5th, 6th, 7th Amendment Rights

Due Process

5th Amendment Rights Miranda v Arizona. (1966) Miranda was convicted of some crime which is of little importance to use and immediately confessed to his crimes. He later did not know of his 5th Amendment rights and sued the federal government for not telling him his rights.

Miranda Court rules in favor of Arizona. Now when arrested a cop must read you your Miranda rights so “you know” you have a right to remain silent, a lawyer, etc. etc.

Gideon v Wainwright Gideon committed a misdemeanor, wanted a lawyer but couldn’t afford one, lost in criminal trial. Wrote to Supreme Court stating he should have a lawyer. Does 6th Amendment extend to felons? Yes state Courts must follow the Constitution and provide felons a lawyer.

Coy v Iowa (Facts No Notes) Facts of the case John Coy was tried in an Iowa court for sexually assaulting two 13-year-old girls. When the girls were testifying against Coy, the court placed a large screen in front of him so that the girls would not have to see him. The jury proceeded to convict him. Coy argued that Iowa Code 910A, which provides for the use of a screen in child sexual abuse cases, violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers face-to-face. He also claimed that the code violated his right to due process

Coy v Iowa Question Does a defendant have the right to confront his alleged victims "face-to-face" under the Sixth Amendment if they testify against him before a jury? Yes, to not allowing the defendant to be face-face with is victim would present the defendant as guilty. Regardless of how severe the crime was.

Escobedo v. Illinois Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken to a police station for questioning. Over several hours, the police refused his repeated requests to see his lawyer. Question Was Escobedo denied the right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment? Ruling Yes, you have "an absolute right to remain silent." Escobedo had not been adequately informed of his constitutional right to remain silent rather than to be forced to incriminate himself. 

Kelo vs City of New London 5th Amendment Takings Clause: the government can take private property with just compensation for public use. New London CT wanted to take private property to build a shopping center which would be used to boost the economic development of the area. Several of the property owners sued, stating the government cant take private property for private use. Can the government invoke the takings clause to use land for private use, that may have a public benefit.

Ruling 5-4 in favor of the city. The city's taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a "public use" within the meaning of the takings clause. The city was not taking the land simply to benefit a certain group of private individuals, but was following an economic development plan.