What are my 5th amendment rights?

Question

thank you for the homework help

Answer 1

At least five specific provisions.

{INSERT} jmlmmlmll quoted it below, so I won't repeat it here.

Grand jury proceedings (federal criminal courts only) and double jeopardy (state or federal, but not both... it's complicated). These require certain procedures and protect against zealous prosecutors.

The Due Process clause (see first link below for details).

The Takings clause, which deals with Eminent Domain and related issues, requiring the government to pay someone if their property is taken.

And the protection against compelled testimony during criminal proceedings, where such testimony would be self-incriminating. The familiar Miranda warnings arise from this clause.

Because of the words "No person shall...", these protections are treated as limitations on government action, and apply to everyone regardless of who the government is acting against.

Answer 2

The fifth amendment gives you the right to not have to anwer any questions while under oath that may incriminate you in anyway. For example, let's say you're a witness in a court case and to answer a question, you would have to admit that you smoke marijuana, then you could plead the fifth because admitting you smoke pot is incriminating yourself.

Answer 3

Well the one most people care about is the Right to Remain Silent. In other words you dont have to answer any questions that can be used to prove you commited a crime

Answer 4

PLEADING THE 5TH, is the right not to incriminate yourself, meaning that your words won't be used against you in a court procedure, YOUR marinda rights are the ones police must read to you when you are arrested, which state that ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU!! WORD TO THE WISE ....SHUT UP!! BE QUIET!!! SILIENCE IS GOLDEN!!

Answer 5

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.

Answer 6

the right to remain silent and the right against self-incrimination.

Answer 7

You have the right to be quiet!

Answer 8

to not incriminate yourself

Answer 9

YOU DON'T HAVE TO CONFESS, WE HAVE TO PROVE YOU GUILTY..

Answer 10

Double Jeopardy Clause

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits state and federal governments from reprosecuting for the same offense a defendant who has already been acquitted or convicted. It also prevents state and federal governments from imposing more than one punishment for the same offense.

For more than a century, courts have wrestled with the question of what constitutes an acquittal such that a person has already been placed in jeopardy for a particular offense. However, all courts agree that the Double Jeopardy Clause applies only to legal proceedings brought by state and federal governments in criminal court. It does not apply to legal proceedings instituted by purely private individuals in civil court.

The U.S. legal system has two primary divisions, criminal and civil. Criminal actions are designed to punish individuals for wrongdoing. Civil actions are designed to compensate victims with money damages for injuries suffered at the hands of another. Thus, an individual who has been acquitted in criminal court of murder can, without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause, be required in civil court to pay money damages to the family of a victim. Thus, the successive criminal and civil trials of O. J. Simpson, regarding the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, did not violate double jeopardy.

The Fifth Amendment's prohibition against double jeopardy is rooted in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. Yet the right against double jeopardy in England was sometimes ignored by the Crown. In certain important cases where an acquittal undermined royal interests, the defendant was tried again in a different manner or by a different court. The protection against double jeopardy was also extremely narrow under English law. It applied only to capital crimes, in which the defendant would be subject to the death penalty if convicted. It did not apply to lesser offenses such as noncapital felonies and misdemeanors.

Massachusetts was the first colony that recognized a right against double jeopardy. Its colonial charter provided, "No man shall be twise sentenced by Civil Justice for one and the same Crime, offence, or Trespasse" (as quoted in United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 109 S. Ct. 1892, 104 L. Ed. 2d 487 [1989]). This charter, which served as a model for several other colonies, expanded the protection against double jeopardy to all crimes and offenses, not just capital felonies. Nonetheless, at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, the constitutions of only two states expressly afforded double jeopardy protection. Thus, when James Madison submitted his proposal for the Fifth Amendment to Congress, he wanted to make sure that the right against double jeopardy would not be abused by the government, as it had been in England, or altogether forgotten, as it had been in the constitutions of eleven states.

Although Congress and the state ratifying conventions said very little about the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, the Supreme Court has identified several concerns the Framers were trying to address when they drafted it: (1) preventing the government from employing its superior resources to wear down and erroneously convict innocent persons; (2) protecting individuals from the financial, emotional, and social consequences of successive prosecutions; (3) preserving the finality and integrity of criminal proceedings, which would be compromised were the state allowed to arbitrarily ignore unsatisfactory outcomes; (4) restricting prosecutorial discretion over the charging process; and (5) eliminating judicial discretion to impose cumulative punishments not authorized by the legislature.

