Burleson Star (Burleson, Tex.), Vol. 14, No. 3, Ed. 1 Monday, October 30, 1978 Page: 3 of 14
fourteen pages : ill. ; page 24 x 16 in. Scanned from physical pages.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Burleson Star, Monday, October 30, 1978-3A
Crime And Justice In America IX:
Civil Liberties And Criminal Law
IN AMERICA
i
n
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Damon J. Keith has serv-
sq
R|
J® Southwestern Bell
VOTE NOVEMBER 7TH
THE CHOI
SIS YOURS. BE
IOOSEY.
I
TRUTH!
L«1
LH
VISIT WITH BOB KRUEGER IN
BURLESON AT 11*50 A.M., OCT. 31
BURLESON
295-2211
I
Bob Krueger
Opposed federal gun control
and will continue to do so
(1973-1978).
r .
i
I
J
* till!
A
CNSUBAMCt
■ l
Ml
Editor’s Note: This is the ninth in a series of 15 articles
exploring “Crime and Justice in America.” In this article, the
Honorable Damon J. Keith, Chief Judge of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
discusses the problem of striking a balance between the
rights of society and the rights of the accused. This series
was written for Courses by Newspaper, a program
developed by University Extension, University of Californ-
nia, San Diego, and funded by a grant from the National
Endowment for the Humanities. Supplemental funding for
this course was provided by the Center for Studies of Crime
and Delinquency, National Institute of Mental Health.
Copyright 1977 by the Regents of the University of
California.
Pol., adv. pd for by
Ethelene Carpenter
fl of the best insurance
ffagents you’ll ever find
Car agent • Homeownersagent
ERNESTO MIRANDA. Miranda is shown
in 1967 after the Supreme Court overturn-
ed his conviction for kidnap and rape on
the grounds that police had obtained his
confession without first informing him of
his constitutional rights.
ANSWERS:
1. Because shortcuts to
justice lead only to tyranny.
2. The Bill of Rights.
3. They were incorporated
into the fourteenth amend-
ment by the Supreme Court.
4. It keeps illegally obtain-
ed evidence out of trial,.the
theory being that this will
help control police miscon-
duct.
■ .......
*
MB I
MB ■*
ft I F
........... ’
j
f AMI
-
- y. 7
-I
4 • ......
< ft
We’re Still
The Way We Were.
....................... .
- f
||
A JUSTICE
John Tower
Voted for one of the most
significant federal gun control
bills ever to pass Congress
(1968).
CIVIL LIBERTIES AND CRIMINAL LAW
“Justice,” declared Supreme Court Justice Benjamin
Cardozo in 1934, “though due to the accused, is due to the
accuser also....We are to keep the balance true.”
Many people, frustrated by high crime rates, feel that the
Supreme Court in recent years has tipped the balance
^fc^ainst the pobke and too far in favor of the accused.
due p”ocess for the accused is an essential safeguard;
^BRItcuts to justice lead only to tyranny. The criminal law in
J^neric? is therefore not only a sword with which society
^Wcrikes those who prey upon it, but also a shield by which an
accused defendant is protected from a vengeful public or
overzealous police, prosecutors, or judges.
The legal system that defines and punishes criminal acts
also sets the limits within which the state may investigate
and prosecute the criminal.
Thus, a fundamental premise of our criminal law is that a
defendant is innocent until proven guilty. And the burden of
proof is on the state to show that the defendant is guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt, not on the defendant to prove his
or her innocence.
DUE PROCESS GUARANTEES
The basic procedural or “due process” rights of an accused
in a criminal trial are provided for in the Bill of Rights.
The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches
and seizures and directs that warrants shall issue only upon
probable , cause, while the fifth amendment provides for the
use of a grand jury to indict persons accused of serious
crimes, and prohibits double jeopardy and self-incrimination.
The right to a speedy, public trial by an impartial jury is
provided for in the sixth amendment, which also guarantees
the defendant’s right to know the charges against him, to be
confronted with the witnesses against him, to have defense
witnesses summoned, and to have counsel. And the eighth
amendment prohibits excessive bail or fines and cruel and
unusual punishment.
The Supreme Court, which breathes life into the
Constitution, over the years has expanded the scope of these
provisions to the benefit of the accused.
