FACTOID # 26: Delaware is the latchkey kid capital of America, with 71.8% of households having both parents in the labor force.
 
 Home   Encyclopedia   Statistics   States A-Z   Flags   Maps   FAQ   About 
   
 
WHAT'S NEW
 

SEARCH ALL

FACTS & STATISTICS    Advanced view

Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:

 

 

(* = Graphable)

 

 


Encyclopedia > Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
United States of America

This article is part of the series:
United States Constitution Image File history File links Question_book-3. ... Image File history File links US-GreatSeal-Obverse. ... Wikisource has original text related to this article: The United States Constitution The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. ...


Original text of the Constitution
Preamble

Articles of the Constitution
IIIIIIIVVVIVII We the People redirects here. ... Wikisource has original text related to this article: Article One of the United States Constitution Article One of the United States Constitution describes the powers of the legislative branch of the United States government, known as Congress, which includes the House of Representatives and the Senate. ... Wikisource has original text related to this article: Article Two of the United States Constitution Article Two of the United States Constitution creates the executive branch of the government, comprising the President and other executive officers. ... Wikisource has original text related to this article: Article Three of the United States Constitution Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. ... Article Four of the United States Constitution relates to the states. ... Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. ... Article Six establishes the United States Constitution and the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land, and fulfills other purposes. ... Article Seven of the United States Constitution describes the process by which the entire document is to be ratified and take effect. ...

Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIIXX

Subsequent Amendments
XI ∙ XII ∙ XIII ∙ XIV ∙ XV ∙ XVI
XVII ∙ XVIII ∙ XIX ∙ XX ∙ XXI ∙ XXII
XXIII ∙ XXIV ∙ XXV ∙ XXVI ∙ XXVII The first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. This is a complete list of all ratified and unratified amendments to the United States Constitution which have received the approval of the Congress. ... The United States Bill of Rights consists of the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution. ... “First Amendment” redirects here. ... The Bill of Rights in the National Archives Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares a well regulated militia as being necessary to the security of a free State, and prohibits infringement of the right of the people... The Bill of Rights in the National Archives. ... The Bill of Rights in the National Archives. ... Amendment VI (the Sixth Amendment) of the United States Constitution codifies rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts. ... “Seventh Amendment” redirects here. ... Amendment VIII (the Eighth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the U.S. Bill of Rights, prohibits excessive bail or fines, as well as cruel and unusual punishment. ... The Bill of Rights in the National Archives Amendment IX (the Ninth Amendment) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. ... For Ireland, see Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. ... Amendment XI in the National Archives Amendment XI (the Eleventh Amendment) of the United States Constitution was passed by the U.S. Congress on March 4, 1794, and was ratified on February 7, 1795. ... Amendment XII in the National Archives The Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution alterd Article II pertaining to presidential elections. ... Amendment XIII in the National Archives The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished, and continues to prohibit slavery and, with limited exceptions (those convicted of a crime), prohibits involuntary servitude. ... Amendment XIV in the National Archives The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments (known as the Reconstruction Amendments), first intended to secure rights for former slaves. ... Amendment XV in the National Archives 1870 celebration of the 15th amendment as a guarantee of African American rights 1867 drawing depicting the first vote by African Americans Amendment XV (the Fifteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution provides that governments in the United States may not prevent a citizen... Amendment XVI in the National Archives Amendment XVI (the Sixteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution was ratified on February 3, 1913. ... Amendment XVII in the National Archives Amendment XVII (the Seventeenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution was passed by the Senate on June 12, 1911 and by the House on May 13, 1912. ... Amendment XVIII in the National Archives Prohibition agents destroying barrels of alcohol. ... Amendment XIX in the National Archives Amendment XIX (the Nineteenth Amendment) to the United States Constitution provides that neither the individual states of the United States nor its federal government may deny a citizen the right to vote because of the citizens sex. ... Page 1 of Amendment XX in the National Archives Page 2 of the amendment Amendment XX (the Twentieth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, also called The Lame Duck Amendment, or the Norris Amendment, establishes some details of presidential succession and of the beginning and ending of the terms of... Amendment XXI (the Twenty-first Amendment) to the United States Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which had mandated nationwide Prohibition. ... Amendment XXII in the National Archives The Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for the President of the United States, providing that No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office... Amendment XXIII in the National Archives Amendment XXIII was the twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution which permits the District of Columbia to choose Electors for President and Vice President. ... Amendment XXIV in the National Archives Amendment XXIV (the Twenty-fourth Amendment) of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. ... Page 1 of Amendment XXV in the National Archives Page 2 of the amendment Amendment XXV (the Twenty-fifth Amendment) of the United States Constitution clarifies an ambiguous provision of the Constitution regarding succession to the Presidency, and establishes procedures both for filling a vacancy in the office of the... Amendment XXVI (the Twenty-sixth Amendment) of the United States Constitution was ratified on July 1, 1971. ... Page 1 of the certification of Amendment XXVII in the National Archives Page 2 of the amendments certification Page 3 of the amendments certification Amendment XXVII (the Twenty-seventh Amendment) is the most recent amendment to be incorporated into the United States Constitution, having been ratified in 1992...


