Podcasts about sixth amendments

Congressman Greg Steube discusses the House Intelligence Committee's report revealing the FBI's misrepresentation of the 2017 congressional shooter's motives, initially claimed to be a "suicide by cop" scheme but later found to be driven by far-left extremism. Steube criticizes the FBI for classifying the investigation and hiding evidence. He also highlights a 2021 Biden administration memo lowering the threshold for FBI investigations to include "concerning non-criminal behavior," which he argued infringes on civil liberties. Congressman Andy Biggs from Arizona, a prominent voice in Congress advocating for accountability within the federal bureaucracy, shares insights on immigration policies, the potential for self-deportation incentives, and the recent revelations surrounding the FBI's handling of the 2017 congressional baseball shooting. Finally, it's AMAC Wednesday, and Bobby Charles discusses the controversial memo from the National Security Council under President Biden, which allowed federal agencies to target Americans for "concerning non-criminal behavior." Charles criticizes it as a violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of Consider the Constitution, host Dr. Katie Crawford-Lackey welcomes back Kendra Johnson, assistant Public Defender in Fairfax, Virginia, to explore the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Johnson explains how these amendments form the backbone of criminal procedure in America and protect citizens from government overreach.The discussion begins with an overview of each amendment: the Fourth Amendment protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fifth Amendment covering rights such as protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy, and the Sixth Amendment ensuring the right to a speedy trial, impartial jury, and legal counsel. Johnson shares insights into the historical context of these amendments, explaining how the Framers developed these protections in response to abuses they had witnessed under British rule.The conversation highlights landmark Supreme Court cases that have shaped these rights over time, including Katz v. United States, which established the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard; Miranda v. Arizona, which created the famous "Miranda warnings"; and Gideon v. Wainwright, which guaranteed the right to an attorney even for those who cannot afford one.The episode concludes with a discussion of emerging challenges to these constitutional protections in the digital age, including questions about surveillance technology, online trials, and artificial intelligence in the criminal justice system. Johnson emphasizes that these amendments are vital not just for those accused of crimes but for all citizens, as they establish boundaries on government power that protect everyone's liberty regardless of who holds political office.

Victor Davis Hanson explores the growing backlash—and the serious financial and legal levers the government could use to hold these schools accountable—on today's episode of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words.”   “ [Universities] predicated their budgets on federal monies. But the Trump administration says, 'You're not obeying the First or the Fourth or Fifth or Sixth Amendments. You're not guaranteeing the Bill of Rights to your own students. You're allowing antisemitism in the year 2025 as if it's the 19th century or something. What are you doing?' And the universities seem to ignore it."   0:00 Introduction: Trump Administration's Stance on Universities 0:59 Antisemitic Protests and University Responses 2:44 Public Perception and Political Leanings of Universities 4:18 Financial Dependencies and Foreign Influence 5:09 Government Actions and Potential Consequences 6:42 Conclusion  

Lecture 3 of Criminal Law & Procedure focuses on constitutional safeguards in criminal cases, specifically the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, as well as pretrial and trial procedures.The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, regulates confessions, and prohibits double jeopardy. Key aspects include:Miranda warnings must be given to suspects in custody before interrogation, informing them of their right to remain silent, right to an attorney, and that anything said can be used against them. These warnings apply only to custodial interrogations, where a reasonable person would not feel free to leave.Voluntary confessions are admissible, but those obtained through coercion or psychological manipulation are not.The privilege against self-incrimination protects individuals from being compelled to testify against themselves. This right does not extend to physical evidence.Double jeopardy prohibits multiple prosecutions or punishments for the same offense. However, there are exceptions, such as separate sovereignties, mistrials, and civil proceedings.The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel, a speedy trial, jury trials, and confrontation of witnesses.The right to counsel applies at all critical stages of prosecution, including arraignments, plea negotiations, trial, and sentencing6. This right was extended to indigent defendants in state courts by Gideon vs Wainwright.The right to a speedy trial prevents indefinite delays and is balanced against factors that could justify delays.Defendants have the right to an impartial jury, and racial discrimination in jury selection is prohibited by Batson vs Kentucky. Jury verdicts in criminal cases must be unanimous, per Ramos vs Louisiana.The Confrontation Clause ensures that defendants can cross-examine witnesses testifying against them.Pretrial and trial procedures covered include:Grand Juries determine probable cause for bringing formal charges in federal cases.Bail is set based on factors such as flight risk and danger to the public. The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail.Plea bargains resolve most criminal cases. These agreements must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.Discovery requires the prosecution to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense.The burden of proof at trial is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Sentencing is determined by judges based on guidelines.Post-conviction relief may be sought through appeals and habeas corpus petitions.

