You probably already knew this, but we have a pretty good idea of what our users are searching for. Sure, it's a little creepy when Google knows your question before you even type it into the box. We don't get that personal, but we do pay attention to frequently searched terms in order to better understand -- and serve -- your needs.

Since today is Constitution Day, we thought we'd share the Top 5 FindLaw.com search terms related to the U.S. Constitution. You'll also find valuable resources for each topic listed below, but feel free to search for more:

1. "Gun Laws" (2nd Amendment) -- Regardless of your personal beliefs, we can all agree that an epidemic of gun-related tragedies has kept this issue on the front burner of our collective conscience. Although the right to bear arms is a federal guarantee, many state laws provide varying restrictions on gun ownership and use. You can learn more about these laws here:

2. "Miranda Rights" (5th Amendment and 6th Amendment) -- Nearly every crime show on TV will have an utterance of the words, "You have the right to remain silent..." Those are referred to as our Miranda rights, named for the U.S. Supreme Court case (Miranda v. Arizona) that requires police to inform arrestees of their constitutional rights. Check out these resources to learn more:

3. "Supreme Court Cases" -- The U.S. Supreme Court is where the constitutionality of laws is tested. Quite a few of our users simply typed "Supreme Court cases" into the search box, but there's a much easier way to find High Court opinions, news, and analysis of both recent and historical cases:

4. "Search and Seizure" (4th Amendment) -- Few constitutional provisions have been challenged and clarified as often as the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure by the police. Searches and seizures have a broad impact on criminal rights and procedures, such as the admissibility of evidence and the legality of arrests.

5. "Due Process" (5th Amendment and 14th Amendment) -- To honor "due process" is to follow the proper course of formal legal proceedings, carried out consistently, fairly, and in line with current laws and regulations. While the Fifth Amendment prohibits the arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment extends these protections to all U.S. citizens under all jurisdictions within the country.

It's hard to believe that a document signed exactly 227 years ago today is not only still valid, but continues to serve as the cornerstone of this great experiment we call the United States of America. FindLaw may not have been around as long as the U.S. Constitution, but we're always here to serve you.

Read the original:

Top 5 Constitution-Related Searches at FindLaw.com

Fifth Amendment
Goss vs Lopez.

By: Dulcebee101

View post:

Fifth Amendment - Video

As Eugene noted, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit recently held that a child pornography conviction had to be reversed because the evidence was gathered in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Steve Vladeck has a post discussing the important and potentially certworthy issue in the case, which is whether a violation of that statute can trigger the exclusionary rule at all.

I confess that my initial reaction was skepticism. Consider Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon:

We have applied the exclusionary rule primarily to deter constitutional violations. [In t]he few cases in which we have suppressed evidence for statutory violations the excluded evidence arose directly out of statutory violations that implicated important Fourth and Fifth Amendment interests.

Maybe the Posse Comitatus Act can be shown to implicate important Fourth and Fifth Amendment interests, but the Ninth Circuit didnt really show that, and it isnt obvious to me.

More generally, it seems to me that current exclusionary rule doctrine can be read in a couple of different ways:

One is the deterrence theory: Exclusion is appropriate when it seems like theres intentional and/or widespread and/or generally problematic illegality by the government. This refrain appears in a bunch of the cases, and its how the Ninth Circuit framed the analysis. Its not clear, however, that the analysis automatically applies in statutory cases (see above).

A second is the slow destruction theory: Under this theory, the exclusionary rule is unfounded and deleterious, and the rule and its works should be slowly destroyed. Some people read the Courts exclusionary rule precedents to be implicitly working toward this theory. It is not really put forward by the Court as a first-order justification, although quite a few of the opinions do frame their analysis by questioning the rules basis or justification.

Until recently, I would have ended this list there. But I have recently begun to give some credence to a third account of exclusionary rule doctrine put forward by my friend Richard Re in an article called The Due Process Exclusionary Rule.

Richard argues that today many searches and seizures should be seen as part of the criminal process and that the exclusionary rule is thus justified by the Due Process Clause, which forbids a conviction obtained through illegal process. While I am not yet sure that I agree with this view, I think it deserves serious consideration, and is the best alternative to the slow destruction theory that is on offer.

Here is what the article says about statutory violations (footnotes omitted):

See more here:

Volokh Conspiracy: What the posse comitatus case might mean for the future of the exclusionary rule

A school official, this one the superintendent in Litchfield, is not having his contract renewed by the school board. Why? The school board, officially, won't say.