Other countries ·  Law Portal
 view  talk  edit  // Codified constitutions Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Argentina Armenia Australia Austria — titled Bundesverfassungsgesetz Bangladesh Bahrain Belarus Belgium — titled De Belgische Grondwet in Flemish Bosnia and Herzegovina (Dayton Agreement, 1995) Brazil Canada (1982) Chile China, Peoples Republic of Hong Kong Macau Tibet China, Republic of - Taiwan Colombia Congo, Democratic Republic...

Amendment V (the Fifth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, is related to legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law as established by Magna Carta in 1215. For instance, grand juries and the phrase "due process" both trace their origin to the Magna Carta. Wikisource has original text related to this article: The United States Constitution The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. ... The United States Bill of Rights consists of the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution. ... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... This article is about the English charter issued in 1215. ... A certified copy of the Magna Carta March 4 - King John of England makes an oath to the Pope as a crusader to gain the support of Innocent III. June 15 - King John of England was forced to put his seal on the Magna Carta, outlining the rights of landowning... In United States law, adopted from English Law, due process (more fully due process of law) is the principle that the government must respect all of a persons legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, liberty...

Contents

Text

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.

[1][2]

Grand jury

The Bill of Rights in the National Archives.

Grand juries, which return indictments in many criminal cases, are composed by a jury of peers and operate in closed deliberation proceedings; they are given specific instructions regarding the law by the judge. Many constitutional restrictions do not apply during grand jury proceedings. The "exclusionary rule," which prevents evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being introduced in court, does not apply to evidence presented to a grand jury. Witnesses do not have the right to have their attorneys present in grand jury rooms during hearings; they would normally have such a right when being investigated by the police. The grand jury indictment clause of the Fifth Amendment has not been incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment; in other words, it has not been ruled applicable to the states. States are thus free to abolish grand juries, and many (though not all) have indeed replaced them with preliminary hearings. Image File history File linksMetadata Download high resolution version (4318x4592, 1500 KB) Description: THE BILL OF RIGHTS Credit: NARA [1] Usage: File links The following pages link to this file: United States Constitution United States Bill of Rights Metadata This file contains additional information, probably added from the digital camera... Image File history File linksMetadata Download high resolution version (4318x4592, 1500 KB) Description: THE BILL OF RIGHTS Credit: NARA [1] Usage: File links The following pages link to this file: United States Constitution United States Bill of Rights Metadata This file contains additional information, probably added from the digital camera... The National Archives building in Washington, DC The United States National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is an independent agency of the United States federal government charged with preserving and documenting government and historical records. ... In the American common law legal system, a grand jury is a type of jury which determines if there is enough evidence for a trial. ... In the common law legal system, an indictment (IPA: ) is a formal accusation of having committed a criminal offense. ... In United States constitutional law, the exclusionary rule is a legal principle holding that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the U.S. Constitution is inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law (that is, it cannot be used in a criminal trial). ... The Bill of Rights in the National Archives. ... Incorporation of the Bill of Rights is the legal doctrine by which portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights are applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ... Amendment XIV in the National Archives The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments (known as the Reconstruction Amendments), first intended to secure rights for former slaves. ... Within some criminal justice systems, a preliminary hearing (evidentiary hearing) is a meeting, after a criminal complaint has been filed by the prosecutor, to determine whether, and to what extent, criminal charges and civil cause of actions will be heard (by a court), what evidence will be admitted, and what...


Whether or not a crime is "infamous" is determined by the nature of the punishment that may be imposed (not the punishment that is actually imposed). (Crimes punishable by capital punishment are explicitly required to be tried upon indictments.) In United States v. Moreland (1922), the Supreme Court held that imprisonment in a prison or penitentiary (as opposed to a correction or reformation house) attaches infamy to a crime. Currently, federal law permits the trial of misdemeanors without indictments. In cases involving felonies except those in which capital punishment may be applied, the prosecution may proceed without indictments if the defendants waive their Fifth Amendment right. Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences. ... United States v. ... Year 1922 (MCMXXII) was a common year starting on Sunday (link will display full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar. ... A misdemeanor, or misdemeanour, in many common law legal systems, is a lesser criminal act. ...


