A defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The structure of the legal system and process in the United States is to place the burden of proof on the government. The government carries this burden of proof as to every element of the crime the defendant is charged with. In order for a criminal defendant to be found guilty, the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (In re Winship, 1970, p. 361). The reason for this high burden of proof is to guard against government abuse. Were the government not bound by any constraints, the respective positions of the defendant and the government would be severely disproportionate. The government would almost always obtain a conviction, and the defendant would rarely be able to defend against the charges the government might bring.
In American law, a criminal defendant is constitutionally entitled to many protections. Specifically, the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments address the defendant’s rights in a criminal proceeding. The Fourth Amendment concerns searches and seizures and prevents the government from conducting a search unless a warrant has been issued (U.S. Const. amend. IV). The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment protecting a person’s right to privacy (Katz v. United States, 1967, p. 350). In the modern context, the constraints of the Fourth Amendment will apply when a person has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” (Katz v. United States, 1967, p. 350). Under this reasoning, cell phones have been found to warrant Fourth Amendment protection.
The Fifth Amendment provides a number of protections to the criminal defendant. There are a number of important provisions of the Fifth Amendment. First is the double jeopardy clause, which precludes the government from trying a defendant in a subsequent trial for the same offense. The Fifth Amendment also provides for the criminal defendant’s right against self-incrimination, which means that the defendant does not have to testify against himself or be a witness against himself. The Fifth Amendment further provides for the takings clause, requiring that government provide just compensation if it uses its eminent domain power. And arguably the most key component of the Fifth Amendment is the due process provision which provides a defendant due process rights if the government seeks to deprive a person of a protected liberty, life, or property interest (U.S. Const. amend. V).
The protection against self-incrimination of Fifth Amendment has become famous because of Miranda Warnings. Every cop show on television shows police arresting and handcuffing the suspect and reciting a suspect his or her Miranda rights. While this recitation adds to the drama of the television show, police are constitutionally required to inform a suspect in custody of these rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). If police fail to read a suspect their Miranda Warnings, any statements made by the suspect while in custody could be excluded from evidence. Miranda Warnings thus act as an exclusionary rule to keep out certain evidence that was obtained in an improper manner. It does not prevent the government from bringing the defendant to trial.
The Sixth Amendment provides that a defendant has the right to a “speedy and public trial,” the right to confront witnesses against him, and the right to be represented by counsel (U.S. Const. amend. VI). The right to counsel applies with equal force to defendants who are indigent. If a defendant is unable to afford counsel, the Sixth Amendment requires that indigent defendants be provided with free representation (Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963). While a defendant has the right to waive counsel, a defendant cannot be denied access to counsel because of a lack of financial resources.
While the juvenile court system is different from regular adult criminal court, juvenile courts decide and adjudicate important matters relating to juvenile offenders. A juvenile court can declare a juvenile delinquent and can sentence them to detention facilities, infringing on their personal liberties and freedoms. Although juvenile courts are not as formal as adult criminal courts, a number of constitutional protections have been interpreted to extent to juvenile court proceedings.
The landmark Supreme Court case In re Gault established that juveniles have the right to counsel in a juvenile court proceeding (In re Gault, 1967). Furthermore, the Court held that juveniles has the right to confront and cross examine witnesses against them, and also the privilege of self-incrimination (Berkheiser, 2002, p. 590). But the rights afforded to juveniles in juvenile proceedings do not exactly parallel the rights that are guaranteed to criminal defendants in regular court proceedings.
The right to a speedy trial, which is guaranteed to adults tried in regular court, is not a guaranteed right for juveniles (Butts, Cusick, and Adams, 2009, p. 1). While the constitution does not mandate that a juvenile be afforded a speedy trial, many states have extended this Sixth Amendment right to juveniles at the state level (Butts, Cusick, and Adams, 2009, p. 1). A juvenile is also not entitled to Miranda Warnings (Juvenile Miranda Waiver and Parental Rights, 2013, p. 2360). It is somewhat surprising that juveniles, who are much more young and impressionable than adults, are not entitled to Miranda Warnings. Common sense would dictate that juveniles are much more susceptible to authority figures, like police, and would give involuntary confessions if not informed of their full rights.
References
Berkheiser, M. (2002). The fiction of juvenile right to counsel: Waiver in the juvenile
courts. Florida Law Review, 577-682.
Butts, J.A., Cusick, G.R. and Adams, B. (2009). Delays in youth justice. NCJRS, 1-114.
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
Juvenile Miranda Waiver and Parental Rights. (2013). Harvard Law Review, 2359-2380.
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970).
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
U.S. Const. amend. IV.
U.S. Const. amend. V.
U.S. Const. amend. VI.