"I can't disclose or discuss the contents of the board's discussion, or the rationale behind the vote," said school board chairman Dennis Miller, sounding very much like someone pleading the Fifth Amendment before Congress

Chairman Miller and a majority of the board have decided this is a "personnel matter" and therefore not for the public's ears.

Well, of course it is a personnel matter. But it involves a public employee, paid for with taxpayer dollars and not only responsible to the citizens of the school district, but in charge of the district.

Yet again, we have a case where elected officials, acting on the public's behalf, refuse to tell the public the reason for their actions. Such cases are happening too frequently.

The public has limited, but powerful, recourse. It can decide not to renew the employment "contracts" of school board members.

Some argue that they are elected to represent the public, which needs to just trust their judgment. But without knowing their reasoning for such important decisions as the hiring or firing of key personnel, how is that judgment to be assessed?

To his credit, board member John York, one of the two board members who opposed not renewing the contract, said it was more personality than anything else.

Supt. Brian Cochrane also spoke out to the Union Leader. And the world, surprise, didn't end.

The public doesn't need great specificity or gory details in such cases. But officials like Miller who won't explain their actions either don't care to take the time to do so or they really don't have a strong case in the first place.

Go here to read the rest:

Public be damned Litchfield latest example

Invoking your Fifth Amendment rights is a sign of guilt, according to one Florida police officer.

TechDirt.com reports that one of its readers recently sent the website a video (below) of two people filming an area where prisoners are taken in and out of the Duval County courthouse in Jacksonville, Florida.

This area is known as a "sally port," and is in full view of a public sidewalk where the cameramen were filming from.

However, two officers from the Jacksonville Sheriffs Office recently tried to stop the men from filming.

In the video, one of the officers tells the cameramen this is a "secure area" and asks why they are filming.

One cameraman says, "I am filming in a public space.

The officer then wants to know the cameraman's name and why he refuses to tell him (the officer) why he is filming.

According to TheFreeThoughtProject.com, when the cameraman says he wants to "remain silent," the police officer appears to laugh and says, "You must be doing something wrong if you invoke your rights."

The officer then doubles down on his bizarre claim and refuses to show the cameraman the statute that bans people from filming prisoners entering and leaving the sally port.

Eventually, the officers leave the scene and allow the men to film.

Go here to see the original:

Cop Says 'You Must Be Doing Something Wrong if You Invoke Your Rights' (Video)

September 9, 2014 4:45 PM Share with others:

By Torsten Ove / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A federal appeals court today overturned the conviction of a Texas man on drug charges, saying the government violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during his trial here.

Gathon Shannon, 48, of Houston, described by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration as a courier in a Texas-to-Beaver County cocaine ring, was convicted by a federal jury and sentenced in 2013 to 20 years.

But a three-judge panel of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that the prosecution violated his rights in cross-examining him about his silence following his arrest in 2011.

The circuit judges vacated the sentence imposed by U.S. District Judge Alan Bloch and ordered that Mr. Shannon receive a new trial.

Mr. Shannon was among a group of accused conspirators targeted by the U.S. attorney's Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force, which said the ring supplied much of Beaver County's cocaine demand from 2009 to 2011.

See more here:

Texas man's conviction overturned because of Fifth Amendment violation

Denver, Colorado (PRWEB) September 09, 2014

Attorney for the IRP6, Gwendolyn Solomon, is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider reviewing the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the IRP6 case. U.S. Supreme Court records show that a petition for writ of certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on August 23, 2014 and placed on the docket on August 27, 2014. (U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 14-229, 8/27/14, RE: David A. Banks, Kendrick Barnes, Demetrius Harper, Clinton A. Stewart, Gary L. Walker, David A. Zirpolo vs. United States).

The IRP6 case concerns a Colorado-based company (IRP Solutions Corporation) that developed the Case Investigative Life Cycle (CILC) criminal investigations software for federal, state, and local law enforcement. The IRP6 (Kendrick Barnes, Gary L Walker, Demetrius K. Harper, Clinton A Stewart, David A Zirpolo and David A Banks) were convicted in 2011 after being accused of mail and wire fraud. (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA).

Court documents show that the IRP6 case was previously submitted to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals based on Fifth Amendment Prohibition of Compulsory Testimony, Sixth Amendment Right to Present a Defense and Speedy Trial Act Violation. That appeal was denied in August 2014. (IRP 6 Case - Appellate Case: 11-1492, Document: 01019289332, 8/4/14). Records also show that A Just Cause previously filed a lawsuit against Court Reporter Darlene Martinez for a missing transcript related to the Fifth Amendment violation argument. Court records show that the IRP6 made repeated requests for the transcript from court proceedings of October 11, 2011, arguing that a sidebar discussion was missing. (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA).

