jury

Oriana – The 7th Amendment

Video

Written Component

When being ruled by Britain, the colonists had no say in the British Parliament, meaning that they had no control in how they were governed, or what taxes were levied on them. So when the colonies introduced the idea of independence from Britain, colonial juries were a way for the colonies to start governing themselves. And in 1776, when the colonies finally gained their independence, the right to civil jury was included in many state laws.

However, when the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, there were mixed feelings about civil juries. The Federalists felt that including a civil jury in the constitution would lead to the nullification of laws, while Anti-Federalists believed that the lack of this law would prevent citizens from being protected from governmental abuses. Ultimately the 7th amendment was drafted into the Bill of Rights. The 7th Amendment is commonly interpreted as: The right to a jury trial in civil cases, when the case dispute exceeds 20 dollars. No judge can overturn the jury’s verdict. In the 7th Amendment, the term “common law” is used twice.

This term confused many as it was unclear what common law the writers of the Constitution were referring to. America was a young nation, and it did not yet have a common law to base this Amendment on. In the Supreme Court case United States v. Wonson, it was determined that the common law that the amendment referred to was actually the common law of England. This statement was refined in Dimick v. Schiedt (1935), which declared that the 7th amendment was to be interpreted in terms of English common law as it was in 1791. The meaning of this term was clearly defined. However, the Supreme Court ruled in the Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman (1935) case, the “substance of the common law right of trial by jury” is different in its actual application to every civil case. This means that the right to trial by jury is guaranteed, but certain civil cases can be handled with modifications to the jury, including a decreased size, or the lack of.

I agree with this ruling because there are, especially in the 21st century, many aspects that can go into each case, making them unique from each other. And in some of these cases, juries aren’t required, or would benefit without a jury. Every aspect of this amendment has been clearly defined, except the twenty dollar amount required for a civil case to be tried by a jury. This is because the impact of this dollar amount has changed over the centuries. While twenty dollars may have been a handsome amount of money in 1791, the value has decreased, not accurately representing the amount required for modern day civil cases. And may very well be the case in the future, where the price again becomes irrelevant. It’s best to remove this clause entirely.

Layla Boyce: Amendment V

Video

Written Component

The Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individual rights by ensuring a fair and just legal system. One event does not appear to have prompted the addition of the Fifth Amendment; rather, the amendment was born out of a recognition of the importance of a just legal system. The Fifth Amendment includes five separate protections: right to a trial by jury (the right to be judged by an unbiased audience of informed citizens), protection against “double jeopardy” (one cannot be tried multiple times for the same offense), protection against self-incrimination (individuals are not compelled to implicate themselves), the right to a fair and speedy trial (cases should not involve prejudice or unnecessary delays), and protection of private property (without compensation, the government cannot seize personal property). Of these provisions, one of the most controversial features of the Fifth Amendment is the protection against self incrimination, commonly known as the “right to remain silent”.  

The relevant text of the Amendment reads, “ …nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…”.  Generally, it is interpreted to mean individuals are permitted to refuse to answer incriminating questions or “take the 5th” during a criminal trial.  These protections have been extended to the pre-trial investigation stage.  Law enforcement is obligated to inform suspects in custody of their right to invoke the Fifth Amendment by reading them an explanation known as a Miranda warning.

The Supreme Court case, Bobby v. Dixon, demonstrates the issues caused by the broad language of the Fifth Amendment. Archie Dixon was questioned first about forgery without being Mirandized and his requests for an attorney were ignored. Subsequently, during a second interrogation after receiving Miranda warnings, he confessed to murder. The Sixth Circuit ruled that the police’s actions during the first were unconstitutional and that the second questioning was thus impermissibly tainted. However, the Supreme Court overruled this decision arguing that “Dixon was not in custody when he asserted his right to an attorney, and denied his ability to assert this right before he was in formal custody…” It was decided that there was no nexus between the improper unwarned admission to forgery and his later Mirandized confession to murder. Therefore, the Supreme Court found Dixon’s confession was properly elicited and reinstated his conviction.  

Furthermore, Griffin v. California (1965), a Supreme Court case, challenged the practice inferring guilt against defendants who employed their Fifth Amendment rights. Many people then were coerced into testifying to prevent the assumption of guilt.  The Supreme Court decided in Griffin this practice rendered the Fifth Amendment protections hollow as no one should be  ‘made “worse off” by asserting the Fifth than by not asserting it.’

The Fifth Amendment is a cornerstone of the American legal system, protecting individuals from self-incrimination, ensuring due process rights, and safeguarding property rights. The Fifth Amendment plays a significant role in protecting individual rights against the potential abuses of a  powerful government.

The Sixth Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Sixth Amendment was a response to the multiple factors of the justice system that caused a lack of order and effectiveness in handling criminal cases. There were various issues with the legal process prior to the amendment including a lack of professional police forces and no professional representation for victims and defendants. The author’s motivation for including this amendment in the constitution was to reform certain processes of the justice system with the goal of making it more fair, orderly, and thorough. The Sixth Amendment advocates for new measures around trial, legal representation, and police forces. It outlines a need for individuals to be represented by professional lawyers and judged by a fair and impartial jury. It also emphasizes the importance of procedure in court and sets a standard for effective and comprehensive trials.

One topic of debate around the Sixth Amendment is the idea of defendants being entitled to disclosure of their potential consequences if they include deportation. Scholars Jeffrey L. Fisher and Stephanos Bibas argue for the right to an appointed lawyer being restricted to more serious misdemeanors and ones that can result in severe punishments like deportation in order to relive the burden of public defense lawyers.

The also explain importance of defendants, specifically those who could face deportation depending on the legal route they take, to have the right to an appointed lawyer and an extensive opportunity to understand the potential consequences of a deal and make the best choice for how to move forward. Fisher provides evidence in the form of a court case: Padilla v. Kentucky. The events of this case took place in 2009 and 2010. It consisted of a defendant, Jose Padilla, being sent to a judge based on three counts of drug related crimes and one count of operating a tractor without a weight and distance tax number.

He entered a guilty plea for the three drug count in return for dismissal of the other count. Following this, he filed for post conviction relief on the grounds that he had not been informed of the potential for deportation by his lawyer. His ruling was reversed by the Kentucky Court of Appeals and sent for an evidentiary hearing. The ruling was then reversed back by the Kentucky Supreme Court which stated that collateral consequences, and consequences around immigration were not required to be shared by counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

This court ruling illustrates the lack of clarity around the Sixth Amendment, and the contrast in views of that information lawyers should be required to disclose to their clients. This provision has a lack of clarity in some cases, such as this court case, which can connect to themes of inequality for immigrants in the legal system throughout history. I believe that if deportation is a potential consequence of a deal, defendants should be made aware of that because their lawyer should be working in their defense and their best interests completely; and this rule should be implemented in the clause.