Amendment VII

Amendment VII

“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

This amendment was adapted from the British policy of trying cases that were matters of civil law as opposed to criminal as Common Law cases. This amendment declares that civil suits, which are between individuals, with damages resulting in twenty dollars are considered a Common law matter. Civil suits result in verdicts that award monetary compensation and require a preponderance of evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil courts are often used to bring individuals to civil justice who have been acquitted of criminal charges.                

I included this video because it is an example of how celebrities are often targets for civil suits because they have a lot of money and because it is easier to sue an individual. In this video, a professional athlete was sued by a car dealership for its damages and losses as a result of a car being impounded. Burress had to pay over one thousand dollars to the rental car company

I choose this video clip because it explains what civil cases or common law cases are and some of the elements of them. I liked how the video described the different types of civil cases that exist.

Amendment VI

Amendment VI

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

The Sixth Amendment insures citizens’ rights to lawful criminal procedures. It goes into detail about a suspect’s rights from the time they are accused of a crime and once the trial has begun. This amendment further brings criminal prosecution into the public-sphere. It prevents law enforcement from extending trial time or delaying trial time as a means of keeping a suspect imprisoned. They are required to work as quickly as possible to bring justice to society. Right to a trial by jury in the district where the crime was committed is important because it is the area in which the crime was committed which is the most affected. It seems fair the trial would be in that district. This amendment also prevents suspects from prosecution without knowing what charges are being brought against them, what witnesses will testify against them; and prosecution without gaining appropriate counsel for defense and witnesses.

This is a video clip taken from Fox News on Drew Peterson and how he waived his right to a speedy trial because his defense attorney’s needed more time to prepare their case. This is an example of how a right could possibly work against you. The defense also requested that the trial be moved to a location outside of the county because there had been so much media attention in regards to the crime. This is often a reason for a request to move the location of the trial. This video also reveals that the prosecution wants to use testimonies from Peterson’s dead ex-wife and, at that time, his missing wife. This, his defense affirms, would be a direct violation Peterson being “confronted with the witnesses against him…” because prosecution cannot confront Peterson with a witness that is dead or missing. In this case the testimony would be “hearsay.”

This is a comical enactment of the Sixth Amendment by some children, which I thought described some aspects of the Sixth Amendment. The “officer” actually violates amendments 4 and 5 by unlawfully searching the house without a warrant and not informing the suspect of the nature and cause of the accusation!

Amendment V

Amendment V

“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 dues process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The first section of the 5^th amendment guarantees that an individual does not have to commit to a crime at any point during interrogation or investigation. No officer can lawfully force a person to confess to a crime or say anything that could be considered incriminating. This section also states that no citizen can be held captive for a crime without being indicted which means, there have to be formal steps in criminal proceedings that include indictment of a Grand Jury. This protects citizens from being subject to the underhanded tactics that government and/or law enforcement may try to use in order to intimidate people they consider suspects of crimes. This demands that matters of criminal justice be public in order to ensure justice among the people.

             The second section of the Fifth Amendment protects the people from being tried for the same crime more than once and guarantees citizens punishment only after a lawful trial. This also limits the power of the states and government. This stems from the British Government exploiting citizens whenever there was criminal suspicion. The British Government had full reign to behave the way it felt and if an individual was suspected of committing a crime, there was no limit to what that person may have had to endure whether innocent or guilty.

            The third section of this amendment guarantees that there has to be “just compensation” for any taking of private property. This can be a sticky situation if you have private property that a private developer wants to buy in order to build a community pool; according to the Supreme Court, the government could sell your property to a company that wants to build a community pool on your property.

I like the way this video breaks down what is considered “testimonial” and “non-testimonial” as far as Fifth Amendment Rights are concerned. It explains that courts can mandate a person comply with authorities in matters that are non-testimonial such as handing over a key to a locked box, but NOT in matters considered testimonial such as giving authorities a password to computer that may have incriminating evidence. The video explains that the difference between a password/combination and handing over a key is that the actual placing of the key in authorities’ hand is not a testimony, while to give out a personal password or combination is considered testimonial.