We put together a solid argument for appeal, but I am troubled at what I have observed throughout these proceedings at how there can be evidence of innocence, yet men sit in jail, says Attorney Gwendolyn Solomon, Appellant Attorney for the IRP6. The next obvious step was the U.S. Supreme Court, adds Solomon.

Regardless of decisions by lower courts, filing the petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on behalf of the IRP6 is a great opportunity, says Solomon. I was truly amazed when I got the letter showing that it had been filed and that it passed the first step of getting on the docket, exclaims Solomon. It is my ultimate goal that this case is reviewed by the Justices and the IRP6 can get back to their families, Solomon concludes. (U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 14-229, 8/27/14, RE: David A. Banks, Kendrick Barnes, Demetrius Harper, Clinton A. Stewart, Gary L. Walker, David A. Zirpolo vs. United States)

While working on this case there are so many things that I have observed and argued in lower court filings to include judicial abuse of authority and power. Im now petitioning the highest court to review arguments showing how the lower court was not impartial, but exhibited judicial bias in favor of the government, argues Solomon. Court filings show that appellants have argued that exculpatory evidence was disallowed, not only documents but expert witnesses to allow the defendants to properly defend their case. Court transcripts show that the Judge didnt assist in enforcement of subpoenas, but reprimanded the defendants for being unable to get service on their witnesses, added Solomon (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA) . As for the Fifth Amendment violation argument, I have serious questions on what the court records show regarding how a court reporter can withhold court records of legal proceedings and the court not enforce a persons fundamental right to those court records. This is the type of action that warrants a review by the Supreme Court because of the potential conflict it poses with federal law, asserts Solomon.

A Just Cause is very pleased at the ongoing interest that Attorney Solomon has shown in the IRP6 case, says Sam Thurman, A Just Cause. Ms. Solomon has been working this case pro bono for over two years, and you have to respect that type of dedication. She was on board already when Mark Geragos joined the team and continued to do most of the research and legwork afterwards. The defendants and AJC have since parted ways with Mr. Geragos, adds Thurman. That situation is one in which we have recently filed a complaint on behalf of AJC and the families with the California Bar Association under Rule 3-500 Communication and 3-110 - Failing to Act Competently (California Bar Association Complaint Ref #14-25162). The complaint shows that the families paid Mr. Geragos over $100,000 in retainer fees, but they do not feel that the case was adequately represented, adds Thurman. The fact that Solomon has continued to progress with this case in light of the recent complaint that we had to file is a testament to her willingness to see this case through to the end, says Thurman.

At first I was very excited to work with Mark Geragos, says Solomon. He is a veteran with over 30 years experience and I graduated from law school only 7 years ago. It was my desire to advance my skills and knowledge of the legal system, adds Solomon. I became concerned as certain events occurred that ultimately led to Mr. Geragos dismissal and subsequent complaint. I acknowledge that there was a riff between he and I at one point but that doesnt concern me as much as how he treated the IRP6 and their families. I support the families and A Just Cause in their complaint against Mr. Geragos, which cites that he didnt exercise professional courtesy in this relationship. I was lead counsel, but as the complaint states, he didnt communicate well with the client or me. On several occasions he refused to follow my suggestions and wouldnt return calls or timely emails. Lack of communication and disrespect for me as a professional attorney are key to the California Bar complaint, and I believe that the dismissal of the IRP6 civil case for the transcript can be attributed to Geragos that lack of communication and failing to act competently; as the complaint cites, Solomon asserts (California Bar Association Complaint Ref #14-25162). You dont yell at your clients during a conference call and hang up on them; I was shocked, explains Solomon.

Referring to the filing of the complaint with the California Bar Association, David Banks comments, Mr. Geragos comment to us that You can chase your constitutional rights, but you are going to spend your time in jail was uncalled for and showed lack of professional consideration for us as his clients. In our opinion the complaint with the California Bar is the right thing to do and we are glad that Attorney Solomon didnt let his actions deter her from filing the petition with the Supreme Court, added Banks.

Read more:

Attorney Gwendolyn Solomon Petitions United States Supreme Court to Review Tenth Circuits Decision in Case of the IRP6

The Kansas Supreme Court has upheld a Wyandotte County district court's dismissal of indictments against an attorney for the Board of Public Utilities of Kansas City, Kan.

The high court overturned a Court of Appeals reversal, agreeing with the district court that Robert Turner's constitutional right against self-incrimination had been violated during the grand jury proceedings.