Indictments found by grand juries may be amended by the prosecution only in limited circumstances. In Ex Parte Bain (1887), the Supreme Court held that the indictment could not be changed at all by the prosecution. United States v. Miller (1985) partly reversed the previous ruling; now, an indictment's scope may be narrowed by the prosecution. Thus, lesser included charges may be dropped, but new charges may not be added. 1887 (MDCCCLXXXVII) is a common year starting on Saturday (click on link for calendar) of the Gregorian calendar or a common year starting on Monday of the Julian calendar. ... Holding The National Firearms Act - as applied to transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long, without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it - was not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved... This article is about the year. ...


The grand jury clause of the Fifth Amendment does not protect those serving in the armed forces, whether during wartime or peacetime. Members of the state militia called up to serve with federal forces are not protected under the clause, either. In O'Callahan v. Parker (1969), the Supreme Court held that only service-related charges may be brought against members of the militia without indictments. That decision was overturned in 1987, when the Court held that members of the militia in actual service may be tried for any offense with indictments. Also: 1969 (number) 1969 (movie) 1969 (Stargate SG-1) episode. ... Year 1987 (MCMLXXXVII) was a common year starting on Thursday (link displays 1987 Gregorian calendar). ...


Double Jeopardy

Generally, individuals may be tried only once for a particular offense under the double jeopardy clause. Originally, the protection against double jeopardy did not extend to prosecutions in state courts. In Benton v. Maryland 395 U.S. 784, (1969), the Supreme Court "incorporated" the clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, meaning that state courts were now required to honor the protections of the Fifth Amendment in state criminal proceedings as well. For other uses, see Double jeopardy (disambiguation). ... Under the laws of the United States, most disputes are properly taken to the courts of the state in which the dispute arose. ... Benton v. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a neutral form which will... Also: 1969 (number) 1969 (movie) 1969 (Stargate SG-1) episode. ... Amendment XIV in the National Archives The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments (known as the Reconstruction Amendments), first intended to secure rights for former slaves. ...


The Fifth Amendment refers to being put in "jeopardy of life or limb." The clause, however, has been interpreted as providing protection regarding "every indictment or information charging a party with a known and defined crime or misdemeanor." The clause, it has been held, does not prevent separate trials by different governments, and the state and federal governments are considered "separate sovereigns". Therefore, one may be prosecuted for a crime in a state court, and also prosecuted for the same crime in another state, a foreign country, or (most commonly) in a federal court.


Once acquitted, a defendant may not be retried for the same offense: Ball v. U.S. "A verdict of acquittal, although not followed by any judgment, is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense." 163 U.S. 662 at 672 (1896). Acquittal by a jury is generally final and cannot be appealed by the prosecution, Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962). An acquittal in a trial by judge (bench trial) is also generally not appealable by the prosecution, United States v. Jenkins, 420 U.S. 358 (1975). A trial judge may normally enter an acquittal if he deems the evidence insufficient for conviction. If the judge makes this ruling before the jury reaches its verdict, the judge's determination is final. If, however, the judge overrules a conviction by the jury, the prosecution may appeal to have the conviction reinstated. U.S. Supreme Court BALL v. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a neutral form which will... Fong Foo v. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a neutral form which will... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a neutral form which will...


Defendants may not be retried following conviction except in limited circumstances when the judge sees fit. Bribing a judge to get an acquittal is not valid because the party acquitted has prevented themselves from being placed into "jeopardy" in the first place. Harry Aleman v. Judges of the Criminal Division, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, et al., 138 F.3d 302 (1998). If a defendant appeals a conviction and is successful in having it overturned, they are subject to retrial. An exception arises if the verdict is overturned on the grounds of evidentiary insufficiency, rather than on the grounds of procedural faults. As noted above, if the trial court made a determination of evidentiary insufficiency, the determination would constitute a final acquittal; in Burks v. United States 437 U.S. 1, (1978), it was held that "it should make no difference that the reviewing court, rather than the trial court, determined the evidence to be insufficient". Another exception arises in cases of conviction for lesser offenses. For instance, if a defendant is charged with murder in the first degree, and is convicted by the jury of murder in the second degree, and later the jury's conviction is overturned on procedural grounds, the defendant may be retried for second degree but not first degree murder; the jury, by convicting the defendant of second degree murder, is deemed to have implicitly acquitted them of first degree murder. // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a neutral form which will... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a neutral form which will... Year 1978 (MCMLXXVIII) was a common year starting on Sunday (link displays the 1978 Gregorian calendar). ...


