Constitutional Requirements Regarding Due Process

Adrian L. Reaves

Constitutional Requirements Regarding Due Process

American Intercontinental University

Abstract

This writing will be a narrative regarding the constitutional requirements in the criminal justice procedure. The author will be discussing these procedures specific to a particular jurisdiction, namely the Eastern District of North Carolina. The author will offer a description of each step within the criminal justice procedure and provide a description as to what would take place at each stage. The author will also site a pending case from an arrest that was made sometime earlier. Using this particular case, the author will discuss what charges the defendant, Jimmy Abshire, should face in connection with his arrest. The author will cite whether Mr. Abshire should be tried in state or federal court. The author will also discuss when the defendant has the “right to counsel”. The author would do this on naming three constitutional rights of the defendant during and prior to the case going to trial. Additionally, the author will address whether or not the defendant has a right to appeal if he is convicted of the crime he is arrested for. The author will also site which court the defendant will be able to appeal his conviction to. During this report the author will also discuss the role of the judiciary, the US attorney’s office, and the United States drug enforcement agency in this case. In conclusion, the author would discuss the legal analysis of DNA evidence in any other evidence that was collected in connection with Mr. Abshire’s arrest.

Constitutional Requirements Regarding Due Process

        The criminal justice process can be very complex due to the many stages that are involved with it. However, each stages important in order to maintain the integrity of the process. If mistakes are made at any stage of the process, it cannot only affect the integrity of the process, but also be detrimental to individual criminal cases.

        The agency recently made an arrest of a defendant named Jimmy Abshire. Mr. Abshire is a known narcotics dealer in our community. At the time of arrest, he was found to be in possession of 2 kg of cocaine, 14 kg of marijuana, three firearms, and about $67,000 in cash. On the surface, some would consider the case to be open and shut. However, the criminal justice process requires that there are certain rights afforded to Mr. Abshire. It is important that we are extremely careful in adhering to the constitutional rights regarding due process in this case. The Constitution of United States of America affords defendants three basic rights before and during a criminal trial. The 6th amendment of the Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a speedy trial. This basically means that the prosecution cannot wait in inordinate amount of time before filing charges or proceeding with prosecution following the filing of such charges. The Speedy Trial Act require that a trial begin with and 70 days of the prosecution filing an indictment. The 6th amendment also guarantees a defendant the right to a public trial by an impartial jury of their peers. This is done by either attorney utilizing peremptory challenges during jury selection. If either attorney exercises a challenge against the prospective juror, the court was then removed that particular juror from the panel. This is normally done with a juror has exhibited the inability to be unbiased in a court case. The 6th amendment also guarantees a defendant the right to legal counsel during the trial. This amendment also requires that the Government appoint an attorney for the defendant if the defendant is unable to afford an attorney on their own. (Legal Information Institute, 2013)

        The first stage is the arrest process. This is when Mr. Abshire officially enters the criminal justice process. During this stage of the process, Mr. Abshire is simply taken into custody. It is usually not necessary to advise the accused of his rights at the time of arrest. However, it is necessary to advise him of his rights before he is questioned. In particular, Mr. Abshire’s right to counsel attaches before he is interrogated. Prior to an interrogation, law-enforcement is required by law to inform Mr. Abshire that he had the right to remain silent. They must inform him that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law. Additionally, he is to be advised that he has the right to seek legal counsel. They are also to advise Mr. Abshire of the availability of a court appointed attorney if he is an indigent. These rights are widely known as Miranda rights because they reference the United States Supreme Court ruling in Miranda v. Arizona (1966). It was during this case that the Supreme Court ruled that any evidence gained from interrogation without advising the accused of their constitutional right to counsel or to remain silent is inadmissible. (American Bar Association, 2014)