{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}


What happens if incriminating evidence is acquired

Info iconThis preview shows pages 4–6. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
What happens if incriminating evidence is acquired illegally? The exclusionary rule prevents illegally seized evidence from being introduced in the courtroom. The logic of the exclusionary rule is that if police are forced to gather evidence properly their competence will be rewarded with a conviction; if they are sloppy or ignore the rights of a suspect, they will not get a conviction. So it was designed to discourage illegal activity among the police. The case which extended the exclusionary rule to the states was Mapp v. Ohio (1961) which ruled that the police could not use obscene material obtained from a house search while looking for a criminal as evidence to convict the owner of the material since there had been no probable cause. Critics of the exclusionary rule argue that too many criminals get away due to a technicality. C. The Right to Counsel/Self-Incrimination The Sixth Amendment guarantees to an accused person the assistance of counsel in his defense. This was first held to mean that an individual could hire an attorney. Since most criminal defendants are poor, this did them no good. Congress first required federal courts to provide an attorney for defendants too poor to afford one in capital cases, later extended to all federal cases. In 1932 the Court directed states to furnish lawyers in capital cases. It wasn't until 1963 when the right to counsel was extended to state felony cases in the Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright. Clarence Earl Gideon wrote a pauper's petition to the Court, which heard his case. He was released, retried and acquitted. (“Gideon’s Trumpet”) As a result of this case, thousands of other prisoners were retried across the country who had not been given the right to counsel. 4
Background image of page 4

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
ISS 225 Crime Self-Incrimination involves the principle that an individual should not be forced to contribute to his own conviction (“forced confessions”). In the United States the burden of proof rests on the police and the prosecutors. Suspects cannot be forced to help with their own conviction. The Fifth Amendment forbids forced self-incrimination: no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself ("Taking the Fifth"). This applies to congressional hearings as well. The most important case involving self-incrimination was Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Ernesto Miranda accused of kidnap and rape of an 18 year old girl. He was never told of any of his constitutional rights and was convicted on the basis of a forced confession. The Court reversed his conviction and set guidelines for police interrogation: 1. Suspects must be told they have the constitutional right to remain silent and may stop answering questions at any time. 2.
Background image of page 5
Image of page 6
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page4 / 11

What happens if incriminating evidence is acquired...

This preview shows document pages 4 - 6. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online