Writing Assignment- Constitutional Issues in Criminal Procedure
CJC 3110- Spring 2011
April 24, 2011

The Goal most directly associated with my topic is course Goal 1: “Articulate the procedural considerations in the handling of criminal cases.”, and my personal interest in the Fifth Amendment: Due Process and Obtaining Information Legally. My curiosity has always been in the scope of the law surrounding the criminal justice, but more specifically I like to know in more detail about how to obtain the information and the confessions in such a manner that it will not be tossed out of the court. A piece of evidence can make or break the case. If that evidence is not collected properly than the prosecution is looking at a huge loss. Knowing this information is not only helpful in the criminal justice career, but also in our everyday personal lives. If a person caught in a situation where they are being interrogated by the police, it’s good to know what to expect and the full rights. One more key interest in the Fifth Amendment is the Miranda rights and the details surrounding when the rights are given, told, to the person.
The objective is to show how cases are handled, and how Fifth Amendment plays one of major roles in the handling of criminal cases. The details of the case are important, and knowing when to make a move and ask certain questions, or making someone confess.
Due Process is such an important concept of American law that no precise definition accurately suits it, although the concept is simple: basic fairness must remain part of the process. It is the right to hear and the right to be heard (Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 2008, p.269). Due Process is one of the greatest American benefits, a part of our culture if you will. Fairness is the idea of doing what's best. It may not be perfect, but it's the good and decent thing to do.
It is not only important to keep the guilty behind the bars, but it is just important to keep the innocent outside of those bars. In 1998 two young boys in Chicago area – ages seven and eight – were charged with murdering an eleven-year-old girl named Ryan Harris. She had been beaten around the head, her underpants had been put into her mouth, and she appeared to have been sexually assaulted. After an unrecorded interrogation, the two boys “confessed” to hitting Harris in the head with a brick (and then stuffing leaves and grass in her nose) in order to steal her bicycle. Although the evidence pointed to an adult sex crime, the police insisted that the two boys were not too young to have done it, and that they knew details that could only be known to the detectives or the perpetrators. It was months later that the Illinois State Crime Laboratory discovered semen on Ryan Harris’ underpants – evidence that the crime could not have been committed by suspects as young as seven and eight – and prosecutors dismissed the charges. In the meantime a real criminal was walking the streets of Chicago (Leo, 2007).
The case above shows what happens when procedure is not followed, when a person is out to get the case closure, verses finding the real perpetrator. Most people believe that an innocent person would never confess to a crime they did not commit, unless they were physically tortured or mentally ill. The logical corollary is that suspects who confess must be guilty. This belief has been noted by numerous social scientists and legal scholars. Recently, a survey of 1,000 potential jurors in the District of Columbia found that the majority of respondents discounted the possibility that confessions may be false. Sixty-eight percent indicated that they believed a suspect would confess falsely “not very often” (40 percent) or “almost never” (28 percent). This quantifies the perception of trial attorneys who report that the vast majority of potential jurors insist that it is not possible for someone to confess to a crime he did not commit. This belief is also shared by many criminal justice officials (Leo, 2007).
The myth of psychological interrogation persists for several reasons. Most people do not know what occurs during interrogations because they have not experienced it firsthand and do not know anyone who has. They are also not familiar with how police are trained to interrogate suspects or with studies that describe actual interrogation practices. Most people are therefore unaware of the highly manipulative, deceptive, and stress-inducing techniques and strategies that interrogators use to elicit confessions. Nor are they aware that these methods have led to numerous false confessions. However, these tactics are important when searching for the guilty person, as long as the person’s rights are not violated and as long as they are not coerced.
Further, most people assume that people do not act against their self-interest or engage in self-destructive behaviors. They assume that an innocent person would not confess to a crime he did not commit. Thus, most people cannot imagine that they themselves would falsely confess, especially to a serious crime.
During a talk with one of the Broomfield deputies he informed me of few tactics that their department uses when interrogating a person, or even during small talks with people, and suspects. He said that he will go over some evidence/ events which the person is familiar with and then toss in a made up part to which the person objects. Sometimes that false part might be a huge exaggeration of the true story, to which the suspect might object stating the actual part, thus telling the deputy that the suspect knows about that specific part of the event or the evidence. This may seem easy and simple, but it is more difficult than it sounds. Deputy has to be able to ask the right questions when it matters the most.
In the conclusion to this subject, obtaining the evidence or a confession from a suspect is in the scope of legality as long it does not violate the person’s rights, due process.
Thanks to the television shows, and movies most everyone in the United States is familiar with the Miranda Rights. Miranda Rights were created in 1966 as a result of the United States Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda warning is intended to protect the suspect’s Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer self-incriminating questions. Miranda Right consists of four different warnings. The Miranda warning must be give to a suspect interrogated in police custody, that is, when the suspect is not free to leave.
Every U.S. jurisdiction has its own policy regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person arrested or placed in a custodial situation The courts have since ruled that the warning must be "meaningful", so it is usually required that the suspect be asked if he understands his rights. Sometimes, firm answers of "yes" are required. Some departments and jurisdictions require that an officer ask "do you understand?" after every sentence in the warning. An arrestee's silence is not a waiver, but on June 1, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that police are allowed to interrogate suspects who have not unambiguously invoked or waived their rights, and any statement given during questioning prior to invocation or waiving is admissible as evidence. Evidence has in some cases been ruled inadmissible because of an arrestee's poor knowledge of English and the failure of arresting officers to provide the warning in the arrestee's language.
Also because of various education levels, officers must make sure the suspect understands what the officer is saying. It may be necessary to "translate" to the suspect's level of understanding. Courts have ruled this admissible as long as the original waiver is said and the "translation" is recorded either on paper or on tape. Some jurisdictions provide the right of a juvenile to remain silent if their parent or guardian is not present (BRAVIN, 2010).
Now to return where I started with my thought which was the goal most directly associated with my topic “Articulate the procedural considerations in the handling of criminal cases.”, and my personal interest in the Fifth Amendment: Due Process and Obtaining Information Legally, I can conclude that nothing in Criminal Justice system is black and white. Nothing when it comes to people. The criminal justice models created are flawless and they work, but the people are not. Even though the writing is there, each case is different and each interrogation is different than the next. The law enforcement needs to be aware that our common goal is to place the guilty behind the bars, while keeping the public safe. We should not forget that people are not cases, they are not numbers, and while thriving to search for the truth is essential, it is the manner in which is obtained is important.
A controversy still exists today when it comes to arresting people, making sure that they understand the situation, the coercion , and just about everything else that has to do with law and the criminal justice system . That is why education, knowledge, and the truth are always the best way out.

Bibliography

BRAVIN, J. (2010, June 2). Justices Narrow Miranda Rule . Retrieved April 24, 2011, from The
Wall Street Journal- Law: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704875604575280392747737022.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond
Harr, J. S. (2008). Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Leo, R. A. (2007, December). The Problem of False Confession in America. Retrieved April 22,
2011, from Champion Magazine: http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/698c98dd101a846085256eb400500c01/4a6e9aa597092057052573ed0056ffa3?OpenDocument