The 5th AmendmentThe 5th Amendment is made up of 5 specific

parts containing 6 different clauses, including:

The Grand Jury Clause.

The Grand Jury Exception Clause.

The Double Jeopardy Clause.

The Self-Incrimination Clause.

The Due Process Clause.

The Eminent Domain Clause.

The Grand Jury Clause"No person shall be held to answer for a capital,

or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury”.

The Grand Jury Clause guarantees that Americans cannot be charged with serious federal crimes except with an indictment by a grand jury. This is generally considered to be a protection from corrupt government officials who might try to prosecute

people unfairly, because a group of fellow citizens is required to look over the evidence first.

The Grand Jury Exception Clause

“…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."

The Grand Jury Clause guarantees all Americans the right to have serious federal criminal charges reviewed

by a grand jury except to military personnel.

The Double Jeopardy Clause

“nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."

The 5th Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause guarantees that Americans cannot

be tried twice or punished twice for the same crime.

Self-Incrimination Clause

"No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

This clause guarantees that you do not have to testify against yourself in

criminal proceedings.

Due Process Clause"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."The 5th Amendment Due Process Clause guarantees that the government cannot take your "life, liberty, or property" without

following a "due" process.Due process means the government must obey written laws whenever it deals with people. Officials cannot make up their own rules on a whim

or on the spur of the moment. They must always follow written procedures that are clearly spelled out ahead of time. In other words, a policeman or judge cannot throw you in jail just because he doesn't like

something you did. He must first prove that you violated a written law.The Due Process Clause guarantees that you must be treated

fairly and be informed of the issues at stake any time the government deals with you in a criminal or administrative matter.

Eminent Domain Clause

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The Eminent Domain Clause, also known as the "Takings Clause," promises that if the

government ever needs to "take" your property for a public use, such as building a highway, that it must pay you a reasonable

amount for the property.

COMPELLED TO BE A COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST WITNESS AGAINST

HIMSELFHIMSELF

What Does That Mean??What Does That Mean??

METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT

WARNING AS TO YOUR RIGHTS

You are under arrest. Before we ask you any questions, you must understand what your rights are.You have the right to remain silent. You are not required to say anything to us at any time or to answer any questions. Anything you say can be used against you in court.

You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we question you and to have him with you during questioning.If you cannot afford a lawyer and want one, a lawyer will be provided for you.

If you want to answer questions now without a lawyer present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time. You also have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to a lawyer.

WAIVER

Have you read or had read to you the warning as to your rights? __________________

Do you understand these rights? ___________________

Do you wish to answer any questions? ________________

Are you willing to answer questions without having an

attorney present? _______________________

Signature of the defendant on the line below

______________________________________________

Time ____________ Date _____________________

Signature of Officer_______________________________

Signature of Witness ______________________________

Did using the suspectDid using the suspect’’s s clothing compel him to be clothing compel him to be a witness against himself?a witness against himself?

No!No!

The clothing was not The clothing was not ““testimonial.testimonial.”” It It did not communicate anything. did not communicate anything. Therefore, the clothes did not Therefore, the clothes did not

compel the suspect to be a compel the suspect to be a ““witnesswitness”” against himself.against himself.

Warden v. Hayden

Did mentioning the danger Did mentioning the danger to handicapped children to handicapped children

compel the suspect to be a compel the suspect to be a witness against himself?witness against himself?

No!No!The suspect was not compelled to The suspect was not compelled to confess. First, the officers were confess. First, the officers were talking to each other, not to the talking to each other, not to the

suspect. More importantly, although suspect. More importantly, although the officers may have hoped the the officers may have hoped the suspect would react to what they suspect would react to what they

were saying, they had no reason to were saying, they had no reason to believe the suspect would care believe the suspect would care

whether children got hurt. whether children got hurt.