The defendant may not be punished twice for the same offense. In certain circumstances, however, a sentence may be increased. It has been held that sentences do not have the same "finality" as acquittals, and may therefore be reviewed by the courts. Sentence increases may not, however, be made once the defendant has already begun serving his term of imprisonment. If a defendant's conviction is overturned on procedural grounds, the retrial may result in a harsher penalty than the original trial. The only exception is that the prosecution may not seek capital punishment in the retrial if the jury did not impose it in the original trial. The reason for this exception is that before imposing the death penalty the jury has to make several factual determinations and if the jury does not make these it is seen as the equivalent of an acquittal of a more serious offense.


In Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203 (1984), it was ruled that in a bench trial, when a judge was holding a separate hearing after the jury trial, to decide if the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment, the judge decided that the circumstances of the case did not permit death to be imposed. On appeal the judge's ruling was found to be erroneous. However, even though the decision to impose life instead of death was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law by the judge, the finding of life imprisonment in the original case constituted an acquittal of the death penalty and thus death could not be imposed upon a subsequent trial. Even though the acquittal of the death penalty was erroneous in that case, the acquittal must stand. // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a neutral form which will...


Mistrials are generally not covered by the double jeopardy clause. If a judge dismisses the case or terminates the trial without deciding the facts in the defendant's favor (for example, by dismissing the case on procedural grounds), the case is a mistrial and may normally be retried. Furthermore, if a jury cannot reach a verdict, the judge may declare a mistrial and order a retrial. When the defendant moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial, even if the prosecutor or judge caused the error that forms the basis of the motion. An exception exists, however, where the prosecutor or judge has acted in bad faith. In Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, (1982), the Supreme Court held that "only where the governmental conduct in question is intended to 'goad' the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first on his own motion." For the term in existentialism, see Bad faith (existentialism). ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a neutral form which will... Year 1982 (MCMLXXXII) was a common year starting on Friday (link displays the 1982 Gregorian calendar). ...


Defendants may not more than once be placed in jeopardy for the "same offense". Sometimes, however, the same conduct may violate different statutes. In Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), the Supreme Court held that "where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not". For example, the test was applied in Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (1977). The defendant had first been convicted of operating an automobile without the owner's consent, and later of stealing the same automobile. The Supreme Court concluded that the same evidence was necessary to prove both offenses, and that in effect there was only one offense. Therefore, it overturned the second conviction. // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a neutral form which will... Year 1932 (MCMXXXII) was a leap year starting on Friday (the link will display full 1932 calendar) of the Gregorian calendar. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a neutral form which will... Also: 1977 (album) by Ash. ...


In other cases, the same conduct may constitute multiple offenses under the same statute, for instance where one robs many individuals at the same time. There is no explicit bar to separate prosecutions for different offenses arising under the same "criminal transaction", but it is not permissible for the prosecution to re-litigate facts already determined by a jury. In Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, (1970), the defendant was accused of robbing seven poker players during a game. John Ashe was first tried for, and acquitted of, robbing only one of the players; the defense did not contest that a robbery actually took place. The state then tried the defendant for robbing the second player; stronger identification evidence led to a conviction. The Supreme Court, however, overturned the conviction. It was held that in the first trial, since the defense had not presented any evidence that there was no robbery, the jury's acquittal had to be based on the conclusion that the defendant's alibi was valid. Since one jury had held that the defendant was not present at the crime scene, the State could not re-litigate the issue. // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a neutral form which will... Year 1970 (MCMLXX) was a common year starting on Thursday (link shows full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar. ... For the domestic fireplace tool, see fireplace poker. ...


Self-Incrimination

The Fifth Amendment protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. To "plead the Fifth" or to "take the Fifth" is a refusal to answer a question because the response could form self incriminating evidence. In American criminal law, taking the fifth is the act of refusing to testify under oath in a court of law or any other tribunal (such as a Congressional committee) on the grounds that the answers that would be given could be used as evidence against the witness to convict...


