Another example is more extreme. Let us assume that the accused is tried for possession of heroin. The accused`s testimony will, of course, deny possession of the drug in question. Suppose the accused foolishly testifies in direct examination: “In fact, I have never owned heroin in my life.” The prosecutor may then cross-examine him with heroin evidence seized on another occasion, even if it was seized in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. [13] The Walder decision led to a decision that an accused can be charged by his confession, even if the confession was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. [14] Harris, in turn, led to a decision authorizing similar impeachment by suppressed physical evidence in the same case as that seized by the defendant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. [15] Impeachment remains the ultimate check on abuse of power. In giving this power to Congress, the drafters drew on a long tradition of democratic skepticism toward leaders. These provisions ensure that leaders serve the people only as long as they respect the law and their functions. In this sense, the impeachment power is ready to thwart tyranny. There are occasional calls for reforms that would simplify impeachment, but his rare vocation and tradition of service make such reform unlikely. Dismissal also refers to the prosecution of a public official for illegal acts committed in the exercise of public functions. It is the constitutional process, not the conviction or impeachment, by which the House of Representatives can “impeach” (charge) senior federal officials for trial in the Senate.
Impeachment is a fundamental constitutional power of Congress. This corruption protection can be initiated against federal officials, from the lowest cabinet member to the president and chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition to providing impeachment power, the U.S. Constitution outlines the methods to be used. The two-stage process begins in the House of Representatives with a public inquiry into the allegations. It culminates, if necessary, with a trial in the Senate. State constitutions model impeachment procedures for state officials according to this approach. Impeachment proceedings are rare at both the federal and state levels: from the adoption of the Constitution until the mid-1990s, only 50 impeachment proceedings were initiated, and only a third of them went to trial in the Senate. The reluctance of legislators to use this power is a measure of its gravity; It is generally invoked only on evidence of criminal offences or significant abuse of power. The majority of U.S. jurisdictions allow parties to indict witnesses by demonstrating their “wrong” character in terms of truthfulness.
Under federal rules, a party can prove this by reputation or opinion. [6] This means that the credibility of a witness cannot be strengthened, but only charged. Not necessarily. In the United States, a president is impeached by members of the House of Representatives. Once this panel has drafted the charges and approved them by a majority of members of the House of Representatives, the Senate holds a trial. If a two-thirds majority of the Senate votes in favor of a conviction, the president may be removed from office. Note: A witness may be charged based on character evidence or circumstantial evidence relating to the witness`s credibility, including, but not limited to, previous convictions, previous contradictory statements, contradiction with other evidence and the witness`s reputation for truth, past misconduct and bias. In 1989, federal Justice Alcee Hastings was removed from office by a vote of the Senate, becoming the first judge in U.S. history to be indicted after being acquitted in a criminal case. Hastings vigorously maintained his innocence, challenging the case in court, claiming racism motivated the trial. serious crimes and misdemeanours; Chase, Samuel, “The Impeachment Trial of Samuel Chase” (box). Starr prepared a 453-page report and submitted it to the House of Representatives on September 11, 1998.
He accused Clinton of betraying her constitutional duty by engaging in a pattern of “abundant and calculating” lies about her relationship with Lewinsky. The report, which contained explicit language, was published on the Internet a few days later. The Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee has begun deliberating on the possibility of impeaching Clinton. On December 11, 1998, after seven days of hearings, the Judiciary Committee voted to recommend the impeachment of President Clinton. By a vote of 21 to 16, the committee approved an impeachment article claiming Clinton had committed perjury before the grand jury. The committee passed two other sections alleging perjury in the trial of Paula Jones and obstruction of justice. On December 12, he passed a fourth article claiming that Clinton had abused her power. On December 19, the entire House of Representatives impeached Clinton and charged him with “high crimes and misdemeanors” for lying under oath and obstructing justice by trying to cover up his affair with Lewinsky. The House of Representatives voted largely along party lines to approve two of the four proposed articles on impeachment.
However, all experienced observers in the courtroom agree that jurors will have great difficulty understanding this distinction, known as “limited admissibility” or “limited purpose eligibility.” Even less likely is the prospect that a juror who understands the investigation will be psychologically capable of following it. The only practical effect of this limited admissibility is that the evidence cannot be used to support a weak case that would otherwise be dismissed by the court for insufficient evidence, since it was only admitted for the indictment of a witness. In the process, the Senate follows unique rules. There is no jury (art. III, para. 2). Instead, the Senate is transformed into a quasi-judicial body that hears the case, and the accused official may be present or represented by counsel. The Vice President presides over the trial of all officials except the President, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States presides over the trial of the President. A two-thirds majority is required for a conviction. The penalties for conviction are dismissal and expulsion from re-election.
Pardon by the President is not possible (art. II, para. 2). Other criminal charges may be laid against convicted officials, but they are prosecuted in court and are separate from the impeachment proceedings. The result of the Framers` debate was a compromise: they borrowed the language of English common law, but adjusted the grounds for dismissal. These grounds are listed in Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President, and all civil officials of the United States shall be removed from office upon impeachment and conviction for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The choice of the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” left the exact definition of impeachable offenses to the interpretation of Congress. It has generated much debate, but it is generally understood to mean both criminal acts and other serious non-criminal misconduct. These include corruption, violation of constitutional duties, and violation of limitations on the power of an office. According to the Constitution, federal judges are bound by the highest standards: they may sit only “with good conduct” (art. III, para.
1). Clinton`s experience, like Johnson`s, shows that impeachment can be an instrument of political warfare. Although the U.S. Constitution only requires a majority in the House of Representatives for impeachment, many academics and other commentators say it should be a bipartisan effort to impeach a president who is dangerous to the nation. However, the world of science is different from that of politics. In contrast, House Republicans persecuted Clinton by ignoring polls that two-thirds of the nation opposed impeachment. The vote in the House of Representatives then proceeded mainly along party lines. Future majorities in the House of Representatives could use this precedent to impeach a political opponent without significant public support. In the law of evidence, the testimony of a witness is challenged by previous statements made by the witness if they do not agree with the statements on which the witness testifies. Impeachment can refer to different legal concepts.
A meaning in law refers to discrediting a witness by proving that he is not telling the truth or that he has no reliable basis for his testimony. The rules of evidence govern the type of examination that can be used to charge a witness. In general, unrelated evidence that the person is a “bad person” and therefore untrustworthy is not allowed. The witness was unable to feel what he claimed to have (p. e., that he could not see where he came from) or did not have the required mental capacity. The old common law excluded an incompetent witness from testifying. Modern rules, such as the Federal Rules of Evidence, allow the witness on the witness stand (in most cases) to consider competence as one of many factors that jurors must consider in determining the credibility of the witness. Courts allow parties to cross-examine a witness to charge him or her on the basis of evidence of bias.
Witness bias can be catalyzed by a number of circumstances, ranging from the blood relationship of the witness to a party to his or her financial participation in the outcome of the dispute.