Sixth Amendment

1)         Source: Miranda Rights and Deciding if a Person is in Custody .Paul Wallin. May 07, 2009

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/101611

2)       Constitutional Connection: Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses

“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 defence. “

3)        Connection Explanation: A man, Bassaignani was accused of having child pornography on his computer. The police came to his workplace and had an interview with him. He requested for the things that he mentioned during the interview not be brought up in the court. Everyone thought that he was acting absurd. That’s when he dropped the bomb that the detectives never read him his Miranda rights. The court had to decide if Bassaignani was in custody or not.

The constitution says that each time a person is questioned their Miranda rights should be read to them by the interrogators. In this case, that did not happen. According to the Ninth Circuit, the Miranda rights apply to someone who is’ in custody’ and will be questioned. So now they were wondering if Bassaignani was in custody or not. After going through the factors that determine if an individual falls under the category of being ‘in custody’ or not, they came to a conclusion that Mr. Bassaignani was not ‘in custody’, therefore his Miranda rights did not need to be read to him.

                I think that this is an example of a misunderstood case. I’m sure that not many citizens know that they have to be ‘in custody’ to have those rights read. At the end of the day, Mr. Bassaignani was self-incriminated. He must have said something in those questioned that would not be in his favor, and did not want those words mentioned in court. This is an example of the constitution working effectively and fairly, which is the way it should work.