Rhode Island v. Innis

Did the medicine compel Did the medicine compel the suspect to be a the suspect to be a

witness against himself witness against himself even though the police even though the police

didndidn’’t know it was a t know it was a ““truth truth serum?serum?””

yes!yes!If the drug had the effect of a If the drug had the effect of a

““truth serum,truth serum,”” then the suspect then the suspect could not exercise his free will. It could not exercise his free will. It doesndoesn’’t matter whether the police t matter whether the police realized the medication had that realized the medication had that

effect on the suspect. If the effect on the suspect. If the suspect could not exercise his free suspect could not exercise his free

will, then his statements were will, then his statements were compelled. compelled.

Townsend v. Sain

Does interrogating someone Does interrogating someone without telling them their without telling them their

rights compel them to be a rights compel them to be a witness against themself?witness against themself?

SORT OF!SORT OF!

When a person is interrogated by When a person is interrogated by police, there is a great danger that the police, there is a great danger that the person will be compelled to speak. A person will be compelled to speak. A person is put into an unfamiliar place person is put into an unfamiliar place

away from other people. away from other people.

SORT OF!SORT OF!

During an interrogation, police often During an interrogation, police often behave in an intimidating way because behave in an intimidating way because they are trying to get information. In they are trying to get information. In order to guard against people being order to guard against people being

compelled to speak against compelled to speak against themselves, police must tell them themselves, police must tell them what their rights are before what their rights are before

questioning begins. questioning begins.

Miranda v. Arizona

Did the Did the ““friendfriend’’ss”” offer of offer of protection compel the protection compel the

suspect to be a witness suspect to be a witness against himself?against himself?

YES!YES!

The only reason the prisoner confessed The only reason the prisoner confessed was because he was afraid that, was because he was afraid that,

without protection from his friend, without protection from his friend, other prisoners would hurt him. A other prisoners would hurt him. A

threat of physical violence is enough to threat of physical violence is enough to cause a statement to be compelled. cause a statement to be compelled.

There does not have to be actual There does not have to be actual physical violence. physical violence.

Arizona v. Fulminante

Did making him try on the Did making him try on the shirt compel the suspect shirt compel the suspect to be a witness against to be a witness against

himself?himself?

NO!NO!Being a witness against yourself Being a witness against yourself only applies to communication. only applies to communication.

When he was forced to put on the When he was forced to put on the shirt, he was not forced to shirt, he was not forced to

communicate anything. If the 5communicate anything. If the 5thth Amendment could stop this, then Amendment could stop this, then it could also stop the jury from it could also stop the jury from

looking at the suspect and looking at the suspect and comparing him to a photograph of comparing him to a photograph of

someone. someone. Holt v. U.S.

Did forcing the suspect to Did forcing the suspect to give a blood sample give a blood sample compel him to be a compel him to be a

witness against himself?witness against himself?

NO!NO!

When the officer told the doctor to When the officer told the doctor to take the blood sample even after the take the blood sample even after the suspect protested, the suspect was suspect protested, the suspect was compelled to give blood. However, compelled to give blood. However,

being a being a ““witnesswitness”” against yourself only against yourself only applies to communication. The suspect applies to communication. The suspect

was compelled to give physical was compelled to give physical evidence. He was not compelled to evidence. He was not compelled to

communicate anything. communicate anything.

Schmerber v. California

Did questioning the guy in Did questioning the guy in the hospital compel the the hospital compel the suspect to be a witness suspect to be a witness

against himself?against himself?

YES!YES!The suspect was at the detectivThe suspect was at the detectivee ’’s mercy. He could not move s mercy. He could not move

because of all the equipment he because of all the equipment he was hooked up to, and he was in was hooked up to, and he was in a lot of pain. He also said he was a lot of pain. He also said he was

confused and could not think confused and could not think clearly. The detective ignored all clearly. The detective ignored all

the suspectthe suspect’’s requests to stop s requests to stop the interrogation. Under these the interrogation. Under these circumstances, the suspect was circumstances, the suspect was not able to exercise his free will. not able to exercise his free will.

Mincey v. Arizona