The Government must respect ALL legal rights of all people. It must treat people fairly.

 Ways Due Process is Applied 1. Procedures - methods used to conduct hearings AND to apply/enforce laws must be fair and reasonable 2. Consent - Laws passed by the government must be fair and reasonable Both Federal and State government must follow the rules. Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law

 Persons accused of a crime are innocent until proven guilty by fair and lawful means  Life, Liberty and Property can’t be taken away without going through the Courts (Legal process)

1)You don’t have to defend yourself for a crime unless you are charged by a Grand Jury. 2) No Double Jeopardy - You can’t be tried in court for the same exact crime twice.

4) You don’t have to be a witness against yourself. You can’t be forced to take the witness stand. (“I plead the 5th”) 3) Eminent Domain - the Government can’t take away property unless the owner is compensated (paid).

 Right to a “Speedy Trial” - My trial must be “speedy” - I can’t be left to rot in jail without going to trial.  Allowed to have a fair and impartial (open minded, have not made up their minds) jury of people who are from the state and county where the crime happened.

1) Writ of Habeas Corpus - The accused person must be told of the crime and why he/she is being blamed. (The accused must be told about the evidence against them.)

2) The right to face the witnesses against the accused - the witnesses can’t hide 3) The right to call witnesses of their own to help the accused 4) Right to a lawyer (attorney)

Self Incriminate- Giving testimony in a trial or other legal proceeding that could subject a person to criminal prosecution.

Facts of the Case: Ernesto Miranda was charged with kidnapping and rape. While in police custody and during questioning by the police he admitted to the crime and signed a statement that said he did it. The police at the time did not have to tell criminals about their rights under the Constitution. Under this case the Supreme Court ruled on 3 other cases at the same that also questioned the rights of suspects "while in custody or otherwise deprived of [their] freedom in any significant way." 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.

1)Vignera v. New York: the petitioner was questioned by police, made oral admissions, and signed an incriminating statement all without being notified of his right to an attorney. 2)Westover v. United States, the petitioner was arrested by the FBI, interrogated, and made to sign statements without being notified of his right to an attorney. 3)California v. Stewart, local police held and interrogated the defendant for five days without notification of his right to an attorney. Question: Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self- incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment? The Other Cases:

Decision: 5 votes for Miranda, 4 vote(s) against Conclusion: The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation (police interviews/interrogations/questioning) of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self- incrimination.” 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.

A defendant must be told of their rights against self-incrimination (aka “the right to remain silent”) and to consult with an attorney prior to police questioning.

 Protecting the rights of individuals who may have broken the law (criminals) AND  Protecting law abiding citizens from people who break the law and endanger life, liberty or property

 States must protect everyone equally - EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE  States cannot make laws that take away your Federal rights  States may not take away life, liberty or property with out going through a legal process