A citizen-called grand jury in 2008 indicted Turner on two counts of theft and 55 counts of presenting a false claim, which was based on nonitemized vouchers totaling about $400,000 he submitted for work he did for BPU.

The grand jury had been called to look into allegations of misappropriation of public funds by directors of BPU, an arm of the Unified Government of Wyandotte County.

It was during testimony before the grand jury that William Delaney a special agent of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation who was assigned to serve as the investigator for the grand jury made repeated suggestions that Turner was somehow involved in the 1989 unsolved murder of Chuck Thompson, a Kansas City, Kan., politician and lawyer.

Delaney told jurors he had been investigating the case for years, and that he would be asking questions of people he thought were involved during the BPU probe.

The grand jury subpoenaed Turner, who gave notice in advance that he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Delaney questioned him anyway, asking questions related not just to the BPU probe but also the Thompson murder. Turner, court records show, addressed about 100 or more questions by invoking his right against self-incrimination.

The district court, on appeal, ruled that Delaney's continual leading questioning and remarks to jurors suggesting that Turner's silence meant he had something to hide were prejudicial to Turner, and dismissed the indictments.

The Court of Appeals overturned the decision, saying a person can be compelled to appear before a grand jury and be asked questions to which he can invoke constitutional protections on a question-by-question basis. The appeals court said Turner had not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by Delaney's methods.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

Read this article:

Kansas Supreme Court: Grand jury violated man's Fifth Amendment rights

Cristin Milioti in The Good Wife - Julianna Margulies
The Fifth Amendment of United States Constitution protects individuals from being forced to incriminate (be accused of a crime) themselves. Cristin #39;s charact...

By: Mario Rustan

Read more:

Cristin Milioti in The Good Wife - Julianna Margulies - Video

In the upcoming general election, voters will have many important decisions to make, one of which might make it easier to prosecute sex offenders.

The action, Missouri Evidence in Sexual Crimes Against Minors or Amendment 2, would allow prosecutors who are trying a case against an alleged child sex offender to use relevant past criminal activity as evidence against the defendants.

This means that if an alleged sex offender had been accused, but not found guilty, of a past crime, a prosecutor could still introduce the record of that accusation to the court as evidence against the defendant under Amendment 2.

The amendment has been seen as controversial, as it might make it easier to reach a guilty verdict in those types of cases.

Due to some Supreme Court decisions, prosecuting attorneys were unable to try many cases of child sexual abuse in our state, Rep. John McCaherty, R-Mo., said. As a member of the Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee, I see the amendment as a positive step to give prosecutors the tools they need to protect our children, and to see those that prey on them prosecuted. There has been no opposition to this legislation, and I was proud to sponsor it.

McCaherty is the primary sponsor of the amendment, which recently received approval from the Missouri House of Representatives to be placed on the ballot in November.

McCaherty said he felt the bill would address an important gap in Missouris justice system, giving prosecutors a powerful tool to imprison sex offenders.

He said there should be no violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which forbids double jeopardy, secures the right to a grand jury and protects against self-incrimination, or the Sixth Amendment, which includes the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the rights to a lawyer and an impartial jury and the right to know who your accusers are.

Of course there have to be safeguards in place as well, so a defendant can receive a fair trial, McCaherty said. Not all evidence is relevant to every trial. This is the responsibility of the judge to determine the relevance in each case.

The amendment has gained local attention and a Protect Missouri Children Committee formed to support the measure. The group believes that the amendment will protect children and aid in putting dangerous criminals behind bars.

More:

New bill a powerful tool to imprison sex offenders

Fifth Amendment,amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that articulates procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of the criminally accused and to secure life, liberty, and property. For the text of the Fifth Amendment, see below.

Similar to the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment is divided into five clauses, representing five distinct, yet related, rights. The first clause specifies that [n]o 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. This grand jury provision requires a body to make a formal presentment or indictment of a person accused of committing a crime against the laws of the federal government. The proceeding is not a trial but rather an ex parte hearing (i.e., one in which only one party, the prosecution, presents evidence) to determine if the government has enough evidence to carry a case to trial. If the grand jury finds sufficient evidence that an offense was committed, it issues an indictment, which then permits a trial. The portion of the clause pertaining to exceptions in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia is a corollary to Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the power [t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces. Combined, they justify the use of military courts for the armed forces, thus denying military personnel the same procedural rights afforded civilians.

The second section is commonly referred to as the double jeopardy clause, and it protects citizens against a second prosecution after an acquittal or a conviction, as well as against multiple punishments for the same offense. Caveats to this provision include permissions to try persons for civil and criminal aspects of an offense, conspiring to commit as well as to commit an offense, and separate trials for acts that violate laws of both the federal and state governments, although federal laws generally suppress prosecution by the national government if a person is convicted of the same crime in a state proceeding.