Summary of Criminal Procedure – Lecture 3 Introduction Lecture 3 focuses on constitutional protections in criminal proceedings, covering the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and pretrial and trial procedures. Key Topics: Fifth Amendment: Protection against self-incrimination, Miranda warnings, and double jeopardy. Sixth Amendment: Right to counsel, a speedy trial, an impartial jury, and confrontation of witnesses. Pretrial & Trial Procedures: Grand juries, bail, plea bargaining, discovery, burden of proof, sentencing, and post-conviction relief. I. The Fifth Amendment Protects individuals from coerced confessions and multiple prosecutions. A. Miranda Rights & Custodial Interrogation Miranda v. Arizona (1966): Suspects must be informed of right to remain silent and counsel. Failure to provide warnings may make confessions inadmissible. Exceptions: Public safety, spontaneous statements, and routine booking questions. B. Voluntary Confessions & Self-Incrimination Confessions must be voluntary—coercion makes them inadmissible. Exclusionary rule bars evidence obtained in violation of Miranda. Privilege against self-incrimination applies only to testimonial evidence. C. Double Jeopardy Prohibits multiple prosecutions or punishments for the same offense. Exceptions: Separate sovereigns doctrine, mistrials, and appeals. II. The Sixth Amendment Guarantees fair trial rights. A. Right to Counsel Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): Indigent defendants must be provided counsel. Applies at all critical stages, including plea negotiations and sentencing. Strickland v. Washington (1984): Defendants may claim ineffective assistance of counsel. B. Speedy & Public Trial Barker v. Wingo factors: Length, reason, defendant's assertion, and prejudice. Speedy Trial Act (1974): Federal trials must start within 70 days. C. Impartial Jury Batson v. Kentucky (1986): Prohibits racial discrimination in jury selection. Ramos v. Louisiana (2020): Criminal convictions require unanimous verdicts. D. Confrontation Clause Right to cross-examine witnesses. Bruton v. United States (1968): Co-defendant's confession cannot be used against another defendant. Maryland v. Craig (1990): Limited exceptions for child victims. III. Pretrial & Trial Procedures Focuses on probable cause, bail, plea deals, burden of proof, and sentencing. A. Grand Juries & Bail Grand juries determine probable cause, but defendants cannot present evidence. Bail must not be excessive (8th Amendment); based on flight risk, crime severity, and public safety. B. Plea Bargains & Discovery Most cases resolve through plea deals. Brady v. Maryland (1963): Prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence. C. Burden of Proof at Trial Prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Direct vs. Circumstantial Evidence: Direct = witnesses, videos; Circumstantial = motive, behavior. D. Sentencing & Post-Conviction Relief Mandatory minimums limit judicial discretion. Death penalty restrictions: Roper v. Simmons (2005) bars execution of juveniles. Appeals & Habeas Corpus: Review constitutional errors. Wrongful Convictions: DNA evidence & Innocence Project help exonerate the falsely accused. Conclusion Today covered constitutional protections, trial rights, and post-conviction remedies. These safeguards ensure fairness, prevent wrongful convictions, and protect due process. Tomorrow, we will examine criminal appeals and habeas corpus petitions.

Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Rights This document reviews the key themes and critical facts from the provided lecture excerpt, “Lecture 4 Constitutional Law: Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Rights.” The document focuses on the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and their impact on criminal procedure. I. Overview The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments form the cornerstone of criminal procedure in the U.S. Fourth Amendment: Protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, emphasizing the warrant requirement and exceptions. Fifth Amendment: Safeguards against self-incrimination, establishing Miranda rights and the Double Jeopardy Clause. Sixth Amendment: Guarantees crucial trial rights, including the right to counsel, speedy and public trial, confrontation, and compulsory process. II. Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure 1. What is a Search? The Supreme Court's interpretation of a "search" evolved from physical trespass to a focus on privacy. A search occurs when: The government intrudes on an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy (Katz v. United States). The government physically trespasses on property to obtain information. 2. What is a Seizure? Property: Occurs when the government significantly interferes with an individual's possession. Person: Occurs when a reasonable person would feel unable to leave an encounter with law enforcement (e.g., arrests, stops). 3. Reasonableness and the Warrant Requirement Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable. A valid warrant requires: Probable cause Issuance by a neutral magistrate Particular description of the place and items/persons to be searched/seized. III. Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement Several exceptions permit warrantless searches and seizures: Exigent Circumstances: Imminent destruction of evidence, hot pursuit, public safety threats. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest: Search of arrestee and immediate area (limited for vehicles by Arizona v. Gant). Automobile Exception: Probable cause to believe a vehicle contains contraband/evidence. Plain View Doctrine: Seizure of evidence/contraband in plain view if incriminating nature is immediately apparent. Consent: Voluntary consent by a person with authority. Stop and Frisk (Terry Stops): Reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (less than probable cause), and a limited pat-down for weapons if the officer reasonably believes the person is armed and dangerous. Special Needs and Administrative Searches: Administrative inspections, border searches, drug testing, checkpoints. Inventory Searches: Routine cataloging of items in lawfully impounded vehicles/property. Community Caretaking Functions: Warrantless entries/searches for community welfare reasons. IV. Exclusionary Rule and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment can be excluded. Derivative evidence ("fruit of the poisonous tree") can also be excluded. Exceptions: Good Faith Exception: Reliance on a facially valid, later invalidated warrant. Clerical Errors: Innocent clerical errors by court employees. V. Fifth Amendment: Self-Incrimination and Miranda Rights 1. Miranda Warnings: Required for suspects in custodial interrogation. Suspects must be informed of: Right to remain silent. Anything said can be used against them in court. Right to an attorney. Right to a court-appointed attorney if they cannot afford one. 2. Invoking and Waiving Miranda Rights: Invocation must be clear and unambiguous. Waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. 3. Public Safety Exception (New York v. Quarles): Allows questions before Miranda warnings if there is an immediate public safety concern. VI. Sixth Amendment: Right to Counsel and Other Trial Rights 1. Right to Counsel: Attaches at the initiation of formal adversarial proceedings and is offense-specific. 2. Critical Stages of Prosecution: Applies to: Post-indictment lineups and show-ups Preliminary hearings --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Constitution require a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant's prior convictions were “committed on occasions different from one another,” as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act?    The case was decided on June 21, 2024. The Supreme Court held that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a unanimous jury to make the determination beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant's past offenses were committed on separate occasions for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments require that any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This principle applies to both facts that increase the maximum sentence and facts that increase the minimum sentence.  In Erlinger's case, determining whether his prior offenses occurred on at least three separate occasions (as required by the Armed Career Criminal Act) involved finding facts that increased both his minimum and maximum potential sentences. Therefore, this determination should have been made by a jury, not a judge. This factual determination does not fall under the narrow Almendarez-Torres exception, which allows judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction. The occasions inquiry requires going beyond simply identifying prior convictions and their elements. While there may be practical concerns about prejudicing defendants by presenting evidence of prior crimes to juries, these can be addressed through procedural tools like bifurcated trials. Constitutional requirements cannot be set aside for efficiency or practicality reasons. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separate concurring opinions. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion, which Justice Samuel Alito joined and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in part. Justice Jackson wrote a separate dissenting opinion. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In the case United States v. Combs, 24-cr-542 (AS), Sean Combs' legal team has submitted a formal request to Judge Subramanian to issue an order prohibiting further extrajudicial statements from prospective witnesses and their lawyers. The defense argues that such public comments could undermine Combs' constitutional rights, specifically those outlined under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, which guarantee due process and a fair trial. The request is made pursuant to Local Rule 23.1, which seeks to limit public commentary that could influence legal proceedings, particularly in high-profile cases like this one.Combs' attorneys stress that the current media environment, combined with the ongoing public statements by witnesses and their legal representatives, poses a significant risk of prejudicing potential jurors. They contend that these extrajudicial statements could create an environment of bias, making it challenging to secure an impartial jury. By restricting public commentary, the defense aims to ensure that the case proceeds in a fair manner, focusing solely on evidence presented in the courtroom rather than media narratives that could distort the facts or sway public opinion.In this episode, we get a look at that motion.(commercial at 7:42)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.42.0.pdf