Self-Incrimination Clause

The Fifth Amendment's right against self-incrimination permits an individual to refuse to disclose information that could be used against her or him in a criminal prosecution. The purpose of this right is to inhibit the government from compelling a confession through force, coercion, or deception. The Self-Incrimination Clause applies to any state or federal legal proceeding, whether it is civil, criminal, administrative, or judicial in nature. This privilege is frequently invoked during the trial phase of legal proceedings, where individuals are placed under oath and asked questions on the witness stand.

The privilege is also asserted with some frequency during the pretrial phase of legal proceedings. In the pretrial phase of criminal cases, it is usually asserted in response to pointed questions asked by law enforcement agents, prosecutors, and other government officials who are seeking to determine the persons responsible for a particular crime. During the pretrial phase of civil cases, parties may assert the right against self-incrimination when potentially damaging questions are posed in depositions and interrogatories.

The right against self-incrimination largely took hold in English law with the seventeenth-century trial of John Lilburne. Lilburne was a Puritan agitator who opposed British attempts to impose Anglican religious uniformity across England. In 1637 Lilburne was prosecuted for attempting to smuggle several thousand Puritan pamphlets into England. Before the Star Chamber (an English court with jurisdiction to extinguish nonconformity in the realm), Lilburne refused to take an oath requiring him to answer truthfully any question asked of him. He said he could see that the court was trying to ensnare him, and he claimed that the law of God and the law of the land supported his right against self-accusation. Lilburne was whipped and pilloried for refusing to take the oath. Parliament later declared his punishment illegal, abolished the Star Chamber, and ultimately recognized the right against self-incrimination.

The American colonists, particularly the Puritans in Massachusetts, were familiar with the plight of Lilburne. Nonetheless, the Massachusetts Body of Liberties, a collection of rules of conduct for the Puritan colonists taken nearly verbatim from the Bible, permitted the use of torture to extract confessions from defendants accused of capital crimes. Many other colonies subjected political and religious dissenters to inquisitorial judicial proceedings not unlike those employed in England. In many of these proceedings, the accused persons were not entitled to remain silent but were often asked to provide evidence of their innocence. Even after the Revolution, the constitutions of four states offered no protections against self-incrimination. As Madison drafted the original version of the Fifth Amendment, the lessons of English and colonial history were firmly in his mind.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Self-Incrimination Clause more broadly than many of the Framers probably would have. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), illustrates this point. In Miranda the Supreme Court held that any statements made by defendants while in police custody before trial will be inadmissible during prosecution unless the police first warn the defendants that they have (1) the right to remain silent, (2) the right to consult an attorney before being questioned by the police, (3) the right to have an attorney present during police questioning, (4) the right to a court appointed attorney if they cannot afford one, and (5) the right to be informed that any statements they do make can and will be used in their prosecution. Although the Miranda warnings are not in the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause, the Supreme Court has ruled that they constitute an essential part of a judicially created buffer zone that is necessary to protect rights that are specifically set forth in the Constitution.

Due Process Clause

The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause has two aspects: procedural and substantive. Procedural due process is concerned with the process by which legal proceedings are conducted. It requires that all persons who will be materially affected by a legal proceeding receive notice of its time, place, and subject matter so that they have an adequate opportunity to prepare. It also requires that legal proceedings be conducted in a fair manner by an impartial judge who will allow the interested parties to present fully their complaints, grievances, and defenses. The Due Process Clause governs civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings from the pretrial stage through final appeal, and proceedings that produce arbitrary or capricious results will be overturned as unconstitutional.

Substantive due process is concerned with the content of particular laws applied during legal proceedings. Before World War II, the Supreme Court relied on substantive due process to overturn legislation that infringed on a variety of property interests, including the right of employers to determine the wages their employees would be paid and the number of hours they could work. Since World War II, the Supreme Court has relied on substantive due process to protect privacy and autonomy interests of adults, including the right to use contraception and the right to have an abortion.

The line separating procedure from substance is not always clear. For example, procedural due process guarantees criminal defendants the right to a fair trial, and substantive due process specifies that twelve jurors must return a unanimous guilty verdict before the death penalty can be imposed. The concepts of substantive and procedural due process trace back to English law. The Magna Charta provided, "No free man shall be seized, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or injured in any way … except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land" (art. 39). According to eminent English jurist Sir Edward Coke, law of the land anddue process of law were interchangeable terms possessing both procedural and substantive meaning.

