American Justice

Actuary "Ezekial 25:17 - The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequites of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he that shepherds the weak from the valley of darkness for he is truly his brother's keeper, and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers, and you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

When the Constitutional framers drafted the first ten amendments of the Constitution more than two hundred years ago, commonly known as "The Bill of Rights," their intent was to protect individuals from undue government interference. The rights they enumerated were deemed so basic to the concept of justice that without them true democracy could not flourish.

The Amendments have since been liberally construed and codified to ensure that those who stand at the greatest risk of losing their liberty are afforded maximum protection from what has been perceived the gravest danger of all: An overreaching government left unchecked. Of course, the framers could have little imagined the complex issues that would today riddle our courtrooms. They could not have foreseen how the "fighting words" exception to the First Amendment would be used to litigate against hate crimes. And they certainly did not foresee a day when forensic technology would demand answers to questions like whether compelled DNA sampling is a violation of Fourth Amendment search and seizure or Fifth Amendment freedom from self-incrimination. So below we revisit the Constitution to understand the bases of contemporary criminal law, which remains the cornerstone of American Justice.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Meaning ... even the Nazi party or Ku Klux Klan has the right to convene 'peacefully' in front of a Synagogue or a black university. Recent limitations have been imposed on hate-crimes for speech intended to and reasonably likely to incite violence against certain protected classes, such as racial and ethnic 'minorities' and homosexuals.

See Blueprint for a Murder, where a publisher was held accountable for detailing a murder plan; Also see The Matthew Shepard Story , where a gay-bashing homicide led to an exception for the use of language intended and reasonably likely to incite violence against protected classes, including minorities and homosexuals.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Meaning ... this one is still hotly contested, but the right to bear arms has not been deemed a fundamental liberty guaranteed to the states via the 14th Amendment equal protection clause.

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.

Meaning ... the government can occupy private property under a theory of "eminent domain," where it is rationally related to the execution of national security, public welfare and military defense. Nonetheless, citizens are entitled to the just value of any damage or destruction that derives from this 'taking.' Of course, this hasn't come up much, since the United States has thus far waged its wars on other countries' soil.

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.

Meaning ... citizens cannot be subjected to random searches by police or government officials simply because someone doesn't look like they 'belong' in a certain neighborhood or because they look 'suspicious.' This has largely arisen in cases involving racial profiling, where police were formally given great discretion based on their 'seasoned experience' to conduct warrantless stops and searches. Now, more specific reasons must be articulated to justify even a limited intrusion and where none are present, the fruits of the illegal search are deemed constitutionally 'tainted' and inadmissible.

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.

Meaning ... a defendant is not required to take the stand in court. Moreover, the prosecution may not even allude to a defendant's failure to take the stand. To prevent the use of trials as 'fact-finding' expeditions by the government, the double jeopardy clause ensures that if the prosecution fails to produce sufficient evidence and the jury returns a verdict of not guilty or acquittal, the defendant walks away freely and cannot be retried, even if damning evidence is later discovered. Note that this does NOT pertain to civil trials.

See Getting Away with Murder, where the double jeopardy clause enabled a killer to walk free; For an example of how military jurisdiction facilitated two separate criminal trials for same crime, see The Green Beret Murder Mystery.

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.

Meaning ... despite what you may have seen on TV, someone may not be detained by police or held in custody for hours on end with only cigarettes, threats and coffee for sustenance. In addition, police must inform potential suspects of their right to counsel (even if a suspect states that they already know their rights). Once a request for a lawyer is articulated, a moratorium on further questioning attaches, and any further admissions based on police questioning will not be held constitutionally admissible, unless specifically voluntary.

See In the Hands of a Child, where a young girl was held and interrogated by police without counsel until she confessed to a crime, without necessarily understanding the nature of the charge. See also Who Is The Lipstick Killer?, where the failure of government to compel favorable witnesses led a jury to convict a man on uncorroborated testimony.

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.

Meaning ... while twenty dollars doesn't go as far as it used to, the right to a trial by jury remains a mainstay of penal justice. In fact, in order to waive this right, a criminal defendant must be interviewed by a Judge with counsel present--called a plea colloquy--and sign a sworn affidavit. Cases that have arisen under this issue have dealt with whether plea terms have been contractually honored and whether a defendant was competence to understand the nature of the right being waived.

See We The Jury, a probing examination of jury selection, profiling and practices, featuring candid interviews with prosecutors and defense attorneys.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Meaning ... even a criminal on death row cannot be caused to suffer unduly. In addition, sentences must be reasonably commensurate with the severity of the crime, which is why judges are given such wide discretion in sentencing.

See Justifiable Homicide, where the murder of a detested, abusive man who was hated by one and all led to a life sentence without parole; See also An Execution in Doubt, where a potentially innocent man was executed; See also Who is the Lipstick Killer, where failure to produce witnesses left an arguably innocent man-the first to finish a college degree from a jail cell-- to serve a life sentence; Lastly see Cruel and Unusual, for glaring cases of brutal police misconduct and excessive sentencing.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Meaning ... some states, like Vermont, Hawaii and California, choose to give greater protections than those recognized under the Constitution. Federal law does not forbid states from granting or expanding individual liberties beyond those constitutionally mandated.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Meaning ... states are permitted to pass laws, for instance zoning laws and health regulations, where the issue is not dealt with and pre-empted by Federal law. Smoking laws are an apt case in point.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (excerpt)

Meaning ... the fundamental liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights are extended to state courts through the due process or inclusionary clause (with the exception of the right to bear arms and the right to a grand jury). The Fourteenth Amendment was passed as a means to ensure that citizens from different states were afforded equal protection and would not face discrimination within their local judicial arena. Historically, this issue has come up to protect against local prejudice against "discrete and insular minorities."

See A Questionable Doctor, where a pariah in the community was charged and convicted and later exculpated for a murder on the basis of circumstantial evidence and local prejudice; See also The Hurricane Carter Story , where a young black athlete was falsely convicted for a triple homicide based on a questionable identification for nearly thirty years until the decision was finally overturned.