. He also signed a statement acknowledging that he was voluntarily making the confession.

At no point before or during the interrogation was Miranda made aware of the fact that he had the right to have counsel present during the interrogation. He was also unaware of the fact that he had the right to remain silent, and he did not know that the statements he was making could be used against him during his trial. Upon learning this, he objected to the usage of his written confession at trial. He argued that because he was unaware of his rights under the 5th Amendment, his confession must be thrown out as involuntary.

Mirandas objection was overruled, and he was convicted of both crimes and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. His written confession played a major role in his conviction. Miranda appealed his conviction, once again citing the involuntarily-made confession. The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal.

In June 1966, Miranda brought his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court then had to decide whether the protections afforded to U.S. citizens under the 5th Amendment could be extended to cover police interrogations as well. The Court ruled in Mirandas favor, 5 4. Specifically, the Court held that:

The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendments privilege against self-incrimination.

The Court also included more detailed criteria to support this argument, including:

The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado interrogation as it exists today is inherently intimidating, and works to undermine the privilege against self-incrimination. Unless adequate preventive measures are taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice.

And

The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a long and expansive historical development, is the essential mainstay of our adversary system, and guarantees to the individual the right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will, during a period of custodial interrogation.

Related Legal Terms and Issues

Go here to read the rest:
5th Amendment - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

The text of the Fifth Amendment reads as follows: 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 offence [sic] 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.

Because the Framers hoped that the Constitution would be an enduring document, they generally avoided using specific language that one might find in a code or a regulation. Instead of specifying particular instances of prohibited governmental conduct in the Bill of Rights, the Framers established broad principles that government officials must take into account before encroaching on individual freedoms. In this way the Framers required future generations of citizens to determine the Constitutions meaning.

In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), the U.S. Supreme Court, per Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that the ultimate authority for determining the Constitutions meaning lay with the judicial branch of government through the power of judicial review. Pursuant to this power, courts are authorized to review laws enacted by government officials and invalidate those that violate the Constitution.

See more here:
The Text of the Fifth Amendment System

Breaking News Emails

Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.

Dec. 4, 2018 / 11:13 PM GMT

By Associated Press and Anna Schecter

WASHINGTON Roger Stone, an associate of President Donald Trump, says he won't provide testimony or documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

An attorney for Stone said in a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the committee's top Democrat, that Stone was invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in refusing to produce documents or appear for an interview.

Feinstein made the letter public via Twitter Tuesday afternoon, one day after President Donald Trump tweeted in support of Stone.

Stone has been entangled in investigations by Congress and special counsel Robert Mueller about whether Trump aides had advance knowledge of Democratic emails published by WikiLeaks during the 2016 election.

Stone's attorney said the letter was sent in response to the committee's request. In November Feinstein requested an interview with Stone as well as communications related to WikiLeaks.

On Friday, Nov. 30, a top lawyer for Feinstein emailed Stone's attorney, Grant Smith, asking when Stone "intends to produce the documents requested by the Ranking Member and when he would be available to appear for an interview."

Smith responded on Monday at 9:33 a.m., declining to produce the documents and invoking Stone's Fifth Amendment right.

"The production of documents that may be responsive to the unreasonably broad scope of the imprecise, fishing expedition, request would unquestionably be a testimonial act protected by the U.S. Constitution," the letter said.

At 10:48 a.m., President Donald Trump tweeted in support of Stone, following two tweets criticizing Michael Cohen for trying to get an easy sentence from prosecutors.

"Mr. Stone was surprised by the President's Tweet yesterday," Smith wrote in an email to NBC News Tuesday. "This letter... preceded the President's Tweet in support of Mr. Stone," he wrote.

Stone has not been charged and has said he had no knowledge of the timing or specifics of WikiLeaks' plans.

In his letter to Feinstein, Stone said the committee's requests were "far too overbroad, far too overreaching" and "far too wide ranging."

Anna Schecter is a producer for the investigations unit of NBC News.

More:
Trump associate Roger Stone invokes Fifth Amendment, won't ...

President Donald Trumps longtime associate Roger Stone has invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to a request for documents from the highest ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary committee.

In a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Stones attorney, Grant Smith, wrote that his client is declining to provide the documents because the scope of the request is too broad, and he does not want them to be used for private testimony. Mr. Stone decries secrecy. He will not subject himself to the innuendo of non-public proceedings. Nor will he confirm the existence of, or produce the documents of the request, for the purpose of being used in secret proceedings, Smith wrote.

Feinstein posted the letter on her Twitter account Tuesday evening. Since Feinstein is in the minority party, she does not have subpoena power. Her office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Stone testified before the House Select Permanent Committee on Intelligence in 2017 in a closed door testimony. Smith argued in his letter that the secretive nature of the testimony rendered Stone vulnerable to leaks from the Democrats on the committee.

Trump has previously decried those who invoked the Fifth Amendment. In a presidential debate with Hillary Clinton in 2016, he said the fact that her associates had pleaded the Fifth in regards to the investigation into her private email server disgraceful.

At a rally in September of 2016, he also argued that the mob takes the Fifth.

If youre innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment? he asked, rhetorically.

Write to Alana Abramson at Alana.Abramson@time.com.

Follow this link:
Roger Stone Invokes Fifth Amendment in Senate Inquiry | Time