Amendment+5+(4)

__**Home**__ Period 4

__ ** The 5th Amendment ** __ 1856- __Murray’s Lesse v. Hobolcen Land and Improvement company__ __-__ This trial deals with the due process of law and the separation of powers. Samuel Swartwout embezzled $1.5 million in customs receipts and used the money to purchase property in New Jersey. The Treasury Department issued distress warrants to cancel the land sales and recover the money. Swartwout said the proceedings were a violation of due process and the separation of powers. The judge ruled that the federal government could resort to non judicial procedures to recover funds embezzled from it.

 1922- __United States v. Lanza__ __- __ This trial brings up that double jeopardy is not applied if you are tried by a state court and a federal court. This was decided on December 11 th 1922. Lanza was accused of  violating the Volstead Act in the state of Washington and the Prohibition laws of the United States. A federal district court stopped another prosecution based on double jeopardy. The United States Department of Justice appealed. In a 9-0 vote, the Supreme Court decided that the state courts and federal courts have independent sovereignty.

 1937- __Palko v. Connecticut -__ In 1935 Frank Palko broke into a store and stole a phonograph. When the police confronted him he killed two officers, then fled on foot. He was charged with first degree murder. It was later decided that the charges be dropped down to second degree murder and he was given life in prison. The prosecutors appealed and won a new trial where Palko was given the death sentence. Palko argued that the prosecution was violating the 5th amendment, claiming that the 5th amendment provides protection against double jeopardy

===Ashcraft v. Tennessee – In 1944, the case of Ashcraft v. Tennessee was thrown out because the interrogation techniques were harsh. In this case, the officers interrogated to suspect under a very bright light for about 36 hours. The Court ruled that his confession was forced not admissible in court.===

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">1966- <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">__Miranda v. Arizona__ __<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">- __<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">This case deals with voluntary and involuntary confessions and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. Ernesto Miranda was charged with kidnapping and rape. He was interrogated for 2 hours until he confessed. But the police had never told Miranda that he had his right to consult with an attorney before answering any questions or his right to have an attorney present during interrogation. This proved to be fatal for the prosecution. There are three parts to the decision in this case. The first is that the Fifth Amendment is available outside of court proceedings and other formal proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings from being compelled to incriminate themselves. No statement can be used from a person that is swept from familiar surroundings, surrounded by antagonist forces and subjected to the techniques of persuasion. A suspect must be given the four-fold Miranda warning. That is the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you, you have the right to talk to a lawyer before being questioned and to have him present while you are being questioned; and if you can not afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you before any questioning if you so desire.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> 1969- <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">__Benton v. Maryland-__ <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">In 1965 John Benton faced trial for larceny and burglary. He was convicted of burglary but found innocent of larceny, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Shortly after his sentencing the Maryland Court of Appeals struck down a law requiring jurors to swear to their belief in God. His case was remanded, but at Benton’s second trial he was found guilty on both charges and was sentenced to 15 years for burglary and 5 years for larceny. He then appealed his case, he did so because he claimed it violated his 5th Amendment of double jeopardy. In 1967 the court rejected his appeal. Then in 1968 the U.S. Supreme Court took his case on certiorari. The court rescheduled the case for the next year. His larceny conviction was reversed. This case represents an extension of 5th Amendment rights, the court ensured national review of state statutes and procedures affecting civil rights of individuals.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">1993- <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">__United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property-__ <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">On October 6, 1993 police found 89 pounds of marijuana in Good’s home. He pleaded guilty to promoting a harmful drug in violation of Hawaii law. The U.S. filed in rem action in the Federal District Court, seeking forfeiture of his house and land. The government seized the property without prior notice to Good or an adversary proceeding. Good asserted that he was deprived of his property without due process of law and the action was invalid because it had not been timely commenced. The Supreme Court ruled that the owner was entitled to advance notice and a full hearing before the government could take his home and land.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;"> 2003- __Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania-__ <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">David Sattazahn was tried for first degree murder and was given a life sentence because the jury was dead locked at 9-3 for the death penalty and Pennsylvania State law says that in this situation he would serve a life sentence. However David appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court to get a retrial for his case. They reversed his first-degree murder charge and was given a retrial. At the end of the second trial he was given the death penalty. Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that this did not break the Fifth Amendment double jeopardy clause. The United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote said that it did not violate the double jeopardy clause because the death sentence during the retrial was fair because of the evidence provided.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Works Cited <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">- “ Benton v. Maryland - Significance - Court, Amendment, Trial, Double, Jeopardy, and Fift - JRank Articles.” Law Library - American Law and Legal Information JRank Articles. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><http://law.jrank.org/pages/23635/Benton-v-Maryland-Significance.html>.

<span style="background-color: transparent; display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">- SATTAZAHN v. PENNSYLVANIA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 20 September 2011. __<http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_7574>__

<span style="background-color: transparent; display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">- <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">"United States v. Lanza: Information from Answers.com." Answers.com: Wiki Q&A combined with free online dictionary, thesaurus, and encyclopedias. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2011. __<http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-v-lanza>__

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">"US v. James Daniel Good Real Property - ACLU - ProCon.org." ACLU.ProCon.org - Is the ACLU good for America?. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2011. <http://aclu.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=3064>.

"Ashcraft v. Tennessee | Casebriefs." Law Cases & Case Briefs for Students. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2011. <http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-israel/police-interrogation-and-confessions/ashcraft-v-tennessee/>.