The third section is commonly referred to as the self-incrimination clause, and it protects persons accused of committing a crime from being forced to testify against themselves. In the U.S. judicial system a person is presumed innocent, and it is the responsibility of the state (or national government) to prove guilt. Like other pieces of evidence, once presented, words can be used powerfully against a person; however, words can be manipulated in a way that many other objects cannot. Consequently, information gained from sobriety tests, police lineups, voice samples, and the like is constitutionally permissible while evidence gained from compelled testimony is not. As such, persons accused of committing crimes are protected against themselves or, more accurately, how their words may be used against them. The clause, therefore, protects a key aspect of the system as well as the rights of the criminally accused.

The fourth section is commonly referred to as the due process clause. It protects life, liberty, and property from impairment by the federal government. (The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, protects the same rights from infringement by the states.) Chiefly concerned with fairness and justice, the due process clause seeks to preserve and protect fundamental rights and ensure that any deprivation of life, liberty, or property occurs in accordance with procedural safeguards. As such, there are both substantive and procedural considerations associated with the due process clause, and this has influenced the development of two separate tracks of due process jurisprudence: procedural and substantive. Procedural due process pertains to the rules, elements, or methods of enforcementthat is, its procedural aspects. Consider the elements of a fair trial and related Sixth Amendment protections. As long as all relevant rights of the accused are adequately protectedas long as the rules of the game, so to speak, are followedthen the government may, in fact, deprive a person of his life, liberty, or property. But what if the rules are not fair? What if the law itselfregardless of how it is enforcedseemingly deprives rights? This raises the controversial spectre of substantive due process rights. It is not inconceivable that the content of the law, regardless of how it is enforced, is itself repugnant to the Constitution because it violates fundamental rights. Over time, the Supreme Court has had an on-again, off-again relationship with liberty-based due process challenges, but it has generally abided by the principle that certain rights are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty (Palko v. Connecticut [1937]), and as such they are afforded constitutional protection. This, in turn, has led to the expansion of the meaning of the term liberty. What arguably began as freedom from restraint has transformed into a virtual cornucopia of rights reasonably related to enumerated rights, without which neither liberty nor justice would exist. For example, the right to an abortion, established in Roe v. Wade (1973), grew from privacy rights, which emerged from the penumbras of the constitution.

See original here:

Fifth Amendment (United States Constitution ...

Wildstein takes the 5th
David Wildstein invokes his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions before a state Assembly committee investigating the lanes closures at the GWB.

By: NorthJersey

Read more from the original source:

Wildstein takes the 5th - Video

Fifth Amendment: Protection against abuse of government authorityWhat is the Fifth 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 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 compensationThe Fifth Amendment Defined:The Fifth Amendment stems from English Common Law and traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215.The Fifth Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.Stipulations of the 5th Amendment:The Fifth Amendment is asserted in any proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative, judicial, investigatory, or adjudicatory. The Fifth Amendment protects against all disclosures where the witness reasonably believes the evidence can be used in a criminal prosecution and can lead to the spawning of other evidence that might be used against the individual.The Fifth Amendment guarantees an American individual the right to trial by Grand Jury for specific crimes, the right not to be tried and subsequently punished more than once for the same crime, the right to be tried with only due process of the law and the right to be awarded fair compensation for any property seized by the government for public use.The Fifth Amendment also guarantees the individual the right to refrain from self-incrimination by pleading the fifth to any questions or inquiries that may give way to an additional punishment or the notion of a guilty plea.State Timeline for Ratification of the Bill of RightsNew Jersey:November 20, 1789; rejected article IIMaryland:December 19, 1789; approved allNorth Carolina:December 22, 1789; approved allSouth Carolina: January 19, 1790; approved allNew Hampshire: January 25, 1790; rejected article IIDelaware: January 28, 1790; rejected article INew York: February 27, 1790; rejected article IIPennsylvania: March 10, 1790; rejected article IIRhode Island: June 7, 1790; rejected article IIVermont: November 3, 1791; approved allVirginia: December 15, 1791; approved all

Fifth Amendment: Protection against abuse of government authorityWhat is the Fifth 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 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

The Fifth Amendment Defined:

The Fifth Amendment stems from English Common Law and traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215.

The Fifth Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.

