Mediaboss Marketing

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "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 clauses incorporated within the Fifth Amendment outline basic constitutional limits on police procedure. The Framers derived the Grand Juries Clause and the Due Process Clause from the Magna Carta, dating back to 1215. Scholars consider the Fifth Amendment as capable of breaking down into the following five distinct constitutional rights: grand juries for capital crimes, a prohibition on double jeopardy, a prohibition against required self-incrimination, a guarantee that all criminal defendants will have a fair trial, and a promise that the government will not seize private property without paying market value. While the Fifth Amendment originally only applied to federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment's provisions as now applying to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Grand juries are a holdover from hundreds of years ago, originating during Britain's early history. Deeply-rooted in the Anglo-American tradition, the grand jury originally served to protect the accused from overly-zealous prosecutions by the English monarchy.

Congressional statutes outline the means by which a grand jury shall be impaneled. Ordinarily, the grand jurors are selected from the pool of prospective jurors who potentially could serve on a given day in any juror capacity. At common-law, a grand jury consists of between 12 and 23 members. Because the Grand jury was derived from the common-law, courts use the common-law as a means of interpreting the Grand Jury Clause. While state legislatures may set the statutory number of grand jurors anywhere within the common-law requirement of 12 to 23, statutes setting the number outside of this range violate the Fifth Amendment. Federal law has set the federal grand jury number as falling between 16 and 23.

A person being charged with a crime that warrants a grand jury has the right to challenge members of the grand juror for partiality or bias, but these challenges differ from peremptory challenges, which a defendant has when choosing a trial jury. When a defendant makes a peremptory challenge, the judge must remove the juror without making any proof, but in the case of a grand juror challenge, the challenger must establish the cause of the challenge by meeting the same burden of proof as the establishment of any other fact would require. Grand juries possess broad authority to investigate suspected crimes. They may not, however, conduct "fishing expeditions" or hire individuals not already employed by the government to locate testimony or documents. Ultimately, grand juries may make a presentment. During a presentment the grand jury informs the court that they have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect committed a crime.

The Double Jeopardy Clause aims to protect against the harassment of an individual through successive prosecutions of the same alleged act, to ensure the significance of an acquittal, and to prevent the state from putting the defendant through the emotional, psychological, physical, and financial troubles that would accompany multiple trials for the same alleged offense. Courts have interpreted the Double Jeopardy Clause as accomplishing these goals by providing the following three distinct rights: a guarantee that a defendant will not face a second prosecution after an acquittal, a guarantee that a defendant will not face a second prosecution after a conviction, and a guarantee that a defendant will not receive multiple punishments for the same offense. Courts, however, have not interpreted the Double Jeopardy Clause as either prohibiting the state from seeking review of a sentence or restricting a sentence's length on rehearing after a defendant's successful appeal.

Jeopardy refers to the danger of conviction. Thus, jeopardy does not attach unless a risk of the determination of guilt exists. If some event or circumstance prompts the trial court to declare a mistrial, jeopardy has not attached if the mistrial only results in minimal delay and the government does not receive added opportunity to strengthen its case.

The Fifth Amendment protects criminal defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may "plead the Fifth" and not answer if the witness believes answering the question may be self-incriminatory.

In the landmark Miranda v. Arizona ruling, the United States Supreme Court extended the Fifth Amendment protections to encompass any situation outside of the courtroom that involves the curtailment of personal freedom. 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Therefore, any time that law enforcement takes a suspect into custody, law enforcement must make the suspect aware of all rights. Known as Miranda rights, these rights include the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and the right to have a government-appointed attorney if the suspect cannot afford one.

If law enforcement fails to honor these safeguards, courts will often suppress any statements by the suspect as violative of the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination, provided that the suspect has not actually waived the rights. An actual waiver occurs when a suspect has made the waiver knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. To determine if a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver has occurred, a court will examine the totality of the circumstances, which considers all pertinent circumstances and events. If a suspect makes a spontaneous statement while in custody prior to being made aware of the Miranda rights, law enforcement can use the statement against the suspect, provided that police interrogation did not prompt the statement.

Go here to read the rest:

Fifth Amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia ...

We are considering offers for the sale of this website. Use the contact form in the left column to contact us for more information.

The 5th Amendment is better known to most Americans than the other amendments in the Bill of Rights because of the familiar phrase "I plead the fifth," often used as a defense in criminal trials. The 5th Amendment also guarantees Americans several other basic rights, including the right to trial by Grand Jury for certain crimes, the right not to be tried or punished more than once for the same crime, the right to be tried only with due process of law and the right to be paid fair compensation for any property taken by the government for public use. The Fifth Amendment reads like this:

"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 offence 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 5th Amendment is made up of 5 specific parts containing 6 different clauses, including:

On the page below, you can read a little about each clause. Then, if you would like to know more about that particular clause of the 5th Amendment, just click on the link for more information.

The 5th Amendment opens with the Grand Jury Clause. It reads like this:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."

The Grand Jury Clause guarantees that Americans cannot be charged with serious federal crimes except with an indictment by a grand jury. This is generally considered to be a protection from corrupt government officials who might try to prosecute people unfairly, because a group of fellow citizens is required to look over the evidence first.

Click to enlarge

Grand Jury at the Arcadia Hotel fire in Boston, 1913

Go here to read the rest:

5th Amendment - Revolutionary War and Beyond

WASHINGTON (CNN) -

The Republican-led House Oversight Committee voted 21-12 Thursday to charge former IRS official Lois Lerner with contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about the agency's targeting of conservative and other groups. The vote sets up a full debate on the House floor, followed by possible court battle over the Fifth Amendment and a potential standoff with the Justice Department.