In the case United States v. Combs, 24-cr-542 (AS), Sean Combs' legal team has submitted a formal request to Judge Subramanian to issue an order prohibiting further extrajudicial statements from prospective witnesses and their lawyers. The defense argues that such public comments could undermine Combs' constitutional rights, specifically those outlined under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, which guarantee due process and a fair trial. The request is made pursuant to Local Rule 23.1, which seeks to limit public commentary that could influence legal proceedings, particularly in high-profile cases like this one.Combs' attorneys stress that the current media environment, combined with the ongoing public statements by witnesses and their legal representatives, poses a significant risk of prejudicing potential jurors. They contend that these extrajudicial statements could create an environment of bias, making it challenging to secure an impartial jury. By restricting public commentary, the defense aims to ensure that the case proceeds in a fair manner, focusing solely on evidence presented in the courtroom rather than media narratives that could distort the facts or sway public opinion.In this episode, we get a look at that motion.(commercial at 7:42)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.42.0.pdf

In the case United States v. Combs, 24-cr-542 (AS), Sean Combs' legal team has submitted a formal request to Judge Subramanian to issue an order prohibiting further extrajudicial statements from prospective witnesses and their lawyers. The defense argues that such public comments could undermine Combs' constitutional rights, specifically those outlined under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, which guarantee due process and a fair trial. The request is made pursuant to Local Rule 23.1, which seeks to limit public commentary that could influence legal proceedings, particularly in high-profile cases like this one.Combs' attorneys stress that the current media environment, combined with the ongoing public statements by witnesses and their legal representatives, poses a significant risk of prejudicing potential jurors. They contend that these extrajudicial statements could create an environment of bias, making it challenging to secure an impartial jury. By restricting public commentary, the defense aims to ensure that the case proceeds in a fair manner, focusing solely on evidence presented in the courtroom rather than media narratives that could distort the facts or sway public opinion.In this episode, we get a look at that motion.(commercial at 7:42)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.42.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Amendments Beyond the Bill of Rights. 1. The Fifteenth Amendment. The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870, is a pivotal component of the post-Civil War amendments. It prohibits the denial of voting rights based on an individual's race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Significance: The Fifteenth Amendment sought to enfranchise African American men who had been denied the right to vote in many parts of the United States due to racial discrimination and the legacy of slavery. It was a significant step toward achieving civil rights and political participation. Example: The Voting Rights Act of 1965, which aimed to eliminate racial discrimination in voting, draws its authority from the Fifteenth Amendment. It outlawed discriminatory voting practices like literacy tests and poll taxes. 2. The Nineteenth Amendment. The Nineteenth Amendment, ratified in 1920, granted women the right to vote. It marked a substantial expansion of suffrage and women's rights. Significance: The Nineteenth Amendment recognized the importance of gender equality in a democracy and extended the right to vote to over half of the U.S. population, promoting a more inclusive and representative democracy. Example: The women's suffrage movement, characterized by activists like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, played a significant role in advocating for the Nineteenth Amendment. 3. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. It was a response to concerns about young people being drafted into the military to fight in the Vietnam War while not having the right to vote. Significance: This amendment recognized that individuals aged 18 to 20 who could be drafted into the military should also have the right to vote. It underscored the importance of equal representation and participation in the democratic process. Example: In the case of Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Congress's authority to lower the voting age, setting an important precedent. Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions. The interpretation of constitutional provisions is a dynamic process that shapes how the Constitution is applied to contemporary issues. The Supreme Court plays a central role in this process by rendering decisions that clarify the meaning of the Constitution. Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Landmark Supreme Court cases have significantly influenced the interpretation of the Constitution. Here are a few examples: Marbury v. Madison (1803): This case established the principle of judicial review, giving the Supreme Court the power to declare laws or actions of the government unconstitutional. Brown v. Board of Education (1954): This case declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional, overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine. Roe v. Wade (1973): In this case, the Supreme Court recognized a woman's constitutional right to choose to have an abortion, based on the right to privacy. Citizens United v. FEC (2010): This case held that political spending by corporations is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. Precedent in Shaping Constitutional Law. The doctrine of precedent, often referred to as "stare decisis," plays a critical role in shaping constitutional law. It means that courts should follow previous decisions, particularly those made by higher courts, when deciding similar cases. Significance: Precedent ensures consistency and predictability in the legal system. When a case is decided based on precedent, it helps maintain the rule of law and ensures that similar cases are treated similarly. Example: The principle of "separate but equal" in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education (1954), setting a new precedent that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Procedural due process When the government seeks to burden a person's protected liberty interest or property interest, the Supreme Court has held that procedural due process requires that, at a minimum, the government provide the person notice, an opportunity to be heard at an oral hearing, and a decision by a neutral decision-maker. For example, such a process is due when a government agency seeks to terminate civil service employees, expel a student from public school, or cut off a welfare recipient's benefits. The Court has also ruled that the Due Process Clause requires judges to recuse themselves in cases where the judge has a conflict of interest. For example, in Caperton v A T Massey Coal Company (2009), the Court ruled that a justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia had to recuse himself from a case involving a major contributor to his campaign for election to that court. Incorporation. While many state constitutions are modeled after the United States Constitution and federal laws, those state constitutions did not necessarily include provisions comparable to the Bill of Rights. In Barron v Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Bill of Rights restrained only the federal government, not the states. However, the Supreme Court has subsequently held that most provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under a doctrine called "incorporation". Whether incorporation was intended by the amendment's framers, such as John Bingham, has been debated by legal historians. According to legal scholar Akhil Reed Amar, the framers and early supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment believed that it would ensure that the states would be required to recognize the same individual rights as the federal government; all these rights were likely understood as falling within the "privileges or immunities" safeguarded by the amendment. By the latter half of the 20th century, nearly all of the rights in the Bill of Rights had been applied to the states. The Supreme Court has held that the amendment's Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth (except for its Grand Jury Clause) and Sixth Amendments, along with the Excessive Fines Clause and Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. While the Third Amendment has not been applied to the states by the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit ruled that it did apply to the states within that circuit's jurisdiction in Engblom v Carey. The Seventh Amendment right to jury trial in civil cases has been held not to be applicable to the states, but the amendment's Re-Examination Clause does apply to "a case tried before a jury in a state court and brought to the Supreme Court on appeal". The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment became the last right to be incorporated when the Supreme Court ruled in Timbs v Indiana (2019) that right to apply to the states. Equal Protection Clause