Historically, the legal protection against self-incrimination is directly related to the question of torture for extracting information and confessions.[citation needed] The legal shift from widespread use of torture and forced confession dates to turmoil of the late 16th and early 17th centuries in England. Anyone refusing to take the oath ex-officio (confessions or swearing of innocence, usually before hearing any charges) was taken for guilty. Suspected Puritans were pressed to take the oath and then reveal names of other Puritans. Coercion and torture were commonly employed to compel "cooperation." Puritans, who were at the time fleeing to the New World, began a practice of refusing to cooperate with interrogations. In the most famous case, John Lilburne refused, in 1637, to take the oath. His case and his call for "freeborn rights" were rallying points for reforms against forced oaths, forced self-incrimination, and other kinds of coercion. Oliver Cromwell's revolution overturned the practice and incorporated protections, in response to a popular group of English citizens known as the Levellers. The Levellers presented The Humble Petition of Many Thousands to Parliament in 1647 with thirteen demands, of which, the right against self-incrimination (in criminal cases only), was listed at number three. These protections were brought to the American shores by Puritans, and were later incorporated into the United States Constitution through its Bill of Rights. For other uses, see England (disambiguation). ... The Puritans were members of a group of radical Protestants which developed in England after the Reformation. ... Frontispiece of Peter Martyr dAnghieras De orbe novo (On the New World). Carte dAmérique, Guillaume Delisle, 1722. ... This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of quality. ... Events February 3 - Tulipmania collapses in Netherlands by government order February 15 - Ferdinand III becomes Holy Roman Emperor December 17 - Shimabara Rebellion erupts in Japan Pierre de Fermat makes a marginal claim to have proof of what would become known as Fermats last theorem. ... There are very few or no other articles that link to this one. ... For other uses, see Oliver Cromwell (disambiguation). ... The Levellers were a mid 17th century English political movement, who came to prominence during the English Civil Wars. ... The House of Representatives Chamber of the Parliament of Australia in Canberra. ... 1647 (MDCXLVII) was a common year starting on Tuesday (see link for calendar) of the Gregorian calendar (or a common year starting on Friday of the 10-day slower Julian calendar). ... Wikisource has original text related to this article: The United States Constitution The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. ... A bill of rights is a list or summary of rights that are considered important and essential by a group of people. ...


Civil or criminal proceedings

Fifth Amendment protections apply wherever and whenever an individual is compelled to testify. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the right against self-incrimination applies whether the witness is in Federal or state court (see Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964)), and whether the proceeding itself is criminal or civil (see McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924)).


People have asserted the right in grand jury or in congressional hearings in the 1950s, where witnesses testifying before the House Committee on Un-American Activities or the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee claimed the right in response to questions concerning their alleged membership in the Communist Party. However, due to the Red Scare hysteria of the times, frequently referred to as McCarthyism, people who have asserted the right were popularly seen as guilty as accused, and sometimes referred to as "Fifth Amendment Communists"; people have lost their jobs, lost their leadership positions in union or political organizations, or had other negative repercussions after "taking the fifth." Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisc.) was famous for his question, "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist party," while he was chairman of the Senate Government Operations Committee Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Even admitting to previous Communist party membership was not sufficient; people were also required to "name names," that is, to implicate others they knew to be Communists or who had been Communists in the past. For example, Academy Award winning director Elia Kazan testified before the House Committee on Un-American Activities that he had belonged to the Communist party briefly in his youth; in addition, he "named names," which earned him the enmity of many in Hollywood. Other entertainment professionals, such as Zero Mostel, found themselves on a Hollywood Blacklist after taking the fifth, and were unable to find work for some period afterwards in the entertainment industry. Congress in Joint Session. ... The 1950s decade refers to the years 1950 to 1959 inclusive. ... The House Committee on Un-American Activities or HUAC (1945-1975) was an investigating committee of the United States House of Representatives. ... The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee or more commonly know as SISS was a key player in the role of finding communists during the McCarthy era in America. ... In modern usage, the term communist party is generally used to identify any political party which has adopted communist ideology. ... Political cartoon of 1919 depicting a European anarchist attempting to destroy the Statue of Liberty. ... A 1947 comic book published by the Catechetical Guild Educational Society warning of the dangers of a Communist takeover. ... This article is about the U.S. senator from Wisconsin (1947-1957). ... Although he never won an Oscar for any of his movie performances, the comedian Bob Hope received two honorary Oscars for his contributions to cinema. ... Elia Kazan, (Greek: Ηλίας Καζάν, IPA: ), (September 7, 1909 – September 28, 2003) was a Greek-American film and theatre director, film and theatrical producer, screenwriter, novelist and cofounder of the influential Actors Studio in New York in 1947. ... The House Committee on Un-American Activities or HUAC (1945-1975) was an investigating committee of the United States House of Representatives. ... Mostel in Sirocco (1951) Zero Mostel (February 28, 1915 – September 8, 1977) was a Brooklyn-born stage and film actor best known for his portrayal of comic characters such as Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof , Pseudolus in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, and Max... Protestors opposing the jailing of the Hollywood Ten in 1950 (from the 1987 documentary Legacy of the Hollywood Blacklist). ...