The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.Stipulations of the 5th Amendment: The Fifth Amendment is asserted in any proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative, judicial, investigatory, or adjudicatory. The Fifth Amendment protects against all disclosures where the witness reasonably believes the evidence can be used in a criminal prosecution and can lead to the spawning of other evidence that might be used against the individual.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees an American individual the right to trial by Grand Jury for specific crimes, the right not to be tried and subsequently punished more than once for the same crime, the right to be tried with only due process of the law and the right to be awarded fair compensation for any property seized by the government for public use.

The Fifth Amendment also guarantees the individual the right to refrain from self-incrimination by pleading the fifth to any questions or inquiries that may give way to an additional punishment or the notion of a guilty plea.State Timeline for Ratification of the Bill of Rights New Jersey:November 20, 1789; rejected article II

Maryland:December 19, 1789; approved all

North Carolina:December 22, 1789; approved all

More:

5th Amendment - Laws.com

From News Tribune staff and AP wire reports

Thursday, August 28, 2014

A Missouri ballot measure that would allow allegations of past actions to be used against people facing child sexual abuse charges could lead to more wrongful convictions of the falsely accused, a prominent defense attorney said Wednesday.

The proposed constitutional amendment is backed by prosecutors, sheriffs and police chiefs groups.

It would allow past criminal acts even alleged crimes that didnt result in convictions to be used to corroborate victim testimony or demonstrate a defendants propensity to commit such crimes when people face sex-related charges involving victims younger than 18. However, the evidences admissibility is at the judges discretion, meaning if the judge doesnt think it is relevant to the matter being tried then it can not be used.

Currently the previous acts of defendants cannot be presented as evidence to a jury unless they waive their Fifth Amendment rights and testify. The past allegations can also be taken into consideration by judges during sentencing hearings after the defendant has been found guilty.

If approved by Missouri voters in November, Constitutional Amendment 2 could make it more difficult for defendants to persuade juries and judges of their innocence, said Kim Benjamin, a Belton attorney who is the past president of the Missouri Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Youre now defending your entire life, your entire reputation, rather than this one act, she said. It causes a tremendous risk for more people to be wrongly convicted.

One of Benjamins most prominent clients was Burrell Mohler Sr., the patriarch of a western Missouri family who was accused along with his four sons of sexually abusing young relatives over many years. The charges ultimately were dropped in March 2012, after Mohler had spent more than two years in jail while awaiting trial.

The proposal, which was referred to the ballot by the Legislature in 2013, is a backlash against a December 2007 Missouri Supreme Court decision of State v. Ellison that struck down a state law allowing evidence of past sexual crimes to be used against people facing new sex-related charges involving victims younger than 14. Before Ellison, the Legislature had twice tried to establish legislation that would make the states statues regarding these issues mimic federal law, but both attempts were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

View post:

Sexual abuse measure could lead to wrongful convictions, attorneys say

OK, just to be clear: Two Spokane County planning officials pleaded the Fifth Amendment you know, the one where you cant be compelled to give criminal evidence against yourself when asked in a public hearing if they had falsified planning documents to boost a new gas station over a legalhurdle.

But they didnt, were told, do anythingwrong.

Spokane Countys unofficial policy of approving developments and then hustling to get them grandfathered in before theyre undone took a turn this week that even the most conspiratorial-minded of critics might not have foreseen. A landowner

You have viewed 20 free articles or blogs allowed within a 30-day period. FREE registration is now required for uninterrupted access.

S-R Media, The Spokesman-Review and Spokesman.com are happy to assist you. Contact Customer Service by email or call 800-338-8801

OK, just to be clear: Two Spokane County planning officials pleaded the Fifth Amendment you know, the one where you cant be compelled to give criminal evidence against yourself when asked in a public hearing if they had falsified planning documents to boost a new gas station over a legalhurdle.

But they didnt, were told, do anythingwrong.

Spokane Countys unofficial policy of approving developments and then hustling to get them grandfathered in before theyre undone took a turn this week that even the most conspiratorial-minded of critics might not have foreseen. A landowner wants to build a gas station at Argonne and Bigelow Gulch roads, on land the county added to its growth management boundary last July. Unfortunately, the state invalidated that expansion last November, also invalidating the zoning under which the projects permit wasapproved.

If the application was completed between July and November, it would be considered vested and grandfathered in. The seeming abuse of vesting is the loophole the City Council tried to close in March undermined by Mayor David Condons veto because it essentially allows developers to take a side route around land-use laws with the county commissionshelp.

The latest allegation, if true, would amount to a whole new level of chicanery. The projects first Determination of Completeness was signed Jan. 27 of this year. Too late for vesting. Well after too late. And yet the project was moving forward with the countys blessing. Rick Eichstaedt, the attorney for neighbors challenging the project, inquired about this discrepancy. Within a couple of days, a new permitappeared.

