Constitutional Rights That Were Denied or Violated

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[112885]

112885 Posts in 8614 Topics by 4618 Members
Latest Member: garrymoore

[Barbarossa4122]

1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Damien Echols’ first amendment rights were violated when his religious beliefs were used
as evidence against him in a court of law.  Presenting items protected under the first
amendment as evidence in a crime is unconstitutional!

4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

4th amendment rights were violated when Judge Rainy allowed the home of Damien Echols
to be invaded and searched in the middle of the night.  Arkansas law requires that police
show extraordinary circumstances before such a search and seizure can be conducted. 
None of these extraordinary circumstances existed.  Also, common law is that arrest
warrants and affidavits filed to support the warrant are made public.  The judge sealed all
such documents pertaining to the arrest.

5th Amendment
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 offence
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.
6th Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an
impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall
have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

The 5th and 6th amendment rights of Jessie Misskelley were violated when the prosecution
transferred him to serve as a witness in the trial of Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin even
after they were informed in clear terms that he would NOT testify, thereby invoking his 5th
amendment right to remain silent. The prosecution engaged in misconduct by contacting
Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr.'s father, and requesting that he talk his son into testifying
against his codefendants in exchange for a forty (40) year sentence. Mr. Misskelley, Sr.
informed the Prosecution that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. would not be testifying against
his codefendants.   Still, prosecutors questioned Jessie Misskelley, and without the
presence of his attorney.  This misconduct also violated the constitutional rights of Damien
Echols and Jason Baldwin in that it represented an attempt to circumvent their due process
rights, their right to receive a fair and impartial trial, and their right to confront the
witnesses against them.


http://www.arwar.org/wm3/caseinformation/Unconstitutional.html

Wow! It looks like their right were violated in all aspects.

[auburnesq]

I love the fact that lay people think they have know more about the Constitution then Constitutional Scholars and the Supreme Court.

Contrary to this obtuse interpretation, the First Amendment protects speech and exercise of the religion of your choice. No matter how loosly you attempt to define speech, the act of murder is not included therein. Likewise, but for very few exceptions (such as the use of peyote), the First Amendment is not a blanket approval to commit any otherwise illegal act in the name of expressing ones religious beliefs. 

While the Fourth Amendment argument is a tad stronger, I still feel it has little merit, especially since the evidence used to establish probable cause for the warrant is unavailable. The time the warrant is executed will not negate the probable cause that justifies the search in the first place and would most likely not exclude the fruits of such a search. Additionally, such information is generally public but can be sealed at the court's discretion.

The Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims are...well...convoluted at best. I am trying to figure out how transferring someone to testify against a co-defendant violates the party's Fifth Amendment right to an indictment and self incrimination. And I can't even begin to fathom the connection between the prosecutions attempts to convince a co-defendant to testify against them violated the Jason or Damien's rights. Jesse was not forced to testify against himself or anyone else, and if he were, he would be subject to cross examination.

[DogIsYourName]

Actually, the evidence used to establish probable cause is available in list form, and has been picked over many times.

[Barbarossa4122]

Excellent points.

[auburnesq]

Thanks Dog. Obviously it hasn't been enough for a higher court to reverse it, so no real violation there either.

[Farm]

Obviously it hasn't been enough for a higher court to reverse it, so no real violation there either.

Isn't it amazing is how these convicts keep getting saddled with Defense attorneys who are to incompetent to recognize and exploit
the blatant violations this incredibly insightful poster outlined?

But - say it with me - there's still time to help!