contestada

In state court, an employee was tried and convicted of embezzling funds from her employer. Pursuant to the criminal statute, the employee was ordered to make restitution of the embezzled funds, but not otherwise subjected to imprisonment or a fine for her conduct, even though both were statutorily permitted. The employee successfully appealed her conviction due to improperly admitted evidence. Upon retrial, the employee was again found guilty. In addition to ordering the defendant to make restitution, the judge, commenting that she had wasted valuable judicial resources by appealing her prior conviction, also fined her $50,000. On appeal, the employee contends that her punishment was unconstitutional. Should the appellate court vacate her sentence

Respuesta :

In the given case, the employee contented that her punishment was unconstitutional. In such situation; Yes, the appellate court should vacate her sentence because "the imposition of a fine violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment".

What is Due Process Clause?

Prior to taking away someone's "life, liberty, or property," the government must provide "due process of law," according to the Due Process Clause. Alternatively said, the Clause only mandates that the government adhere to; it does not forbid the government from denying someone of "substantive" rights like life, liberty, or property.

Reason for the violation of due process clause is-

  • When a conviction is successfully appealed, the Due Process Clause forbids the imposition of a harsher punishment upon retrial of the defendant in cases where the harsher term would punish the defendant for exercising her right to do so.
  • Here, the court imposed a stiffer penalty in revenge for the defendant exercising her right to appeal, not because of the defendant's own actions, such as subsequent illegal behaviour.

To know more about the the due process clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments, here

https://brainly.com/question/15694393

#SPJ4

Otras preguntas