The amendment has also been used by defendants and witnesses in criminal cases involving the Mafia. The Supreme Court has also used the incorporation doctrine to apply the self-incrimination clause against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. This article is about the criminal society. ... The Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution is applied to state governments by the judicially created Incorporation Doctrine. ...


The right against self-incrimination does not apply whenever an individual is requested to testify before a self-regulatory organization (SRO). SROs, such as the NASD, are generally not considered state actors and therefore are immune to the privilege. Department of Enforcement, United States v. Solomon, 509 F. 2d 863 (2d Cir. 1975); D. L. Cromwell Invs., Inc. v. NASD Regulation, Inc., 132 F. Supp. 2d 248, 251-53 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), aff'd, 279 F.3d 155, 162 (2d Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1028 (2002); Marchiano v. NASD, 134 F. Supp. 2d 90, 95 (D.D.C. 2001). Another reason for this immunity is that SROs lack subpoena powers, so they rely heavily on requiring testimony from individuals while wielding the threat of a bar from the industry (permanent, if decided by the NASD) in the case of noncompliance.


Custodial interrogation

The Fifth Amendment's protections often relate to police interrogations and confessions by suspects. Originally, at common law, any confession, however obtained (even by torture), was admissible in court. In the eighteenth century, common law in England came to provide that coerced confessions were inadmissible. The common law rule was incorporated into American law by the courts. However, the use of brutal torture to extract confessions was routine in some rural states as late as the 1930s, and stopped only after the U.S. Supreme Court kept throwing out convictions based on such confessions, in cases like Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936). This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... The 1930s (years from 1930–1939) were described as an abrupt shift to more radical and conservative lifestyles, as countries were struggling to find a solution to the Great Depression, also known as the World Depression. ...


Police departments responded by switching to more subtle techniques, resulting in a series of cases in which the Court held that physical torture is not the only element that renders a confession involuntary and inadmissible. In Chambers v. Florida (1940) the Court held a confession obtained after five days of prolonged questioning, during which time the defendant was held incommunicado, to be coerced. A similar result was reached in Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944). In that case the suspect had been interrogated under electric lights by officers continuously for a period of thirty-six hours. In Haynes v. Washington (1963) the Court held that an "unfair and inherently coercive context" (for instance, a prolonged interrogation) rendered a confession inadmissible. Chambers v. ... Year 1940 (MCMXL) was a leap year starting on Monday (link will display the full 1940 calendar) of the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 1944 (MCMXLIV) was a leap year starting on Saturday (link will display full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar. ... For other uses, see 1963 (disambiguation). ...


Miranda v. Arizona (1966) was a landmark case involving confessions. Ernesto Miranda had signed a statement confessing the crime, but the Supreme Court held that the confession was inadmissible because the defendant had not been warned of his rights. The Court held, "the prosecution may not use statements [...] stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean 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. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed." The warning to which Chief Justice Earl Warren referred is now called the Miranda Warning, and it is delivered by the police to an individual upon his or her arrest. Holding The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney. ... Year 1966 (MCMLXVI) was a common year starting on Saturday (link will display full calendar) of the 1966 Gregorian calendar. ... // Ernesto Arturo Miranda was born in Mesa, Arizona on March 9, 1941. ... For the swing saxophonist and occasional singer, see Earle Warren Earl Warren (March 19, 1891 – July 9, 1974) was a California district attorney of Alameda County, the 20th Attorney General of California, the 30th Governor of California, and the 14th Chief Justice of the United States (from 1953 to 1969). ... The Miranda warning is a police warning that is given to criminal suspects in police custody or in a custodial situation in the United States before they are asked questions relating to the commission of a crime. ...


Miranda has been clarified by several further Supreme Court rulings. For the warning to be necessary, the questioning must be under "custodial" circumstances. A person detained in jail or under arrest is deemed to be in police custody. Mere presence in a police station does not indicate that the circumstances of questioning were custodial unless a reasonable person in the suspect's situation would believe that he was in custody. The questioning need not be explicit; for example, two police officers engaging in a conversation designed to goad the suspect into interjecting an incriminatory remark would constitute questioning. A person may choose to waive his Miranda rights, but the prosecution bears the burden of showing that such a waiver was actually made.


A confession not preceded by a Miranda warning (where one is necessary) cannot be admitted as evidence against the confessing party in normal judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court, however, has held that if a defendant voluntarily testifies at the trial that he did not commit the crime, his confession may be introduced to challenge his credibility (i.e. to "impeach" the witness), even if it had been obtained without giving the required warnings.