In this episode, we pass the mic to Adeel Bashir, Esq.! Adeel Bashir is a Federal Public Defender of the Middle District of Florida and President of the American Muslim Bar Association. Bashir graduated from George Mason University School of Law in 2009, where he was a participant of the Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition and held leadership roles in George Mason's Moot Court Board and Federal Circuit Bar Journal. As a Federal Public Defender, Bashir drafts and files petitions for writ of certiorari to, and appellate briefs in the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on behalf of indigent criminal defendants, with a special emphasis on issues involving the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, statutory interpretation, United States Sentencing Guidelines and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Bashir must also present oral argument before the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, arguing over dozens of cases. Notably, Bashir has had victories in Supreme Court cases Yates v. United States, No. 13-7451, and Rehaif v. United States, No. 17-9560. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/journey-to-esquire/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/journey-to-esquire/support

It's Constitution Week, and Akhil is “booked;” not only with events of the week, but on his book tour.  Our series on scholars, schools, and scholarship resumes, then, with a comprehensive look at the entire ecosystem of books.  What is the author's process, and what happens after a book is written?  How does a book, and an author, gain authority in a world of ubiquitous social media?  And how does this take us to discussions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments?  We all believe we have a book in us, so this inside look speaks to all.

The Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States guarantee the right against self-incrimination, the right to remain silent, and the right to counsel.A crime wave swept California in the late 1970s. Several young girls were abducted, raped, and murdered. Michael Dee Mattson was convicted of these crimes and sentenced to death.Law clerk by day, family man by night.In 1982, Jim Potts—a brilliant, idealistic, African American law student—is honored when one of his professors recruits him to assist in writing a death penalty appeal on behalf of a serial killer.Potts discovers a loophole in the case that had somehow been overlooked. One that could not only get Mattson off death row, but once presented to the Supreme Court of California, could release him to rape and murder again. When Potts confides in his pregnant wife, she says if Mattson goes free, their marriage is over. But if Potts quits the case, or withholds information, he violates his duty to client and Constitution and risks his career before it even begins.A moral dilemma with no good way out.To avoid losing his family and releasing pure evil back into the world, Potts must be smarter than his options. He must find a way to keep his family together, fulfill his duties, and keep Mattson behind bars.But can he? DEFENDING A SERIAL KILLER: The Right To Counsel-Jim Potts

In this episode I break down what the fifth and sixth amendment actually is and explain the history behind them and then tie it back to today. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Col. John Eidsmoe from the Foundation for Moral Law discusses the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Bill of Rights and the importance of due process, trial by jury and the presumption of innocence. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/loving-liberty/support

