found not guilty of gambling charges but was convicted on the obscenity charges. The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed her conviction because the police officers failed to produce a search warrant before rummaging through Mapp’s home.
Mapp was known in boxing circles. She was the ex-wife of former top-ranked light-heavyweight and heavyweight boxer Jimmy Bivins. Then, in 1956, Mapp filed a $750,000 lawsuit against world light-heavyweight champion Archie Moore. She claimed that Moore broke a promise to marry her and physically assaulted her. Mapp moved to Queens, New York. In 1970, police officers seized $250,000 in drugs and stolen property. Mapp was convicted and sentenced to a prison term of 20 years to life. Mapp claimed the charges were a vendetta against her after her famous case. In 1981, Governor Hugh Carey commuted Mapp’s sentence. She had served more than nine years in a women’s prison in New Bedford, New York.
Ironically, there was another soon-to-be famous person in the Mapp case who would later play a large role in the sport of boxing. Famed boxing promoter Don King used to be involved in gambling and numbers in Ohio. It was his phone call that led the police to believe there was gambling paraphernalia in Mapp’s house.
FIFTH AMENDMENT
What freedoms does the Fifth Amendment protect?
The Fifth Amendment provides: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a 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.”
The Fifth Amendment—the longest in the Bill of Rights—provides the following protections:
1 Right to a grand jury
2 Protection against double jeopardy
3 Protection against self-incriminationLegalSpeak: Mapp v. Ohio (1961)Justice Tom C. Clark: (majority): “The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence…. [T]he ignoble shortcut to conviction left open to the State tends to destroy the entire system of constitutional restraints on which the liberties of the people rest. Having once recognized that the right to privacy embodied in the Fourth Amendment is enforceable against the States, and that the right to be secure against rude invasions of privacy by state officers is, therefore, constitutional in origin, we can no longer permit that right to remain an empty vessel.”
4 Due process
5 Just compensation
What is double jeopardy?
The Fifth Amendment provides that “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” Double jeopardy means that a person is placed in jeopardy of punishment for a crime twice. It prohibits a second prosecution after a person has been acquitted or convicted. It also prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that the double jeopardy clause is designed “to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense.”
What is an example of the double jeopardy clause prohibiting multiple punishments for the same offense?
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Ohio (1978) provides an excellent illustration of the Double Jeopardy Clause in action. County prosecutors initially charged Nathaniel Brown with joyriding. He pled guilty and served 30 days in jail. Upon his release, prosecutors charged him with the more serious crime of auto theft. Brown’s lawyer contended that this subsequent charged violated his client’s right to be free from double jeopardy.
The Supreme Court applied the Blockburger test—derived from Blockburger v. United States (1932): “The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” Applying this test, the Court determined that joyriding and auto theft constituted the same offense.
When giving testimony, you are protected by the Fifth Amendment from self-incrimination, which means you cannot be forced to say anything that could make you look guilty (iStock).
What is the protection against self-incrimination?
This Fifth Amendment-based freedom means that the government cannot force an individual to the prosecution against him or her. In other words, it means that the government cannot force persons to incriminate themselves. A person can say “I take the Fifth,” and the government cannot compel him or her to speak. We often think of the Fifth Amendment when someone takes the stand and a prosecutor asks them a question to which he or she responds: “I take the Fifth.” But, the Fifth Amendment also applies when a person is subject to police interrogation and questioning.
In what famous decision did the U.S. Supreme Court establish certain rights to persons facing interrogation and questioning from police?
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in four consolidated cases—Miranda v. Arizona, Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart—that law enforcement officials could not use statements obtained from a police interrogation unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. The Court held that police violate the Fifth Amendment if they do not inform a suspect prior to questioning that he or she has: (1) a right to remain silent; (2) that any statement he or she makes can be used against them in a court of law; (3) that he or she has the right to have an attorney present during questioning; and (4) that if he or she cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to them. If law enforcement officials fail to provide these procedural safeguards, the Court said that evidence obtained during such interrogations cannot be used against the suspect.
Who was Miranda in the famous case?
Ernesto A. Miranda was a criminal defendant convicted of rape who challenged his conviction in a U.S. Supreme Court case that bears his name. Miranda was arrested on suspicion of robbery. During a two-hour interrogation at a Phoenix police station, Miranda not only confessed to the robbery, but also to sexually assaulting and raping a woman 11 days earlier. The police officers never informed Miranda that he had a right to have a lawyer present during questioning. A jury convicted Miranda of kidnapping and rape and sentenced him to 20 to 30 years for each offense. Miranda’s lawyers argued that their client’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated by the coercive interrogation. In Miranda v. Arizona (1966; see LegalSpeak, p. 66), the U.S. Supreme Court agreed.
What happened to Ernesto A. Miranda after the U.S. Supreme Court decision?
Prosecutors retried Miranda without evidence obtained from his confession. The prosecution presented the testimony of Miranda’s common-law