In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on June 21, 2004 that the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments do not give people the right to refuse to give their name when questioned by police. Holding A Nevada law requiring suspects to identify themselves during investigative stops by law enforcement officers did not violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. ... is the 172nd day of the year (173rd in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 2004 (MMIV) was a leap year starting on Thursday of the Gregorian calendar. ...


Refusal to testify in criminal cases

In the context of the courtroom, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot punish a defendant for exercising his right to silence by allowing the prosecutor to ask the jury to draw an inference of guilt from the defendant's refusal to testify in his own defense. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965). In Griffin, the Court overturned as unconstitutional (under the federal Constitution) a provision of the California State Constitution that had explicitly granted such power to prosecutors. A courtroom is the actual enclosed space in which a judge regularly holds court. ... The right to silence is a legal protection enjoyed by people undergoing police interrogation or trial in certain countries. ...


Federal income tax returns

In some cases, individuals may be legally required to file reports that call for information that may be used against them in criminal cases. In United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927), a case involving the Federal income tax, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a taxpayer could not use the Fifth Amendment to refuse to file a required income tax return. The Court stated: "If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making[,] he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all. We are not called on to decide what, if anything, he might have withheld." Year 1927 (MCMXXVII) was a common year starting on Saturday (link will display full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar. ...


In Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 (1976) the defendant was convicted in connection with a conspiracy to "fix” sporting contests and to transmit illegal bets. During the trial the prosecutor introduced, as evidence, the taxpayer's Federal income tax returns for various years. In one return the taxpayer had showed his occupation to be “professional gambler.” In various returns the taxpayer had reported income from “gambling” or “wagering.” The prosecution used this to help contradict the taxpayer's argument that his involvement was innocent. The taxpayer tried unsuccessfully to keep the prosecutor from introducing the tax returns as evidence, arguing that since the taxpayer was legally required to report the illegal income on the returns, he was being compelled to be a witness against himself. The Supreme Court agreed that he was legally required to report the illegal income on the returns, but ruled that the privilege against self-incrimination still did not apply. The Court stated that "if a witness under compulsion to testify makes disclosures instead of claiming the privilege, the Government has not 'compelled' him to incriminate himself."


Sullivan and Garner are viewed by some legal scholars as standing, in tandem, for the proposition that on a required Federal income tax return a taxpayer would probably have to report the amount of the illegal income, but might validly claim the privilege by labeling the item "Fifth Amendment" (instead of "illegal gambling income," "illegal drug sales," etc.)


Grants of immunity

If the government gives an individual immunity, then that individual may be compelled to testify. Immunity may be "transactional immunity" or "use immunity"; in the former, the witness is immune from prosecution for offenses related to the testimony; in the latter, the witness may be prosecuted, but his testimony may not be used against him. The Supreme Court has held [citation needed] that the government need only grant use immunity to compel testimony. The use immunity, however, must extend not only to the testimony made by the witness, but also to all evidence derived therefrom. This scenario most commonly arises in cases related to organized crime. Organized crime or criminal organizations are groups or operations run by criminals, most commonly for the purpose of generating a monetary profit. ...


Other

In Albertson v. SACB, 382 U.S. 70 (1965), the Supreme Court struck down an order by the Subversive Activities Control Board requiring members of the Communist Party to register with the government and upheld an assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination, on the grounds that statute under which the order had been issued was "directed at a highly selective group inherently suspect of criminal activities." Year 1965 (MCMLXV) was a common year starting on Friday (link will display full calendar) of the 1965 Gregorian calendar. ...


Corporations may also be compelled to keep and turn over records; the Supreme Court has held that Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination extend only to "natural persons." There are, however, a few restraints on the government; it may not, for instance, compel a person to keep records for a corporation if those records could be used against the record-keeper himself.


In Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980), the Supreme Court ruled that the fifth amendment extended the right not to testify against oneself to include not testifying against one's spouse.


As a condition of employment, workers may be required to answer their employer's narrowly defined questions regarding conduct on the job. If an employee invokes the Garrity rule (sometimes called the Garrity Warning or Garrity Rights) before answering the questions, then the answers cannot be used in criminal prosecution of the employee. This principle was developed in Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 US 493 (1967). The rule is most commonly applied to public employees such as police officers. Holding Where police officers being investigated were given choice either to incriminate themselves or to forfeit their jobs under New Jersey statute on ground of self-incrimination, and officers chose to make confessions, confessions were not voluntary but were coerced, and Fourteenth Amendment prohibited their use in subsequent criminal prosecution...


In Leary v. United States, the court struck down the Marijuana Tax Act because it required self-incrimination. Holding The Marijuana Tax Act required self-incrimination, thus violated the Fifth Amendment of Constitution. ... REDIRECT ] ... Self-incrimination is the act of accusing oneself of a crime for which a person can then be prosecuted. ...