Go here to see the original:

Shawn Vestal: County permit clerical mishap raises eyebrows - Fri, 23 May 2014 PST

Two Spokane County building employees invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination this week in a case that accuses the county of improperly back-dating documents to allow construction of a gas station where a state board ruled it was notallowed.

The county workers testified Monday during an appeal before the county hearing examiner of a building permit application for a convenience store and gas station at Argonne and Bigelow Gulchroads.

Building Director Randy Vissia, one of the two county employees who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, said he was advised to not answer questions by a county attorney

You have viewed 20 free articles or blogs allowed within a 30-day period. FREE registration is now required for uninterrupted access.

S-R Media, The Spokesman-Review and Spokesman.com are happy to assist you. Contact Customer Service by email or call 800-338-8801

Two Spokane County building employees invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination this week in a case that accuses the county of improperly back-dating documents to allow construction of a gas station where a state board ruled it was notallowed.

The county workers testified Monday during an appeal before the county hearing examiner of a building permit application for a convenience store and gas station at Argonne and Bigelow Gulchroads.

Building Director Randy Vissia, one of the two county employees who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, said he was advised to not answer questions by a county attorney even though, according to Vissia, his employee, Julie Shatto, had done nothing wrong in approving the permit application as completed. Shatto also declined to answer questions at the hearing involving the date that the application was certified ascomplete.

Property owner and developer Stephen Smart, who was at the hearing to defend his project, said the appellant attorneys were acting like attackdogs.

Local residents and neighborhood groups appealed the county decision to let the project proceed, arguing the project was flawed on several grounds, including environmental review and applicationcompleteness.

See the article here:

Spokane County workers use Fifth Amendment in back-dating case - Thu, 22 May 2014 PST

PROVIDENCE, R.I. A lawyer for former House Speaker Gordon Fox told a judge Thursday more than 100 grand jury subpoenas have been issued in what he said he believes is a wide-ranging investigation by federal and state authorities that includes looking at the failed 38 Studios deal.

The attorney made the comments before Superior Court Judge Michael Silverstein as he sought to quash a subpoena issued to Fox for a range of documents related to ex-Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling's now-bankrupt company. Silverstein is overseeing a lawsuit brought by the state's economic development agency over the $75 million loan guarantee it gave 38 Studios.

"We believe it's a wide-ranging investigation," attorney Albin Moser told the judge, adding that they don't know exactly what authorities are looking for.

The Providence Democrat resigned as speaker in March, a day after his Statehouse office and home were raided by investigators. Authorities have not said what they're investigating.

In his arguments, Moser cited Fox's constitutional protection against self-incrimination. Moser said he doesn't believe that a charge against Fox is merited with regard to 38 Studios, but that "we do believe that federal and state authorities are interested" in the company. He called their interest "a link in the chain of a possible prosecution" that triggers the ex-speaker's right to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege.

Moser wouldn't say after the proceeding whether the subpoenas are from a state or federal grand jury and declined further comment.

A federal grand jury has been meeting relating to the raid on Fox's Statehouse office, and a federal grand jury has issued at least one subpoena to Providence City Hall, which was asked for records relating to Fox. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office would not comment.

While state police say their probe into 38 Studios is ongoing, it's not clear whether a state grand jury is investigating. A spokeswoman for the attorney general's office said she could not comment.

The judge is giving Moser more time to make his case to have the subpoena thrown out. Attorneys for Wells Fargo, which issued it, object. The company is among 14 defendants named in the state agency's suit, along with Schilling.

Also in court Thursday, an attorney for one defendant told the judge a potential witness who had a consulting agreement with 38 Studios told his attorney he intended to invoke the Fifth Amendment in response to a subpoena for deposition testimony. However, Michael Corso's attorney told The Associated Press that was false. The deposition is scheduled for May 22.

Go here to see the original:

Attorney: Defense told Corso will take Fifth

BANGOR, Maine A prison inmate who described himself as a friend of one of the two men on trial for the murder of three people refused to testify Monday at the Penobscot Judicial Center. He said he was afraid of retribution if he told the court what he knew.

Nicholas Sexton, 33, of Warwick, Rhode Island, and Randall Ricky Daluz, 36, of Brockton, Massachusetts, are both charged with three counts of murder and one count of arson in the August 2012 crime. Both have pleaded not guilty.