The Constitution and its amendments are the foundation of American democracy. Yet, we are continually debating their meaning. We're going back to basics and breaking down some of the most hotly debated amendments to help us all understand them on a historical level.In this episode, Sarah talks with Angela J. Davis about the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments. Intro: (00:50)4th Amendment: (02:52)5th Amendment: (15:14)6th Amendment: (26:30)Events and Interviews:Nuance Nation Tour tickets Podcast Movement (August 13-16)Evolving Faith (October 4-5) Blissdom (November 14-16)Sponsors:HelloFreshBabbelThank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do what we do without you. To become a tangible supporter of the show, please visit our Patreon page, purchase a copy of our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), or share the word about our work in your own circles. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

A case in which the Court vacated the Tenth Circuit’s decision holding that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k), which imposes a mandatory minimum punishment on a criminal defendant upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant engaged in certain criminal conduct while under supervised release, violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

With both the Third and Sixth Amendments wished away by Lincoln's Hand, the New Confederacy is well on their way to bringing about their Confederate Dystopia. After being flung into the woods by Sketch's reckless driving, Age wakes up pinned to her crashed trailer. Fortunately, her trailer crashed into the tent of someone that can help. He calls himself--The Instructor. He has no time to explain, but he's an ageless veteran and he knows about the atrocities that are being brought to veterans through Confederate magic and he intends to set things right. However, with due process gone, Age, a known dissident, will have to be careful who she runs into. But, fortunately again, The Instructor knows his way through the woods and towards Veteran 77A, the key to fixing this mess. HOO RAH. Links: www.twitter.com/RevoloverAudio www.anchor.fm/RollingStonedPodcast www.twitter.com/RollingStonedPd www.ko-fi.com/RevoloverAudio