The American colonists followed the English tradition of attributing substantive and procedural qualities to the concepts of due process and law of the land. Maryland and Massachusetts, for example, equated the two concepts with colonial common law and legislation regardless of their procedural content. On the other hand, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Vermont all passed constitutional provisions identifying law of the land with specific procedural safeguards, including the right against self-incrimination. Thus, when the Due Process Clause was submitted to the state conventions for ratification, it was popularly understood to place both procedural requirements on legal proceedings and substantive limitations on the law applied in those proceedings.

Eminent Domain Clause

When the government takes someone's personal property for public use, the law calls it a taking and protects it under the Eminent Domain Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Eminent Domain Clause permits the government to appropriate private property, both real estate and personal belongings, for a public purpose so long as the owner receives just compensation, which is normally equated with the fair market value of the property. The Fifth Amendment attempts to strike a balance between the needs of the public and the property rights of the owner.

The power of eminent domain was first recognized in England in 1215. Article 39 of the Magna Charta (the Great Charter of English liberties) read, "no free man shall be … disseised [deprived] of his freehold … except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land." No compensation was awarded to owners whose property was taken by the government for public use. Instead, English law merely required that the government obtain ownership of private property through existing legal channels, such as parliamentary legislation. This principle was followed in England for several centuries, and was later adopted by the American colonies.

Uncompensated takings of private property by colonial governments generally involved unimproved land (land that had not been built on). Colonial governments often appropriated private land to build roads and bridges to develop America's frontiers. During the American Revolution, the power of eminent domain was used to seize the land of colonists loyal to Great Britain, and to obtain various goods for military consumption. Compensation was rarely given to individual owners deprived of their property by colonial governments because making personal sacrifices for the common good, including forfeiting personal property, was considered an essential duty of every colonist.

Not everyone in the colonies believed that personal property interests should always be sacrificed for the greater good of society. Many colonists expressed distress over legislatures that were abusing their power of eminent domain. New York, for example, regularly failed to recognize titles to real estate in its colony held by residents of Vermont. Other colonies also discriminated in favor of their own residents, and against persons whose patriotism was questionable during the Revolution. It was in this context that the Eminent Domain Clause of the Fifth Amendment was drafted.

During the twentieth century, the Supreme Court has enlarged the protection against uncompensated takings of private property by state and federal governments. The Eminent Domain Clause has been interpreted to protect not only owners whose property is physically taken by the government, but also owners whose property value is diminished as a result of government activity. Thus, compensable takings under the Fifth Amendment result from zoning ordinances that deny property owners an economically viable use of their land (Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 100 S. Ct. 2138, 65 L. Ed. 2d 106 [1980]), environmental regulations that require the government to occupy an owner's land in order to monitor groundwater wells (Hendler v. United States, 952 F.2d 1364 [Fed. Cir. 1991], land-use regulations that curtail mining operations (Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 43 S. Ct. 158, 67 L. Ed. 322 [1992]), and government owned airports that lower property values in adjacent neighborhoods (United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 66 S. Ct. 1062, 90 L. Ed. 1206 [1946]).

Grand Jury Clause

A grand jury is a group of citizens summoned to criminal court by the sheriff to consider accusations and complaints leveled against persons suspected of engaging in criminal conduct. Grand juries do not determine guilt or innocence. Instead, they determine whether probable cause exists to believe that the accused has committed a crime, and return an indictment (a formal charge against the accused) if they do find probable cause. At common law a grand jury consisted of not less than twelve or more than twenty-three men. Today grand juries impaneled before a federal district court must consist of not less than sixteen or more than twenty-three men and women.

Potential jurors are usually drawn from lists of qualified residents. Persons who are below the age of majority, have been convicted of certain crimes, or are biased toward the accused are ineligible to serve as grand jurors.

The Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause has not been made applicable to state governments through the doctrine of incorporation. In place of grand juries, most states use a document known as an information, which is drafted by the prosecutor, to tell accused persons about the charges against them.

The grand jury originated in England during the reign of Henry II (1154-89). In 1166 a statute called the Assize of Clarendon was enacted. The assize provided that no person could be prosecuted unless four men from each township and twelve men from each hundred appeared before the county court to accuse the individual of a specific crime. This compulsory process, called a presenting jury, foreshadowed the grand jury as an accusatory body that identified individuals for prosecution but made no finding as to guilt or innocence.

As the grand jury system developed in England and colonial America, it protected innocent persons facing unfounded charges initiated by political, religious, and personal adversaries. The impartiality of grand juries is essential. This is a significant reason the proceedings are convened in secrecy; otherwise, public scrutiny and similar prejudicial influences could affect their decision-making process. Although grand juries must be impartial, accused persons have no constitutional right to present evidence on their behalf or cross-examine witnesses, and hearsay evidence may be introduced against them.