"This is not something that I take lightly," said Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa of California. "We cannot tell the American people we have done all we can do to get to the truth in this investigation if we give a pass to a critical witness like Ms. Lerner."

Issa has spent nearly a year investigating why the agency used conservative political terms like "Tea Party" and "patriot" to flag some applications for tax-exempt status.

"What is this about?" asked Rep. John Mica, Republican of Florida, "This is about one of the most fundamental abuses I have seen in my lifetime. About trying to skew an election."

Republicans believe that Lerner personally tried to block conservative groups, including Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, from getting tax-exempt status when she ran the IRS division in charge of making tax-exempt decisions. The Republican investigation has sought to determine if White House officials were involved as well.

Democrats point out that liberal groups were also flagged by the IRS, with the the term "progressive" appearing on a watch list.

Lerner's attorney responded quickly to the vote, calling it a political maneuver.

"The vote is the latest event in the majority's ?never-ending effort to keep the IRS story alive through this fall's mid-term elections," said William Taylor in a written statement.

But some of the most fiery debate at the meeting was not about the investigation, but instead about Lerner's own Constitutional rights.

Read more:

House Republicans vote to hold ex-IRS official in contempt

Politics Congress Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner refuses to answer questions as the House Oversight Committee holds a hearing to investigate the extra scrutiny the IRS gave Tea Party and other conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt status, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on May 22, 2013. J. Scott ApplewhiteAP

House Republicans voted Thursday to hold in contempt of Congress the former IRS official at the center of a scandal over the tax agencys alleged targeting of conservative groups.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted along party lines to approve a resolution recommending Lois Lerner be held in contempt of Congress. Lerner, who oversaw the IRS division in charge of vetting applications for groups seeking tax-exempt status, came under fire when she admitted the agency had given scrutiny to requests from conservative political groups. The ensuing scandal briefly buffeted President Barack Obama in the early days of his second term, but ultimately fizzled without evidence of a connection to the White House and with revelations that liberal groups were also given scrutiny. Republicans have sought to keep the issue alive, though, and committee chairman Darrell Issa (RCalif.) has sought to compel Lerner to testify about the matter, rejecting her claim to Fifth Amendment protections.

We need Ms. Lerners testimony to complete our oversight work to bring the truth to the American people, Issa said Thursday. Why did she do certain things and who else was involved? The American taxpayers certainly dont get to plead the Fifth and escape all accountability when the IRS audits them.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the committees ranking Democrat, again decried Republicans for what he called a political witch hunt.

Today this committee is trying to do something even Joe McCarthy did not do in the 1950s, something almost unprecedented, Cummings said before the vote.

The outcome of Thursdays vote was all but predetermined, as Issas GOP-controlled committee has been divided along the issue along stark partisan lines. The full House will have to vote on the contempt citation, but even if that passes its unclear if Attorney General Eric Holder would take any action.

The tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee sent a letter Wednesday recouting Lerners alleged crimes and insisting the Justice Department has a responsibility to act, and Lois Lerner must be held accountable.

See more here:

Republicans Vote to Hold Former IRS Official in Contempt

Two former top aides to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie dont have to give documents about the George Washington Bridge lane closings to state lawmakers, a judge ruled, setting back the legislatures probe into who ordered the traffic tie-ups and why.

Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson said yesterday that forcing Bridget Anne Kelly, an ex-deputy chief of staff, and William Stepien, a former Christie campaign manager, to turn over e-mails and other papers subpoenaed by a legislative committee would violate their constitutional rights against self-incrimination. If lawmakers want the documents as they probe who snarled traffic in Fort Lee, New Jersey, they can give the pair immunity, she said.

If the committee chooses this route, Mr. Stepien and Ms. Kelly would have to comply with the subpoenas in their entirety to avoid being held in contempt, Jacobson said in a 98-page opinion issued in Trenton.

The committees probe, led by attorney Reid Schar, is in a critical phase. Schar claimed Kelly and Stepien are key to answering questions about the lane closures. Jacobson ruled that the committee failed to show that it was engaged in more than a fishing expedition when the subpoenas were issued in January.

Kevin Marino, Stepiens attorney, applauded the dismissal of a frivolous lawsuit to enforce a clearly invalid subpoena.

An investigation commissioned by Christie concluded on March 27 that he had no advance knowledge of a plot to close the lanes by Kelly and David Wildstein, then a Christie ally at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs the bridge. They sought to punish the mayor of Fort Lee for unknown political reasons through tie-ups from Sept. 9 to Sept. 12, according to the report by the law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and its lead attorney, Randy Mastro.

The scandal has damaged Christies popularity as he weighs a Republican run for the White House in 2016.

The opinion, like Mastros report, represents a complete vindication of Bill Stepien, Marino said in a statement. In its zeal to achieve a blatantly political goal having nothing to do with Mr. Stepien, the committee disregarded the fundamental constitutional right of this innocent man.

Michael Critchley, Kellys attorney, said the decision provides a free tutorial on the protections the Fifth Amendment affords all citizens. In a statement, he said the thorough and well-reasoned opinion is a complete rejection of the committees attempt to strip Ms. Kelly of her constitutional rights.

In persuading the judge to dismiss a pair of committee lawsuits seeking to enforce the subpoenas, Kelly and Stepien said they feared a criminal prosecution by U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman, who is investigating the events at the bridge.

Read the rest here:

Ex-Christie Aides Win Fifth Amendment Argument on Subpoenas