Due process

The Fifth Amendment prevents individuals from being punished without "due process of law." Due process extends to all persons (including non-U.S. citizens) and corporate entities. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly binds the states with due process protections. Due process of law is a legal concept that ensures the government will respect all of a persons legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights, when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. ...


The Fifth Amendment applies, of course, to the Federal Government (see Barron v. Baltimore), and the Fourteenth Amendment, by its own terms, applies against the States. While the Fifth Amendment includes a Due process clause, it does not include - as the Fourteenth amendment does - an equal protection clause. However, in Bolling v. Sharpe 347 U.S. 497 (1954), the Supreme Court averred that it was absurd that the Constitution could deny the states the power to abridge equal protection of the laws, yet permit that power to the Congress. "[T]he concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive," reasoned Chief Justice Earl Warren. The Court thus interpreted the Fifth Amendment's due process clause to include an equal protection element but has continued to hold that there is a difference between due process and equal protection in its Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence. Barron v. ... Amendment XIV in the National Archives The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments (known as the Reconstruction Amendments), first intended to secure rights for former slaves. ... Bolling v. ... For the swing saxophonist and occasional singer, see Earle Warren Earl Warren (March 19, 1891 – July 9, 1974) was a California district attorney of Alameda County, the 20th Attorney General of California, the 30th Governor of California, and the 14th Chief Justice of the United States (from 1953 to 1969). ... Amendment XIV in the National Archives The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments (known as the Reconstruction Amendments), first intended to secure rights for former slaves. ...


Eminent domain

The Supreme Court has held that the federal government and each state has the power of eminent domain—the power to take private property for "public use". The Fifth Amendment limits the power of eminent domain by requiring that "just compensation" be paid if private property is taken for public use. The just compensation provision of the Fifth Amendment did not originally apply directly to the states, but the federal courts now hold that the Fourteenth Amendment extended the effects of that provision to the states. The federal courts, however, have shown much deference to the determinations of Congress, and even more so to the determinations of the state legislatures, as to what constitutes "public use". The property need not actually be used by the public; rather, it must be used or disposed of in such a manner as to benefit the public welfare or public interest. One exception that restrains the federal government is that the property must be used in exercise of a government's enumerated powers. Eminent domain (United States), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia) or expropriation (Canada, South Africa) in common law legal systems is the inherent power of the state to seize a citizens private property, expropriate property, or rights in property, without the owner... Amendment XIV in the National Archives The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments (known as the Reconstruction Amendments), first intended to secure rights for former slaves. ...


The owner of the property that is taken by the government must be justly compensated. Speculative schemes that the owner claims the property was intended for use in need not be taken into account when determining the amount that must be paid. Normally, the fair market value of the property determines "just compensation". If the property is taken before the payment is made, interest (though the courts have refrained from using that term) accrues.


The federal courts have not restrained state and local governments from seizing privately owned land for private commercial development on behalf of private developers. This was upheld on June 23, 2005, when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kelo v. City of New London. This 5–4 decision remains controversial. The majority opinion, by Justice Stevens, found that it was appropriate to defer to the city's decision that the development plan had a public purpose, saying that "the city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue." Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion observed that in this particular case the development plan was not "of primary benefit to . . . the developer" and that if that was the case the plan might have been impermissible. In the dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued that this decision would allow the rich to benefit at the expense of the poor, asserting that "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." She argued that the decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively [deletes] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment". is the 174th day of the year (175th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 2005 (MMV) was a common year starting on Saturday (link displays full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar. ... Holding The governmental taking of property from one private owner to give to another in furtherance of economic development constitutes a permissible public use under the Fifth Amendment. ... Sandra Day OConnor (born March 26, 1930) is an American jurist who served as the first female Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1981 to 2006. ...


References

  1. ^ http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentv
  2. ^ http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

External links


  Results from FactBites:
 
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (3501 words)
Amendment V (the Fifth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, is related to legal procedure.
United States, 369 U.S. An acquittal in a trial by judge (bench trial) is also generally not appealable by the prosecution, United States v.
United States, 284 U.S.), the Supreme Court held that "where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof and love of a fact which the other does not".
  More results at FactBites »

 
 

COMMENTARY     


Share your thoughts, questions and commentary here
Your name
Your comments

Want to know more?
Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:

 


Press Releases |  Feeds | Contact
The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL.
Images may be subject to relevant owners' copyright.
All other elements are (c) copyright NationMaster.com 2003-5. All Rights Reserved.
Usage implies agreement with terms, 1022, m