This video clip highlights Enron’s acknowledgement and exercise of the Fifth Amendment in court and throughout the case. Although they were found guilty, they were not forced to answer any incriminating questions and often refused to answer these types of questions. I believe it is necessary to protect citizens from unlawful act of the government and law enforcement, but I also believe that in instances where suspected criminals who come from extremely low economic backgrounds (unlike exec at Enron)are by default more susceptible to their rights being infringed upon without them even knowing it or being able to fight for their rights.

  

Amendment IV

Amendment IV

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The fourth amendment guarantees citizens protection from unlawful searches and seizures, or without a warrant that was issued on the basis of probable cause. This prevents law enforcement from going into homes to search and take things from homes without having gone through the appropriate channels first. This amendment creates a small ‘checks and balance’ of law enforcement. The framers wanted to protect citizens from being exploited by law enforcement and the government.

I feel that there is always room for our rights to be infringed upon because are corrupt people in positions of power who will exert their power over others (especially those who may be unable to fight for their rights) and try to get away with it. I believe the amendment holds a great amount of power in protecting people from being robbed of a fair process in criminal cases.

This video talks about how we have a right to not show police our id—depending upon which state we live in. This video talks about whether your right to lawful searches and seizures is affected by having to show a police officer if you are stopped. I wanted to include this video because I think it is difficult for people to truly know their rights, when their rights are interpreted differently depending on the state they live in. It is important to understand the fourth amendment in its entirety. Some states do not require that a civilian show an officer their id if they have done nothing wrong; an example would be New York State. According to a couple of sites on Google, if you have not committed a crime or if an officer walks up to you on the street, you do not have to show them your id. I tried to find out whether or not the state of MO required civilians to show id upon request, but I couldn’t find it and didn’t know where exactly to look. If you have not committed a crime you should not have to show an officer your id.

I appreciate this video because police officers constantly try to intimidate people, and in that time, many become afraid because they do not know or understand their rights as citizens. This video portrays the correct way to refuse a search or seizure without a warrant. Too many times people want to be disrespectful in demanding officers regard their rights, which only gets them arrested for their behavior towards officers. The man in this video remains calm, respectful, and adamant that does not, nor does he have to consent to searches without a warrant. That is what the fourth amendment provides.

In high school, I attended a party with some friends in the Raytown/Independence, MO area that is known for its prejudice and sometimes blatant, racist police. My friends and I were eighteen at the time, but the renter of the apartment was in his mid-twenties. The cops were called because of an alleged noise nuisance, although the music was not loud at all. There was also some under-age drinking (there were only two or three bottles of alcohol at the party) at the party. Once it was realized that the police were called, the alcohol was thrown away and everyone sat and waited on the police to arrive. Being that my friends and I were not intoxicated (nor was anyone at the party), when the cops arrived, we expected it to be a warning. The police came into the house, demanded everyone sit on one side of the apartment, and said that everyone would have to show their id and if it wasn’t on their person they would be taken into custody. I became enraged because my friends and I had left our purses in the trunk of my car, there was no reason to bring our purses in the house. My friends and I thought it was ludicrous to arrest twenty people because they had no id on them. The police didn’t know there was alcohol in the house and because no one acted irrationally, we all sat in disbelief as the cops talked to the adult in charge and tried to threaten us. In the end no one was arrested (of course) and it was a complete waste of time.    

Amendment III

Amendment III

“No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

The third amendment is an amendment that seems to be very distant from many modern American’s realities because none of us has ever had to deal with the quartering of soldiers. It is the right of the US Citizens to not be required to provide housing and care for soldiers. Quartering of soldiers doesn’t seem to have been an issue since the American Revolution. Personally, it is an amendment that is not as relevant today because there have been no wars fought on US soil for at least a century, so no one worries about soldiers showing up at the front door needing food and a place to stay.

This video gives an explanation of the third amendment, and I included it because I wanted to include a broader definition why the framers included the amendment. The reporter explains that it is an amendment that does not have much relevance today, but it was put in place for a reason so its still worthy to have.

This video is of a nutcracker doll singing a parody song of the third amendment. I thought it was funny and when I first watched the video, I thought, “There is no way this man has soldiers quartered in his home!” So after listening to the song a couple of times, I realized he was joking about his third amendment right being infringed upon. I thought this would be appropriate considering the third amendment is not very relevant today.