Defendant's+Rights

=**__Defendants’ Rights__** =

- The right to legal representation- right to an attorney. If you cannot afford to hire an attorney one will be provided for you by the state at no extra charge
Furman v Georgia This case was also decided side by side with two other similar cases, in this case Furman is suing the state of Georgia on the grounds that the death penalty for these cases is cruel and unusual punishment and violates the Eighth Amendment. Furman had been burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him. He attempted to flee the scene but tripped and fell which caused the gun he was carrying to go off, killing a resident of the home.

The Court ruled in favor of Furman 5-4. Their per curiam opinion held that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases was cruel and unusual punishment in direct violation of the Constitution. In over two hundred pages of concurrences and dissents, the justices articulated their views on the controversial subject.

This decision has provided a framework for criminal charges especially in respect to the death penalty. Most criminals are convicted upon charges that gauge with their crime and the magnitude of their crime, for example petty theft such as shoplifting a key chain v. grand scale theft such as robbing multiple banks. The most significant aspect of this decision is the new implementation of interpreting crime, crimes are now matched with charges that relate to the magnitude of a criminal's specific crime, how many times its been committed, and many other variables that change from suspect to suspect. Mapp v Ohio In this case Dollree Mapp was suing the state of Ohio based on the grounds of freedom of expression and the state's violation of the Fifth Amendment. Mapp was within the possession of obscene materials and sued because the evidence that would be used against her was taken in an illegal police search of her home for a fugitive.

The Court ruled in favor of Mapp 6-3. They dismissed the First Amendment issue and instead declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court.

This historic and controversial decision laid down ground rules for obtaining evidence and the admittance of evidence into courts at all levels. Police officials must possess a warrant that specifies their suspicions for a search, which areas they will search, and evidence they may claim. If any evidence is obtained in a search that did not issue a warrant, the evidence will be inadmissible in a court of law and the trial will continue without the illegally obtained evidence. Still there is much controversy when this exclusionary rule should apply as each case has different scenarios and parameters that also need to be taken into account by the court. Miranda v Arizona In this case Miranda was suing the state of Arizona on the grounds that the police interrogators violated his protection against self incrimination and the Fifth Amendment. The defendant's case was based on several prior cases concerning police violations of defendant's rights (all of which are listed above in bold). Among many of these instances the defendant constructed a case to bring light to the court the violations interrogators made almost on a daily basis to subdue suspects in custody and put them behind bars without ever having to consult an attorney.

The Court ruled in favor of Miranda 5-4. Some of their reasoning was based on the evidence presented to them and the many previos cases brought to their attention. They held that police interrogators could not proceed to interrogate a suspect unless they could provide the necessary safeguards to secure the privilege against self incrimination.

This case had a profound impact upon the civil rights of defendants in the form of the Miranda rights. The Court laid down the ground rules for these rights and now officers have to state all of these rights upon arrest and must provide every opportunity against self incrimination to a suspect in custody. The Miranda rights are also known as the Defendant's rights and all of them are listed above in bold.