Fundamental Fairness is Due Process, No Attorney, No Fairness, No Due Process
CategoriesCase Studies
In United States v. Twigg, 588 F.2d 373, 379 (3d Cir. 1978), we held that due process and “fundamental fairness will not permit any defendant to be convicted of a crime in which police conduct was `outrageous.'”
Holding that due process comprises “three different kinds of constitutional protection:
First, it incorporates specific protections defined in the Bill of Rights . . . .
Second, it contains a substantive component, sometimes referred to as ‘substantive due process,’ which bars certain arbitrary government actions ‘regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.’
Third, it is a guarantee of fair procedure, sometimes referred to as ‘procedural due process’ [under which the State may not] take property without providing appropriate procedural safeguards.” (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 337, 106 S. Ct. 662, 667-68 88 L. Ed. 2d 662, 672 (1986) (Stevens, J., concurring))
By signing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and by ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the United States committed itself to ensure meaningful and equal access to justice. As part of its commitment, the United States must ensure access to counsel in civil cases.
The Fifth Amendment protects citizens and tells the federal government that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law and provide fair procedures.
To start their analysis of the Mathews test, the court first held that “fundamental fairness” places the “presumption that an indigent litigant has a right to appointed counsel only when, if he loses, he may be deprived of his physical liberty” and that “it is against this presumption that the three elements in the due process decision must be measured. As part of its commitment, the United States must ensure access to counsel in civil cases. Fifth Amendment protects citizens and tells the federal government that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”[1] These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law and provide fair procedures.
John Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (N.J. 1995) New Jersey’s doctrine of fundamental fairness “serves to protect citizens generally against unjust and arbitrary governmental action, and specifically against governmental procedures that tend to operate arbitrarily. [It] serves, depending on the context, as an augmentation of existing constitutional protections or as an independent source of protection against state action.” State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123, 377, 524 A.2d 188 (1987) (Handler, J., dissenting). This unique doctrine is not appropriately applied in every case but only in those instances where the interests involved are especially compelling. “Fundamental fairness is a doctrine to be sparingly applied. It is appropriately applied in those rare cases where not to do so will subject the defendant to oppression, harassment, or egregious deprivation.” State v. Yoskowitz, 116 N.J. 679 , 712, 563 A.2d 1 (1989) (Garibaldi, J., concurring and dissenting).
[1] U.S. Const. amend. V
Leave a Comments