Garrity vs. New Jersey
Case Study Critique One
Tracey Green
CJUS 530
Liberty University
ABSTRACT
The Fifth Amendment establishes various rights within the criminal and civil courts. When it comes to criminal cases the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury and prevents double jeopardy and it also protects against self-incrimination. Also, it implements due process to be a part of any legal proceedings that would deny a citizen life, liberty or property and requires the government to compensate a citizen when private property is taken for public use. While the Fourteenth Amendment establishes due process and equal protection of the law. The Garrity Rights begin in New Jersey when two law enforcement officers were being investigated. These two officers were given the choice to either incriminate themselves or to loss their jobs under a statute on the grounds of self-incrimination. The confessions of the officers were taken; however, their confession was not voluntary, but coerced as they were under the impression that they would lose their jobs if they did not cooperate with the internal investigation. The purpose of this case study is to determine whether these officers’ Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated. GARRITY VS. NEW JERSEY Facts In the summer of 1961 in New Jersey a group police officers where accused “ticket fixing” and they were advised of an internal investigation into the allegations in which they were accused. …show more content…
The New Jersey officers were brought in for questioning regarding their involvement in the ticket fixing scheme. They were told in their interviews that anything they discussed would be used against them in criminal court. Also, they were informed that if they did not cooperate and answer the questions, they would be fired from their jobs. The officers cooperated and gave their statements to the investigators and were still fired from their jobs and criminally charged, as they were charged with conspiracy to obstruct the administrative traffic laws. The issue before the United States Supreme Court was whether the choice between incriminating one’s self and losing one’s livelihood correlated to coercion which is prohibited under the Constitution. Statements taken as the result of this type of coercion cannot be used in a criminal case. Decision The state court of New Jersey upheld the convictions despite the claim that the statements of the officers were coerced because, if they refused to answer, they could, under the New Jersey forfeiture of office statute, lose their positions. This statute provided that a public employee shall be removed from office if he or she refuses to testify or answer any material questions before any commission or body which has the right to inquire about matters relating to his or her office or employment because his or her answer may incriminate him or her. Because the only real issue in the case was the voluntariness of the statements, the State Supreme Court declined to pass upon the constitutionality of the statute, though the statute was considered relevant for the bearing it had on the voluntary character of the statements used to convict the officers. . Alternative Solution These officers’ Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated as they threatened with the loss of their jobs for their statements in the investigation of the ticket fixing scheme they were accused of. The denial of the imperative right of accused to not self-incriminate themselves translates to denial of due process and equal protection of the law in the court for which they were accused. The New Jersey courts infringed upon the legal rights of the six officers involved in this case. This was in contravention with the provisions of the 5th and 14th Amendment Clause which shields these rights from being infringed upon. In delivering a ruling before these standards of a fair court process were met therefore, the court was in error. The alternative solution is to grant that this undue court process violates all the rulings and retract the sentences imposed upon these six officers. The 5th Amendment supports this move to grant the accused the right to immunity first. In the case of McKinley v. City of Mansfield (2005), the
Case Study Critique One
Tracey Green
CJUS 530
Liberty University
ABSTRACT
The Fifth Amendment establishes various rights within the criminal and civil courts. When it comes to criminal cases the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury and prevents double jeopardy and it also protects against self-incrimination. Also, it implements due process to be a part of any legal proceedings that would deny a citizen life, liberty or property and requires the government to compensate a citizen when private property is taken for public use. While the Fourteenth Amendment establishes due process and equal protection of the law. The Garrity Rights begin in New Jersey when two law enforcement officers were being investigated. These two officers were given the choice to either incriminate themselves or to loss their jobs under a statute on the grounds of self-incrimination. The confessions of the officers were taken; however, their confession was not voluntary, but coerced as they were under the impression that they would lose their jobs if they did not cooperate with the internal investigation. The purpose of this case study is to determine whether these officers’ Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated. GARRITY VS. NEW JERSEY Facts In the summer of 1961 in New Jersey a group police officers where accused “ticket fixing” and they were advised of an internal investigation into the allegations in which they were accused. …show more content…
The New Jersey officers were brought in for questioning regarding their involvement in the ticket fixing scheme. They were told in their interviews that anything they discussed would be used against them in criminal court. Also, they were informed that if they did not cooperate and answer the questions, they would be fired from their jobs. The officers cooperated and gave their statements to the investigators and were still fired from their jobs and criminally charged, as they were charged with conspiracy to obstruct the administrative traffic laws. The issue before the United States Supreme Court was whether the choice between incriminating one’s self and losing one’s livelihood correlated to coercion which is prohibited under the Constitution. Statements taken as the result of this type of coercion cannot be used in a criminal case. Decision The state court of New Jersey upheld the convictions despite the claim that the statements of the officers were coerced because, if they refused to answer, they could, under the New Jersey forfeiture of office statute, lose their positions. This statute provided that a public employee shall be removed from office if he or she refuses to testify or answer any material questions before any commission or body which has the right to inquire about matters relating to his or her office or employment because his or her answer may incriminate him or her. Because the only real issue in the case was the voluntariness of the statements, the State Supreme Court declined to pass upon the constitutionality of the statute, though the statute was considered relevant for the bearing it had on the voluntary character of the statements used to convict the officers. . Alternative Solution These officers’ Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated as they threatened with the loss of their jobs for their statements in the investigation of the ticket fixing scheme they were accused of. The denial of the imperative right of accused to not self-incriminate themselves translates to denial of due process and equal protection of the law in the court for which they were accused. The New Jersey courts infringed upon the legal rights of the six officers involved in this case. This was in contravention with the provisions of the 5th and 14th Amendment Clause which shields these rights from being infringed upon. In delivering a ruling before these standards of a fair court process were met therefore, the court was in error. The alternative solution is to grant that this undue court process violates all the rulings and retract the sentences imposed upon these six officers. The 5th Amendment supports this move to grant the accused the right to immunity first. In the case of McKinley v. City of Mansfield (2005), the