On November 10, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Luis v. U.S. Luis was indicated for Medicare fraud involving alleged kickbacks to patients who enrolled with Luis’ home healthcare companies. The government then brought a civil action to restrain Luis’ assets--including substitute property of an equivalent value to that actually traceable to the alleged fraud--before her criminal trial. Although Luis objected that she needed these assets to pay for defense counsel, the district court ruled in favor of the government and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed. -- The question before the Supreme Court is whether the pretrial restraint of a criminal defendant's legitimate, untainted assets (those not traceable to a criminal offense) needed to retain counsel of choice violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. -- To discuss the case, we have John Malcolm, who is Director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, and the Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Brad Post: You’re listening to Your Best Defense Podcast. We are speaking to Oklahoma City Criminal Defense Attorney Jacquelyn Ford. Jacqui, how are you?   Jacquelyn Ford: I’m doing well. Thank you.   BP: Good. Well, we’re just going to jump right in because it’s going to be an interesting podcast. Let’s talk about when you have a typical interaction with police. Basically, how to not get arrested. Let’s talk a little about that.     JF: Fair enough. I think the best way to avoid being arrested, clearly, is to not engage in criminal activity. But second, I advise people to avoid contact with law enforcement officers as much as possible. You can’t get arrested if you’re not in their presence, right? And you can’t get arrested if they’re not coming for you. Unfortunately, we live in a world, I think, that is different than where we lived even when I was growing up. This isn’t Mayberry anymore, and law enforcement’s position is no longer to protect and serve the public. I know that. I’ve cross-examined them. They have testified to this under oath. Their mission as today’s modern-day police is criminal law enforcement, not protecting and serving the community. So when you have that in mind, you need to understand that they are not necessarily your friends, and calling them and inviting them into your life may result in a less than pleasant experience. A lot of times the police get called because there’s some sort of domestic situation, and you and your old lady are fighting or he’s being a jerk, and she’s being crazy, and somebody wants somebody to leave. The fight escalates, and somebody eventually calls the police. Well, if you’re not in fear of imminent bodily harm or danger, there are probably bad things that are going to happen based on that phone call. A domestic situation has arisen; law enforcement is on their way. They are on their way armed and ready to defuse a highly stressful situation, which puts them at great stress, too. It increases their alertness, and they are there, you would hope, to just help you defuse. But more than likely, someone is going to get arrested. So how do you not get arrested? Don’t call the police on yourself. Don’t call the police on your loved ones because you’re mad and want to teach them a lesson. You should really reserve calling law enforcement into your life when it’s the last option, when you can’t resolve it in any other way. So I think our problem in this country right now is that we don’t know our neighbors, we don’t know our law enforcement officers. We don’t get to interact with them all the time, so they’re not your friends. They used to be, but now they’re not. They are here to arrest and put bad people in jail. When you know that’s their mindset, and that they approach every single interaction with you ready and prepared to kill you if necessary, then maybe think twice about inviting them in unnecessarily. Does that make sense?       BP: It does. Let’s talk about a typical traffic stop. You get pulled over. The police come (hopefully you have your seatbelt on), and you’re in an area where they can come directly to your car. What are some ways to respond in that type of situation?       JF: I advise everybody to handle law enforcement officers with respect. They are not approaching that car expecting to encounter a good, law-abiding citizen. For whatever reason, in their training (and I know this from their own words and from speaking to their training officers), they are approaching a normal traffic stop assuming you are a bad person and their life is in danger. Now, I don’t like to function under fear. We know what happens to our bodies when we’re in fear; we have two options, fight or flight, and let me tell you something. You can’t flee the police during a traffic stop because that will make it worse, and you also can’t fight the police officers in a traffic stop. So we need to make sure that we’re not functioning from a place of fear, number one. Number two, answer only the questions that are asked of you, and don’t try to explain anything. You have to be kind of careful of some of the questions they are asking, because their questions are designed to be very conversational, but what they’re doing is seeking probable cause. They’re asking you questions to determine whether or not they believe you’re up to good or no good.       BP: And these are kind of cop tricks, right? Them interviewing and asking questions?       JF: Right. And this is how they’re trained, and it’s been accepted by most courts most often. So when you know that cops are allowed to lie to you—and they are allowed to lie directly to your face—and nobody is going to do anything about that for you, then you now have to be suspect about some of the things that law enforcement is saying to you. They are not usually there to help you out of a bad situation, right? They have you pulled over, you’ve already violated the law in their eyes. Their goal now is to get into the car, search the car, see if there’s more criminal activity going on, ask you a battery of questions, ask your passengers a battery of questions. My advice to clients is this: if you’ve been pulled over on a traffic stop, treat the officer with respect. He hasn’t done anything to you to earn anything other than respect. And he may or may not be respectful for you in return. That doesn’t matter; we can’t control that. So you provide your driver’s license and insurance verification. As the follow-up questions start coming in, I often tell my clients to politely refuse to answer those questions. Where I am going and where I’ve been aren’t relevant to whether or not I’ve been speeding. Those questions are designed to ask me and my passenger what’s going on because, in their training and experience, those answers not matching up give them what they believe to be probable cause. This starts working toward probable cause to search your car, search you, and eventually arrest you. So these questions are not necessary for the purpose of their traffic stop. I advise my clients to politely say, “I’ve given you my license and registration. Is there anything you need from me to complete this traffic stop?” Now, depending on the temperature of our officer, that’s either going to be received well or not well. We have business cards in our office we’ve printed out based on Supreme Court cases and cases dealing with answering law enforcement questions. A lot of times clients get frustrated because they say, “Oh, I wasn’t read the Miranda.” Well, your Miranda Rights are only applicable if you are in custody and being interrogated. So they don’t have to read