Of key importance has been the Supreme Court’s
extension of federal due process requirements to state
courts, in which most criminal cases are tried. The Supreme
Court has incorporated, by judicial decision, the relatively
specific safeguards for the accused of the Bill of Rights into
the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, which
was applicable to the states.
THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL
Of great significance has been the Supreme Court’s
extension to indigent defendants of the sixth amendment’s
guarantee that an accused shall have “the assistance of
counsel for his defense.”
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
More controversial has been the Court’s attempt to
modify the actions of law enforcement officers in their
search, arrest, and interrogation of defendants by excluding
illegally seized evidence from trial.
For example, In “Weeks vs. United States” (1914), the
Supreme Court held that the fourth amendment prohibition
against unreasonable searches and seizures of persons and
property requires a federal court to exclude evidence
obtained by federal agents in violation of the amendment. In
1961, in “Mapp vs. Ohio,” the Court extended this rule to the
states.
Critics claim that this exclusionary rule penalizes society
and rewards the defendant for the mistakes of the police.
Others argue, however, that the police are concerned
primarily with the confiscation of contraband and the
disruption of suspected criminal activity rather than with
ultimate conviction.
Therefore the police are not deterred from illegal searches
and seizures even if the case is thrown out of court. But
alternative attempts to deter illegal police conduct - such as
civil actions for damages brought against the police by
victims of illegal searches - have proven largely ineffective.
Thus the dilemma remains.
The exclusionary rule has also been used to exclude as
evidence confessions obtained by the police from suspects
who had been denied an opportunity to consult with counsel.
In 1964, in “Escobedo vs. Illinois,” the Court ruled that a
confession thus obtained was a violation of the sixth and
fourteenth amendments.
MIRANDA
Two years later, in the landmark decision of “Miranda vs.
Arizona,” the Court laid down specific guidelines for police
interrogation of persons in their custody. “Miranda”
required law enforcement officers to warn suspects that
they had a right to remain silent, that anything they said
could be used against them in a court of law, and that they
had a right to counsel before and during the interrogation.
Only if a suspect waived these rights could police obtain a
valid confession.
The “Miranda” decision has been severely critcized, not so
much for the constitutional principals it enunciated, as for its
critical view of police interrogation methods at a time when
BY THE HONORABLE DAMON J. KEITH
In “Powell vs. Alabama (1932),” the Court held that the
right of an indigent defendant to counsel in a capital case
was required by due process of law and applicable to the
states under the due process clause of the fourteenth
amendment.
Thirty years later, in “Gideon vs. Wainwright” (1963), the
Court extended the right to counsel to all cases involving a
serious crime.
COURSES BY
1YEWSPAPER
After 17 long years of ineffective leadership, it’s time we return our Senate seat
to a leader in the Texas tradition.
ME KRUEGER
L; OF TEXAS
DEMOCRAT FOR U.S.SENATE
The Celebrity. $16 a month for five months or a one-tipie charge of $80.
Prices do not include taxes or, if applicable, installation and recurring charges.
If necessary hearing aid adapters are available from your telephone company.
fits* ■ ■
jt-
>><.■
# MX''
QUESTIONS:
1. Why is due process for
the accused an essential
safeguard?
2. From where are the
basic procedural or “due
process” rights derived?
3. How did the Bill of
Rights become applicable to
state criminal proceedings?
4. Of what significance is
the exclusionary rule in
criminal procedure?
zine” as “One of the 100 Most
Influential Black Americans”
for 1971-1975, he has held
numerous public offices, in-
cluding chairmanship of the
Michigan Civil Rights
Commission. Among his
many awards are several
honorary law degrees, the 1
National Newspaper Publis-
her’s Russwurm Award for
distinguished judicial servic- |
I es, and the N.A.A.C.P.’s J
I highest honor, the Spingarn I
I Medal.
