When three-month-old Maurice M. was brought to Francis Scott Key hospital, he had a fractured thighbone. His mother, Jackie Bouknight, claimed that she had fallen on her son after she was pushed, but hospital staff was suspicious of these claims. They had previously seen her violently shaking her son, and proceeding to throw him in the crib – they suspected abuse. The Boston City Department of Social Services took custody of Maurice and while he was with them, he was eventually declared a “Child in Need of Assistance (CINA).” Jackie had been seeing a psychologist who said that she was not capable of taking care of Maurice. After all, Jackie too, had grown up in the foster care system and was diagnosed as mentally retarded. Jackie wanted to regain custody of Maurice, so she cooperated with CINA and the court’s rules. She attended counseling sessions as well as classes to teach her how to become a better and more involved parent. She was the perfect student, and the courts noticed her allegiance to the rules. They felt that she clearly was fighting to get Maurice back. So, in 1987, she got what she “wanted.” Maurice was returned to his mother’s custody. Little did anyone know that Jackie’s therapist had recommended that Maurice not be returned to her, and instead remain in the court’s custody. Jackie was unfit to be a parent, and her IQ was that of an adolescent. She did not have the necessary skills to raise Maurice, and something was bound to go wrong.
Then, Maurice disappeared.
At first, no one knew. Social Services had not seen the child in months, always because Jackie was busy, or Maurice was staying with Jackie’s sister. In fact, she was not available for seven months straight, before people started to become suspicious again. Social Services realized that something was wrong, and went to court. The court ordered Jackie to bring her baby to court, and when she failed to do so, she claimed that he was again staying with her sister, Barbara, in Texas. When the police went to retrieve Maurice from Barbara, she was confused – she had never seen Maurice. Jackie was arrested, because she refused to present to the court what it had asked for. The court even went so far as to offer Jackie a pardon, and said that if she gave information about her son’s location to legal officers, her punishment would be lifted.
When Jackie’s trials began, her lawyer, Robin Parson, appealed to people’s sympathies. According to Parson, the only reason Jackie had not presented her son because she was afraid that he would be taken away from her yet again. Parson also claimed that her client was being denied of her fifth amendment right. They did not want her to self-incriminate by saying something that the court wanted to hear. Still, the judge was scared for the little boy, and upheld the order.
The Fifth Amendment has raised concern amongst Americans everywhere. Most people see it as an excuse for criminals, a way to escape their crimes. After all, a person who is innocent should have no trouble telling their story because it is undoubtedly true. A criminal, however, will have trouble. The Fifth Amendment is a saving grace for those who deserve to be convicted. Furthermore, the amendment states that someone is innocent until they are proven guilty – evidence is necessary to convict someone, which makes it difficult to land people in jail or provide them with a sentence or punishment. There are myriad ways to escape punishment when it comes to the Fifth Amendment, which concerns Americans.
The question the case asked, was whether or not Jackie’s Fifth Amendment right was being stolen from her. Was she allowed to or wrong for not presenting her son to the court? Is Jackie’s self-incrimination right even relevant if the public is more concerned with Maurice’s well being and health?
The Fifth Amendment protects all people from giving a testimony which will self-incriminate. If physical evidence is produced, this is also considered a testimony. Of course, if the existence of such evidence is proven, then it must be handed over, but if not, it is legal to not present it. The Fifth Amendment also says that a person cannot be subjected to self-incrimination during an interrogation. This decision was backed up in Miranda v. Arizona, a case which took place during the 1960s. Turning over Maurice was not protected by the Fifth Amendment, because the court knew he existed. Jackie had to listen to the court, and when she failed to do so, she was breaking the law. The state also pointed out that Jackie did not show true concern for Maurice when, during the trial, she was more focused on not incriminating herself. Parson and Jackie’s other lawyers said that public interest was playing too much of a role in the trial, and that it should not mean that Jackie loses her Fifth Amendment Right. They also tried to persuade the jury that the court was more concerned with incriminating Jackie then actually helping Maurice. Jackie won the trial and was released from prison.
The decision was appealed and brought to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Maryland Court’s decision. According to them, Jackie was breaking her promise to be under supervision of the state and produce Maurice when necessary. Jackie could not simply avoid turning in her son by pleading the fifth.