you Miranda Rights to ask where you’re going, where you’ve been, or your travel plans. What I tell my clients to do—and it’s on the business cards. I’ll just read it to you. It’s on the back of the card we provide clients in the office. It says, “On the advice of my attorney, I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the Fifth Amendment, which according to the United States Supreme Court, protects everyone, even innocent people, from the need to answer questions if the truth might be used to create the misleading perception that they were somehow involved in a crime that they did not commit.” Is this going to be well-received? I guess it just depends on the police officer. The police officers who aren’t going to like the tone of this podcast are the police officers who won’t like the tone of that response. But always keep your own personal cool. You can’t help escalate the situation. We’ve seen it on videos and the CopBlock of how these people are trying to avoid answering questions at DUI checkpoints. The fact of the matter is, you have the right to refuse to answer those questions. If they want to arrest you, you have the right to refuse to answer questions then, too. If it’s going to get worse before it gets better anyway, then stop talking. That’s a huge problem that people have. You have a very important Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. It’s in the United States Constitution—in the Bill of Rights. And it’s there because it’s a very important right. Exercise it! The less you say, the less information you can give them to either rightfully or wrongfully believe that criminal activity is afoot. So I tell my clients to be respectful, answer the limited number of questions regarding your driver’s license and insurance. The rest of it, you really just need to keep your mouth shut. “Officer, I’d like to not answer those questions at this time. Is there anything you need from me for the purposes of this traffic stop?       BP: Usually are they required to tell you what they pulled you over for?       JF: Yes, I think most police officers know they have to tell you—they’re going to have to tell somebody why they pulled you over. It’s going to be in the PC affidavit at some point. So yeah, they should tell you why they pulled you over. Often they like to ask questions like, “Do you know why I pulled you over?” That’s a tricky one. I’m asked that question—I have a lead foot and tend to get pulled over a lot—and sometimes, I say, “Yes, Officer Smith. I was speeding. I apologize.” But I feel very comfortable interacting with law enforcement, and I also understand that me acknowledging the fact that I was speeding is probably going to help me move the situation along. Sometimes maybe I don’t know why I got pulled over, or sometimes I think it was speeding but I’m not sure, so sometimes I say, “No, Officer. Why did I get pulled over?” because maybe he pulled me over for something besides speeding and now I’ve just ponied up to another crime and I’m not taking my own personal advice. So do as I say and not as I do. But I don’t like answering the question “Do you know why I pulled you over?” because the much more appropriate thing is the officer telling you why he or she pulled you over.       BP:  When do you consent to a search if they want to search your car?       JF: My advice is always don’t consent ever. People ask me why, and because unless nobody else has been in your car for the entire time you’ve owned it, then you probably don’t know everything that’s in your car. And law enforcement doesn’t ask for your permission unless they need it. They don’t have a right to search your car without a warrant first or your consent. They must be able to, in the future in legal documents, articulate reasonable facts that gave them a reason to believe that criminal activity was afoot before they searched that car. That right is so important. Why just give it away? That’s my position on consent: why just give it away if people literally have lost their lives defending it? So, I generally advise not to consent to a search. Sometimes, if you know the dog’s coming anyway and you know you’re about to get busted anyway, people wonder what to do. If it’s going to happen, let it happen. Don’t let your own words “put you in the pokey.” Don’t say, “Oh no, please, Officer. Don’t search. Here’s the marijuana in my console.” You’re hurting my ability to help you in the future. And law enforcement would disagree. They’ll say you’re cooperating and they’ll tell the DA. But that’s absolutely not true. I’ve represented well 5,000 criminal defendants, and not one district attorney has said, “You know, your client confessed and handed over the smoking gun, so we’re just going to let him slide on this one.” That’s a cop trick, the idea that they’re going to work with you on this one and make this better for you. They can, theoretically, by not arresting you, but what law enforcement officer do you think is going to not arrest you with the marijuana or the smoking gun in your car? So, my advice? Don’t consent. My advice with respect to making voluntary statements? Don’t do it.  If you’re going to make a statement to law enforcement and you don’t have a lawyer with you, you’re doing yourself an incredible disservice. Call me. I have taken my clients in and made statements before, but those are strategic, thoughtful, meaningful decisions that we made together, not in a fast environment, not on the fly. You have to have the advice of counsel, and you have to have somebody representing your interests when you’re talking to law enforcement, because they are not there to represent your interests. So you’re protecting your Fourth Amendment right by not consenting to a warrantless search. Good job. Protect your Fifth Amendment right by not saying anything that can be used against you because they will, if they can, use it against you. It’s not that it might be used, it’s that it can and will be used against you. And the third important right is your Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. That’s why you don’t talk without a lawyer, and it goes back to why do you hire a lawyers? Because we have these important rights that have to be protected against government intrusion. The Fourth, Fifth, and the Sixth Amendments specifically apply to all of my clients, so you never want to waive any of them without the advice of counsel. You have the right to record law enforcement. I tell all of my clients to have a recording mechanism on their phone—and I don’t mean your phone’s recorder, because unfortunately, not all officers but some officers will take your phone and destroy that. So I advise my clients to put some sort of app on their phone (and there are plenty through the app store) that allow you to record law enforcement. That recording is sent via the Web to a streaming service, and it’s there if and when your phone gets “lost” or “broken” or “misplaced” in the evidence room. I believe that any law enforcement officer who’s doing his job and doing his job right would want that, too. I advocate very strongly for police cameras—body cams, dash cams, interior car cams—because it protects everybody. It’s not designed to punish the officer; it’s designed to protect the citizen accused.   BP: All right. You’ve been listening to Your Best Defense Podcast with Attorney Jacquelyn Ford, and you can see her website at www.fordlawokc.com.

A case in which the Court held that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not allow an individual to use funds obtained illegally to pay for an attorney.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.