His most significant deci- I
I sions include the White Pan- ; I
ther Wire Tap Decision I
(1971), also known as the >]
“Keith” decision, which held I
that wiretapping without
by the U.S. Attorney Gener- I
tional rights; and the Detroit
Police Layoff Case of 1975, in
which he defused racial ten- .
sion in the city by success-
fully negotiating a settle- |
ment between police unions J
and the city.
judicial authorization, even
ed as United States District al, is a violation of Constitu-
Judge for the Eastern Dist-
rict of Michigan since his ap-
pointment in 1967 by the late
President Johnson, and in
1975 he was named Chief
Judge of the District Court.
Selected by “Ebony Maga-
An elegant revival of times past, the Celebrity always adds a touch of
warmth to its surroundings. .Available in ivory with gold-colored trim or
powder blue with silver-colored trim, it's small enough for a bedside
table.
And, of course, it's genuine Bell. Which means you're getting top
guality and you never have to worry about repairs. Since the working
components are owned by the Bell System, we'll fix them anytime there's
a problem. Without additional charge.
The Celebrity is now appearing at your nearest PhoneCenter Store,
where you can also choose from a variety of other colorful and attractive
styles. Or call your local Southwestern Bell business office. Choose a
phone that's genuinely you and genuine Bell.
5 agent » Health agent
CHARLES MASSEY
% 104 NW Renfro
L____
Like d good neighbor.
State Farm is there.
fTATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES
Ho«a« Offkti: Blooariagtoa, lUlnoia
- — J
<
. ' 2
i S
many police forces were under community pressure for not
doing enough to halt the rapid rise in crime.
Also, as Fred Graham, Supreme Court correspondent for
“CBS News,” wrote, the decision smacked of “benevolent
authoritarianism” by the judiciary - an attempt to reform
society from the top down, by imposing on the police rigid
procedural rules.
“Miranda” came to symbolize the tension in our system of
law between the protection we guarantee the accused, and
the protection we provide society from crime. As violence
and street crime increased throughout the 1960s, many
people felt that the criminals were winning the war on
crime, not just on the street, but in the police station and
courtroom as well.
But constitutional adjudication is never static. In
“Johnson vs. New Jersey” (1966), the Supreme Court held
that Miranda was not to be applied retroactively.
In “Harris vs. New York” (1971), the Court held that a
defendant’s statements to the police, made without being
informed of his “Miranda rights” and therefore inadmissable
in the prosecution’s direct case, could nonetheless be used to
impeach the defendant’s trial testimony. And in “Michigan
vs. Taylor” (1974), the Court held that evidence obtained in
pre-“Miranda” interrogation could still be used against a
defendant in a trial beginning after the “Miranda” decision.
Over time, the balance drawn between the rights of the
accused and the interests of the accuser seems sometimes to
tip in one direction, sometimes in the other.
THE WRONG QUESTION
But to ask if the scales of justice have been tipped too far
in favor of the accused is, I think, to misstate the question.
We should ask instead if the civil rights of the accused are
mandated by the Constitutional safeguards against potential
abuses of power by the government. I think that they are.
Anger at “permissive” judges obscures the fact that the
Bill of Rights was included in our Constitution to protect the
citizens of the newly created republic against government
abuses of power.
If the government’s power to search our property, seize
our person, compel our confession, set our bail, direct our
trial, and determine our punishment is unchecked, then no
one is really safe from the possibility of an unjust arrest and
conviction. The requirements of the due process amend-
ments check the government’s discretion and afford various
weapons to the accused for his or her own defense.
We extend these safeguards to defendants not because we
sympathize with what they may have done, but because in
upholding their rights, we protect our own. In guaranteeing
the rights of others to be innocent until proven quilty, and in
limiting the methods the state can use to prove them guilty,
we affirm our faith in a nation under law, and our confidence
in a free society.
The views expressed in Courses By Newspaper are those
of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the
University of California, the funding agencies, or the
participating newspapers and colleges.
\ NEXT WEEK: Jerome H. Skolnick, Director of the
Center for the Study of Law and Society at the University of
California, Berkeley, discusses the problems of law
enforcement in a free society.________ '________________
w- -
1
'a
DAMON J. KEITH
J
I
V
1
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Hutson, Wayne & Moody, James. Burleson Star (Burleson, Tex.), Vol. 14, No. 3, Ed. 1 Monday, October 30, 1978, newspaper, October 30, 1978; Burleson, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1281547/m1/3/: accessed July 2, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Burleson Public Library.