The 5th Amendment
Basically, the 5th Amendment states that no one shall be
charged with capital crimes without a Grand Jury’s permission,
except in cases regarding the military while under service in wartime
or public danger. No one can be put on trial again for the same crime.
You can’t be forced to testify yourself. That no one should be
executed, jailed, or have property seized without a legal precedent.
Also you can’t be put through cruel or unusually punishment. If
private property is seized for public use, that the owner must be
compensated for their losses fairly. It also forbids deprivation of life,
liberty, or property without Due Process of the law.
The 5th Amendment is also often cited as the Double Jeopardy
Amendment. The Constitution does not say that individuals can’t be
put on trail again for the same offense. The Constitution says that
should he defendant be tried again on the same charge or charges,
that they can’t be executed or imprisoned for life without the
possibility of parole.


The 5th Amendment is also sometimes called the “Take the
Fifth” Amendment. It states that no defendant can be forced to
testify against themselves in a criminal case. When under oath, you
are expected to tell the truth, even if that truth was to put you in
trouble. Taking the fifth allows you to tell the truth about th case
without putting yourself in trouble. The Miranda are issued in 1966.
This is also the amendment that protects citizens from manifest
destiny. That is the federal government simply taking land or other
property of citizens without giving anything back. In fact, the
Constitution states that the owner shall be compensated a fair value of
the item or items taken will be paid to the former owner. This is
called Emient Domain.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now


5th Amendment Supreme Court Cases
MIRANDA v. ARIZONA 1966
The defendant, while in police custody, was questioned by
police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney. The defendant
was not given a full and effective warning of his rights before the the
interrogation. In this case Miranda was not ckarged and was sent
free because he had no awarence of his rights. Since that day for the
the police had to read your rights.
CLARENCE EARL GIDEON v. LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections 1963
The was charged in a Florida state court with having broken and
entered a poolroom with intent to commit a misdemeanor. This
offense is a felony under Florida law. Appearing in court without
money and without a lawyer, the defendant asked the court to appoint
counsel for him. the court denied him. The court said only time the
court can appoint counsel to represent a defendant is when that
person is charged with a capital offense. After defending himself he
was found guilty by the jury. He was sentenced to five years in state
prison. The defendant then filed in the Florida Supreme Court this
habeas corpus petitioner attacking his conviction and sentence on the
ground that the trial court’s refusal to appoint counsel for him denied
him rights ‘guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by
the United States Government. But the State Supreme court denied
him, because its only under federal constitutionaly.
Kastigar v. United States 1972
This case presents the question whether the United States
Government may get testimony from an unwilling witness, who pleeds
the Fifth Amendment so they will not self-incrimination, by
conferring on the witness stand from use of the compelled testimony
in criminal proceedings, as well as from use of evidence derived from
the testimony.The witnesses were subpoenaed to appear before a
United States grand jury in the Central District of California on
February 4, 1971. The Government believed that the witnesses were
likely to take their Fifth Amendment privilege. Prior to the scheduled
appearances, the Government applied to the District Court for an
order directing the witnesses to answer questions and produce
evidence before the grand jury. The witnesses opposed of the order
because they felt the would self-incrimanate. The District Court
rejected this, and ordered the witnesses to appear before the grand
jury and answer its questions.

Author