Alfred Lanpher, 44, said Sexton was his friend and gave him a nod when he entered the courtroom. When Assistant Attorney General Lisa Marchese, who is prosecuting the case with Assistant Attorney General Deb Cashman, asked him questions about the murder case, Lanpher declined to answer.

I already advised this lawyer here that Im not going to testify, Lanpher said, indicating attorney William Bart, who was sitting beside him in the courtroom.

Bart did not address the court.

I dont want to testify here because I am going to spend the next three years in jail, Lanpher later said on the stand.

Lanpher of Mount Desert Island is serving a 4-year sentence at the Maine State Prison in Warren for assaulting a Southwest Harbor police officer in 2012.

Marchese asked if he was afraid of retribution for being a rat. Lanpher replied, yeah.

Lanpher did say on the stand that he was using illegal drugs around the time of the three murders and when he testified in front of the Penobscot County grand jury shortly afterward.

Marchese asked the judge to force Lanpher to testify or to allow the prosecution to use the testimony he gave the grand jury shortly after police found the bullet-riddled and charred bodies of Nicolle A. Lugdon, 24, of Eddington, Daniel T. Borders, 26, of Hermon and Lucas A. Tuscano, 28, of Bradford inside a rental car that was discovered on fire in the early morning hours of Aug. 13, 2012.

Read more from the original source:

Im not going to testify: Witness pleads Fifth Amendment during Bangor triple murder trial

Lois Lerner, former director of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division at the Internal Revenue Service, exercises her Fifth Amendment Right against self incrimination during a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Capitol Hill on March 5. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

Embattled former IRS official Lois Lerner can breathe a small sigh of relief: as of now, the House has no plans to arrest her in an effort to compel her to testify about the agency's undue scrutiny of certain tax-exempt groups.

The House voted to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress last week for her repeated refusal to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The charge against her stems from an opening statement she made in a hearing last year declaring her innocence before invoking her Fifth Amendment right. Republicans say that by delivering her opening statement, she waived her rights against self-incrimination.

Despite the contempt charge, Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, says it's up to Attorney General Eric Holder - not the House - to take the next steps.

"The contempt charge has gone to the attorney general and its up to the attorney general, Eric Holder, to prosecute this and to assign someone to prosecute the case. Now will he do it? We don't know. But the ball is in his court," Boehner said over the weekend in an interview on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures."

Boehner said a provision allowing the House to make its own arrest has "never been used and I'm not sure it's an appropriate way to go about this. It's up to Eric holder to do his job."

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel clarified that the speaker was referring to the modern era, because the House did at one time enforce its own contempt findings.

The Supreme Court has twice upheld the House's authority to arrest and even imprison people through a process called "inherent contempt." A 2014 report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) found several instances in which Congress would dispatch the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest the person being held in contempt. They would stand trial before the House, be given counsel, found guilty, and then penalized with arrest or a fine.

"Inherent contempt has the distinction of not requiring the cooperation or assistance of either the executive or judicial branches. The House or Senate can, on its own, conduct summary proceedings and cite the offender for contempt," the report found.

But the practice hasn't been used since 1935, in part because imprisonment for refusing to comply with a subpoena cannot extend past the current session of Congress, and also because the process has been described as "unseemly," cumbersome, time-consuming and ineffective in the modern era.

Visit link:

No plans to arrest Lois Lerner, John Boehner says

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

(CNN) -- Acting on a conservative battle cry and potentially triggering a court battle with the Obama administration, the Republican-led House voted Wednesday to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about her agency's targeting of conservative and other groups.

The 231-187 vote fell almost entirely along party lines, a decision that cut across three sharp divides: balance of power issues between the branches of government, political questions over the IRS scandal, and a Constitutional debate over Lerner's individual Fifth Amendment rights.

Lerner is in the middle of that trio. Until she retired last year, she ran the IRS division in charge of tax exempt status. An inspector general's report concluded her staff had inappropriately targeted Tea Party and other groups for extra scrutiny.

The term "progressive" was also flagged but the inspector general report indicated that conservative terms drew more attention from the IRS.

The Fifth Amendment question

For nearly a year, Lerner has refused House requests to testify on the matter, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Republicans insist that doesn't apply here, that she waived the right by first asserting her innocence when she appeared before the House Oversight Committee last May.

"Mrs. Lerner made 17 separate factual assertions before invoking her right to remain silent," proclaimed Rep. Richard Nugent, Republican of Florida, as he opened up Wednesday's debate. "You can't make selective assertions and still invoke your Fifth Amendment right."

Lerner's attorney, William Taylor, has dismissed that argument repeatedly and sent a statement rejecting it again Wednesday.

Link:

GOP-led House votes to hold former IRS official in contempt