Abstract
The United States Bill of Right is scattered in several Amendments of the Constitution due to the progressive developmental history of the U.S law and Constitution. Each amendment either introduced a new right or enhanced on the existing one. Of essence to my discussion, however, is the Due Process Clause was introduced in the American Bill of Rights by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S Constitution. As per the Amendment, no state should deprive any person his or her life, liberty, or property without following the due process of the law. In the Fifth Amendment, a similar stand was reiterated. Due process can be said to refer to requirements that a State has to employ the necessary procedural process in applying a particular law that is to affect individual rights adversely. Previously, the provision of the Bill of right only applied to the Federal government but with Fourth Amendment, States come to be including following the introduction of the Doctrine of Selective incorporation by the Federal Supreme Court.
The Due process clause was formulated in the Constitution to promote the principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice are fair administrative action; the right not to be condemned and unheard, uniformity of laws; the right to be adequately informed of charges against one's person; and the right not to be taken through unnecessary procedural technicalities (Neubauer & Fradella, 2013). The US Supreme Court coined the doctrine of Selective Incorporation to interpret the Fourth Amendment as demanding that all State must submit to the provisions of the Due process clause. A scrutiny of the due process clause leads to an appreciation long-standing natural law principle that there should be uniformity of laws. Therefore, beat logic that since the U.S is federal system each State should have procedurally different laws from the other hence the Supreme Court’s decision to come up with the Selective Incorporation doctrine aimed at harmonizing rules using the due process clause. Selective incorporation meant that some rights and liberties, especially criminal procedural rights, were so fundamental that they were inseparable from the due process clause hence requiring state observance (Stephens & Scheb, 2012).
Rights protected by the Due process clause are the right to a public trial; freedom from unreasonable search and seizure of materials; the right to protection from cruel and unusual punishment, the right to counsel; and the right not to be compelled to give self-incriminate evidence (Stephens & Scheb, 2012). A violation of any of these rights entitles an accused person, during or after trial, to file an objection to the effect that due process was not followed and fundamental rights were violated; actions which resulted from a breach of the constitution.
The Eighth Constitutional Amendment prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment on a person interdicted for committing crimes. For instance, a sentence to withdraw citizenship status from a national for the desertion of the military is considered cruel and unusual punishment as stated by the Supreme Court in the Trop case. Regarding searches, the law requires that they must carry out the following judicial processes. A search warrant has to be obtained from a magistrate specifying the area being searched by the permit holder. Failure to procure a search warrant, and an unsanctioned search is conducted will amount to the infringement of person’s right. Evidence obtained using unsanctioned searches is illegal hence inadmissible in a court of law (Stephens & Scheb, 2012). Ignoring to follow procedural rights leads to the breach of due process clause. Consequently, the defendant will be entitled to an appeal for want of due process. The selective incorporation doctrine had the effect of requiring that all states must follow and be governed by the same rules and procedures stipulate in the Bill of Rights as those rules applied to the Federal government. While interpreting the selective incorporation, the US Supreme Court in the case of Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), as cited in Acker and Brody (2013), ruled that the Sixth Amendment’s right to trial by jury in criminal matters applied to State by virtue of the Fourth Amendments due process of the law clause. In my view and as seen from explanations above, failing to give effect to the right and other procedural rights in a criminal case can be a sound basis for an appeal.
In the U.S, appeals depending on the source of the law in question. Appeals from State Trial Courts decision are lodged in State Courts of Appeal. For example, in my State of Florida, District Courts of Appeal, located in each District, are the Appeals courts where appeals from trial courts are filed. Appeals are made solely for the purpose of correcting injurious errors made by a court of the first instance in its decision. In federal cases, the United States District Courts are primarily the trial courts. In the instance that an individual is dissatisfied with the ruling of a federal trial court, he or she can lodge an appeal in the United States Courts of Appeal commonly referred to as Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal. Decisions of a Federal Appeal Court are binding on courts within the circuit but do not extend to courts outside the circuit. There are thirteen Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal in the US allocated to states based on geographical boundaries. The State of Florida was placed under the 11th Circuit Located in Atlanta hence it falls under the 11th Federal Circuit Court. All appeals on Federal law from Florida are lodged in the 11th Circuit Court.
The Federal Supreme Court of United States is the highest court in the land. It is the only court in the U.S that binds all courts in its rulings, regardless of whether the court being bound is a Federal or a State court. Decisions of a Federal Circuit Court of Appeal will only bind federal courts within that circuit. Similarly, a State Court of Appeal or State Supreme Court will only bind a State Court within that State, unlike the Federal Supreme Court that binds all. Furthermore, in matters relating to the application of the Federal law, for instance issues of Constitutional interpretation, for example with regards to the Due Process clause, the decision of the Federal Supreme Court is final and binding in all courts in the U.S (Acker & Brody, 2013). The Federal Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction in matters that involve ambassadors, other public ministers, and Consul. It also has original jurisdiction in the case where a State is a party to the suit before it. However, it lacks original jurisdiction in other criminal matters (Federal Judicial Center).
References
Acker, J. & Brody, D. (2013).Criminal Procedure: A Contemporary Perspective (3rd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Federal Judicial Center,.Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.Federal Judicial Center.gov. Retrieved from http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/jurisdiction_original_supreme.html
Neubauer, D. &Fradella, H. (2013).America's Courts and the Criminal Justice System (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Stephens, Jr, O. &-Scheb II, J. (2012).American Constitutional Law: Civil Rights and Liberties, Volume 2 (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
