Fifth Amendment- Grand Jury Trials, Double Jeopardy, Self Incrimination and Due Process

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on 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.


In my opinion,the fifth amendment protects the citizen's rights to a trial when someone is accused of a serious federal crime. In America we are innocent until proven guilty and are afforded a trial to prove either our guilt or innocence. This is not the case in many countries. In some countries if you are perceived to have committed a certain offense you are automatically jailed and thought of as guilty. There is the exception to this rule which is if the person accused is a member of the armed forces. I believe a trial is still granted but instead of a Grand Jury they use juries of military courts. However, according to this amendment, if the crime is one on the severe federal level then a special jury, a grand jury, will be appointed. This jury is made up of civilians but is given far greater investigative power than that of a normal, lower court, jury. Some states do not use Grand Juries but rather start cases such as these with inditements. This is one of the aspects of the Bill of Rights that has not been enforced by the fourteenth amendment. The fifth amendment also protects us from being tried twice for the same offense. If this were not the case we could be accused of murder and be aquitted in the first trial but spend then the prosecution turns around and tries us again. Potentially we could spend our entire life defending ourselves. In addition, American's are not forced to testify against themselves. This is lead to many changes of strategy by lawyers. They try to use this protection to their advantage. The fifth amendment is where the phrase "pleading the fifth" is derived. The fifth amendment also states that in non-federal cases citizens are guaranteed due process of law as well. This means that the courts are required to use all efforts to prove someone guilty and until then they are presumed innocent. Lastly, the fifth amendment protects us from having our personal property taken by the government without them first adequately compensating us for it. The fifth amendment is very important and protects many of the freedoms that Americans might sometimes take for granted.




My Opinion: I chose this video because it brings up the controversy of, is the fifth amendment section on not being compelled to testify against one's self helping or hurting? It seems to me as though the only people it is protecting are the guilty. Pleading the fifth is not supposed to be conceived as an admission to guilt but in most cases that turns out to be the case. I cannot think of a time (granted I do not follow every court case) when someone pleaded the fifth and later on it didn't come out that they actually committed the crimes they were accused of in one way or another. The problem, it seems, is that in making someone testify against themselves it would be almost impossible to get the truth. If they were the only ones who knew then it would be very easy to lie about any incrimnating evidence.


"Bobb: No Double Jeopardy Violation on Receiving and Possesing Child Porn"

In U.S. v. Bobb, No. 07-13252 (Aug. 6, 2009), the Court rejected a Double Jeopardy challenge to convictions for receiving and possessing child pornography.
The Court agreed with Bobb that in the abstract it could violate Double Jeopardy to prosecute a defendant for both "receiving" and "possessing" child pornography, because this would be multiple punishment for the same offense. The Court noted that it is impossible to receive a thing without also possessing it. The Court found no intent of Congress to punish the same conduct twice, under separate statutes.
However, Ball was charged with receiving child pornography on a separate date from the date on which he was charged with possessing additional child pornography. Thus, the indictment charged two separate and distinct offenses. Thus, the Double Jeopardy challenge ultimately fell short.

My Opinion: I chose this article based on its clear distinction of the law. Double jeopardy only protects someone from being tried twice for the exact same instance. This does not mean that if you are convicted of speeding that you can never be tried for speeding again. However, it means that you can not be tried for the same ticket again. If it were the other way around, serial killers would kill once, go to jail for a period of time and when they were released be untouchable by the law. Thankfully this is not the case.