Mediaboss Marketing

SIOUX CITY | As he sat in a hospital emergency room being treated for a gunshot wound, Juan Nino-Estrada mumbled what police officers thought sounded like the words "Fifth Amendment."

Neither officer was sure what exactly Nino-Estrada, at the time a suspect in a double homicide, said, they testified Friday.

"He made a comment under his breath, but I can't recall what he said. Something similar to 'Fifth Amendment' or something like that," Officer Greg Rose said.

Lawyers for Nino-Estrada have asked that statements he made that night not be admissible at trial, claiming police continued to question him after he had invoked his rights to remain silent and not incriminate himself.

Nino-Estrada, 27, of Sioux City, is charged in Woodbury County District Court with two counts of first-degree murder and single counts of attempted murder and willful injury for the Nov. 7 shooting deaths of Michael Delgado, 35, of Sioux City, and Yolanda Valdez, 35, of Orange City, Iowa, at a house in the 500 block of West 27th Street. Nino-Estrada is also charged with shooting Luis Sanchez, of Sioux City. Sanchez survived.

Police have said that an altercation between Nino-Estrada and another man at the house escalated into the shooting.

Rose said police Det. Jeremy McClure advised Nino-Estrada of his rights shortly after being taken into custody at an apartment building in the 1400 block of Grandview Boulevard and prior to being taken to Mercy Medical Center.

Once at the hospital, Rose left to retrieve his patrol car. When he returned, Rose said, he entered a Mercy Medical Center emergency treatment room and heard Officer Josiah Fenceroy asking Nino-Estrada a series of background questions when he heard Nino-Estrada say what sounded like the words Fifth Amendment.

Fenceroy testified that he, too, heard Nino-Estrada say something like Fifth Amendment.

"You did not ask for clarification when he mumbled 'Fifth Amendment?'" public defender Sharese Manker asked Fenceroy.

Original post:
Police not sure if Sioux City murder suspect invoked 5th Amendment rights

HST 330 fifth amendment presentation

By: Cullen Smith

Read more:
HST 330 fifth amendment presentation - Video

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
This is a synthesized speech reading of the Wikipedia article "Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" and is intended primarily for blind and visually impaired individuals who can...

By: Frank Eckstein

See the rest here:
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Video

WASHINGTON ?? Government employees who testify about public corruption are protected by the First Amendment, several Supreme Court justices suggested Monday.

During oral arguments in a freedom-of-speech case out of Alabama, several justices challenged the notion that public employees who testify truthfully about an issue of significant public concern aren't shielded from retaliation by the First Amendment.

"What kind of message are we giving when we're telling employees, you're subpoenaed in a trial, go and tell a falsehood because otherwise you can be fired?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked attorneys in the case.

The Fifth Amendment protects state employees against self-incrimination on the witness stand, but "it doesn't protect the department he works for from being incriminated," Chief Justice John Roberts said.

The case involves an employee at Central Alabama Community College whose testimony helped convict former Alabama state Rep. Sue Schmitz of corruption-related charges. The employee, Edward Lane of Ashville, was fired after he testified at Schmitz's first trial in 2008.

Before Lane gets a chance to prove in court his firing was retaliatory, the Supreme Court must decide if his testimony is protected speech under the First Amendment.

Lane, who attended Monday's arguments, was surprised that's even in doubt.

"I thought for sure that being able to go testify truthfully in court that I should be protected," he said in an interview on the Supreme Court steps after Monday's arguments. "And to find out (the other side) actually thinks that is not the case - that just blows me over."

Steve Franks, former president of the two-year college, says Lane's testimony wasn't protected by the First Amendment. His attorney, Mark Waggoner of Birmingham, argued Monday that Lane's testimony was based on information he gleaned only from his job and that he was testifying as a state employee, not a regular citizen.

"If the testimony is factual, based solely on the job duties, as it was here, inseparable from the job duties, and it is information that a citizen would not know, that only the testifier would know, then that is not protected speech," Waggoner told the justices.

Read the rest here:
Justices suggest public employees' testimony is protected

Text of 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 offence 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. Indictment by a Grand Jury: Nobody can go to trial for a serious crime, except in a military setting, without first being indicted by a grand jury. Double Jeopardy:

The Fifth Amendment also mandates that defendants, once acquitted on a 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 police officers who beat Rodney King, after being acquitted on state charges, were convicted on federal charges for the same offense.

The best known clause in the Fifth Amendment ("No person ... shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself") protects suspects from forced self-incrimination. When a suspect invokes his or her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, this is referred to in the vernacular as "pleading the Fifth." It should not by any means be taken as a sign of guilt, but it is generally portrayed as such in courtroom television dramas.

Read more:
Fifth Amendment - The Text, Origins, and Meaning of the ...