3.8 Amendments: Due Process and the Rights of the Accused 

Protections of the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated by way of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause to prevent state infringement of basic liberties. 

Explain how states are limited by the due process clause from infringing upon individual rights.

The Court has occasionally ruled in favor of states’ power to restrict individual liberty, as, for example, when speech can be shown to increase the danger to public safety. 

The Miranda rule involves the interpretation and application of accused persons’ due process rights as protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Yet, the Court has sanctioned a “public safety” exception that allows unwarned interrogation to stand as direct evidence in court.

 Pretrial rights of the accused and the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures are intended to ensure that citizen liberties are not eclipsed by the need for social order and security, including:

• The right to legal counsel, speedy and public trial, and an impartial jury 

• Protection against warrantless searches of cell phone data under the Fourth Amendment 

• Limitations placed on bulk collection of telecommunication metadata (Patriot and USA Freedom Acts) 

The due process clause has been applied to guarantee the right to an attorney and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, as represented by:

 Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), guaranteed the right to an attorney for the poor or indigent The exclusionary rule, which stipulates evidence illegally seized by law enforcement officers in violation of the suspect’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be used against that suspect in criminal prosecution 

The Fourteenth Amendment significantly altered the balance of power between national and state governments. Specifically, the due process clause has enabled the U.S. Supreme Court to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. This has led to a more uniform legal system across the country. For example, protections under the Fourth Amendment, which previously applied only to the federal government, now extend to all fifty states. Consequently, due process and the rights of the accused are consistent nationwide. The incorporation of the Bill of Rights has minimized the differences in legal systems from state to state, as states cannot violate individual rights under the due process clause. The importance of the Bill of Rights has increased, and some political scientists view the Fourteenth Amendment's passage as a second American revolution.

Courts have determined that citizens' freedoms must be balanced with the government's duty to maintain order. This has been evident when the courts restricted speech in potentially dangerous situations. A notable example is the Miranda rule, which interprets the due process rights of accused individuals under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. However, the Court has allowed a "public safety" exception, permitting unwarned interrogations to be used as evidence in court. Essentially, the right to remain silent can sometimes be compromised.

The rights of defendants before trial and the ban on unreasonable searches and seizures aim to protect individual freedoms from being overshadowed by the need for public safety and order. The Bill of Rights guarantees everyone the right to legal representation, a swift and open trial, and a fair jury. Courts have acknowledged the protection against warrantless searches of cell phone data and have imposed limits on the bulk collection of telecommunication information under the Patriot and USA Freedom Acts. Thanks to incorporation, these protections apply in all fifty states, providing universal coverage. While these measures have enhanced the government's authority, they also ensure fairer protection for individuals.

The due process clause has been used to secure the right to an attorney and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, as illustrated by the Gideon v. Wainwright case (1963), which established the right to legal counsel for those who cannot afford it. Additionally, the exclusionary rule prevents law enforcement from using evidence obtained through violations of an individual's Fourth Amendment rights during criminal prosecution. In recent years, there has been an expansion of the rights for the accused, alongside the standardization of police practices.

A Due Process Clause appears in both the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. These provide that nobody may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Courts have developed two branches of due process doctrine: procedural due process and substantive due process.

First, procedural due process involves the steps that must be taken before someone is deprived of an interest involving life, liberty, or property. These vary depending on the situation but typically include notice and an opportunity to be heard, as well as an unbiased decision-maker. Sometimes procedural due process also may entail a right to present evidence, a right to cross-examine opposing witnesses, and an opportunity to be represented by counsel, among other protections.

Meanwhile, substantive due process involves certain fundamental rights that are deeply rooted in American history and tradition. Notable areas in which this doctrine has arisen include reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and end-of-life decisions. A court usually applies strict scrutiny to government actions that affect fundamental rights, which means that the government must show that its action furthered a compelling interest and was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

The Fifth Amendment states that no individual can be forced to testify against themselves in a criminal case. Initially, the Supreme Court limited this protection to extreme methods, like torture, used to obtain confessions. In a 1936 case from Mississippi, the Court overturned a conviction based on confessions gained through physical torture, asserting that torture should never replace a fair questioning process. Over the years, the Court adopted a "totality of the circumstances" approach, evaluating whether a confession was coerced by considering various factors, such as the defendant’s age, maturity, and the interrogation's nature and length.

In the significant 1966 case Miranda v. Arizona, the Court shifted from this approach to requiring that police inform all criminal suspects of specific rights—now widely known as Miranda warnings—before any questioning. These warnings inform suspects that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them in court, that they have the right to an attorney, and that one will be provided for them if they cannot afford one.

Once these warnings are given, suspects can knowingly and intelligently waive their rights and choose to speak. However, if they do not waive these rights, any information obtained during interrogation cannot be used against them. Chief Justice Earl Warren, representing the slim five-member majority, argued that even without physical coercion, the pressure of being in custody undermines personal freedom and takes advantage of vulnerable individuals. He claimed that police questioning is inherently coercive, and without these specific warnings, any statements made by a defendant cannot be considered a result of free will.

The dissenting justices argued that the Fifth Amendment only requires that confessions be genuinely voluntary. They pointed out that Ernesto Miranda, accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old girl in 1963, had been identified in a lineup and interrogated for less than two hours with no force or threats. During this time, he provided a detailed oral confession and later wrote and signed a statement about the crime. Dissenting Justice John Marshall Harlan expressed astonishment that the Constitution could lead to the dismissal of Miranda's confession under these circumstances.

The more traditional Supreme Court, led by Chief Justices Warren Burger from 1969 to 1986 and William Rehnquist from 1986 to 2005, chose not to overturn the Miranda ruling. However, it permitted some flexibility in the exact wording of the warnings as long as the police officer covered all necessary points outlined in Miranda. More significantly, the Court allowed statements that would normally be inadmissible under Miranda to be utilized for challenging the credibility of a defendant who chose to testify on their own behalf.