« AnteriorContinuar »
$ 632. The next provision in the article is, that no person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offence; in other words, a party cannot be tried a second time, for the same offence of which he has already been once acquitted or convicted. Where a man, after a regular acquittal before a competent court, on a sufficient indictment, is indicted again for the same offence, the former acquittal is an effectual answer to the second indictment.
$ 633. When the jury on the first trial have been discharged, under circumstances in which there was a necessity for the act, and they consequently did not give any verdict, or where, after a verdict has been given against the person charged, he has had a new trial granted him by the court, he may still be tried a second time, for in such cases it is not considered that he has legally been put in jeopardy of life or limb. .
$ 634. It is next provided that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Torture and other forcible means have been resorted to in some countries to obtain from criminals, confessions or admissions to be used as evidence against themselves. Such cruel and unjust proceedings are effectually prohibited by this clause. In all criminal cases the guilt of the prisoner must be proved, if proved at all, by the evidence brought forward against him. If that evidence be insufficient, he inust be acquitted. The law presumes that he is innocent, until the contrary appears. His free, voluntary admissions may be given in evidence; but he cannot be compelled to testify against himself. He cannot even be questioned as to his guilt or innocence.
$ 635. The next provision is, that no person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
This is an important provision, and of very extensive signification. It is a principle of justice that the life, liberty, and property of a citizen should be protected from all illegal interference on the part, either of other citizens, or of the rulers. Government would otherwise become im. possible, and would degenerate into a mere instrument of unlimited oppression. The general meaning of the clause is, that no citizen shall be deprived of his life, his liberty, or his property, except by the regular administration of the laws of the land.
$636. The last clause of the article declares that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It is evident that there would be no security for the property of a citizen if it could be taken from him at the will of the government. On the other hand, necessity or the public good may sometimes require that private property shall yield to the general interest. Accordingly, there is a right, called the right of eminent domain, by which the government, in certain cases, may take the property of individuals for public purposes. It is by virtue of this right that highways, turnpikes, railroads, canals, bridges, and other public improvements, are authorized to be laid out through or upon the property of individuals, even against their consent.
§ 637. The reason of this is that the public interest of the whole community is considered to be superior to tho private interest of a single individual. But the article we are now considering imposes an important check upon the exercise of this right, by declaring that private property cannot be taken for public use, unless just compensation is made to the owner. To take it, even for public use, with out such compensation for the damages done to the owner, would be illegal and unconstitutional. The amount of compensation may be ascertained in any just mode pointed out by law; it is generally required to be determined by a jury, who may examine the premises, and must give each party an opportunity to be fully heard and to produce witnesses.
$ 638. Property taken compulsorily, in the exercise of the right of eminent domain, must be taken for public uses and service. The property of an individual cannot be taken, even under the authority of the government, for private uses, without the consent of the owner.
“ ARTICLE VI. 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 favour, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
$ 639. The above article contains several important pro. visions, the object of which is to secure justice and im. partiality in the trial of criminal prosecutions.
$ 640. The accused is to have a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime has been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law. The trial is to be speedy, otherwise justice might be unreasonably delayed; it is to
be public, for publicity is more likely to ensure fairness on the part of the court and jury.
$ 641. The impartiality of the jury is further secured by a right which the prisoner has by law, to challenge, or object to such jurors as have formed and expressed an opinion about his guilt, or are otherwise disqualified to sit as jurors. We have already seen, (8 514,) that the States are, by act of Congress, divided into judicial districts, in each of which is established a district court for, among other purposes, the trial of criminal cases.
§ 642. The prisoner is to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, so that he will know what the charge is which he is to meet. The bill of indictment against him is required by the rules of law, to set forth the offence charged, and the circumstances of its commission. The witnesses against him are to be examined in his presence; he is entitled to a subpoena, or other compulsory process of the court, for obtaining witnesses in his favour, and he is allowed the assistance of legal counsel for his defence.
“ARTICLE VII. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
$ 643. The Constitution, as we have seen in art. III., sec. 2, clause 3, declares that the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury. It did not, however, contain any express provision for trial by jury in civil cases. From the silence of the Constitution on this subject, the opponents of its ratification argued that it tended to abolish the trial by jury in civil cases.
$ 644. This amendment was adopted to meet the objection. It preserves the right of trial by jury in suits at common law, (by which is meant the common law of England as adopted in this country,) where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars. The judicial power of the United States (by art. III., sec. 2, clause 3) extends to all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. It is only in the cases at law, or as it is called in this article, coinmon law, that the right of trial by jury is preserved. In cases of equity, and of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, the mode of trial is different, for the judge in such cases determines the facts as well as the law.
$ 645. It is also provided in this clause that no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. There are certain modes, such, among others, as motion for new trial, or writ of error, known to the common law, in which facts tried by a jury in any case can be re-examined by the court in which the cause was tried, or by another court. This article, in order to give full force and effect to the verdict of a jury, so that it may not be arbitrarily disregarded, declares that no fact which has once been tried by a jury, shall be examined again in any court of the United States, except according to the rules of the common law, such, for instance, as those mentioned above.
“ ARTICLE VIII. Excessive bail shall nut be required,