Acing Criminal Procedure
Author:
Abramson, Leslie W.
Edition:
5th
Copyright Date:
2016
15 chapters
have results for acing criminal procedure
Conclusion: General Examination Tips 2 results
- ow that you have the full set of checklists for each of the topics that you will be covering on your examination, there are some bits of advice to help you ace your criminal procedure examination:
- Don’t waste time talking with other classmates about the exam. You’ll just create more anxiety for yourself. Focus on the next exam; or, if criminal procedure is your last exam, celebrate being done!
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1. Incorporation and Retroactivity 10 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Two exceptions exist to this general rule: 1) “a new rule should be applied retroactively if it places ‘certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law-making authority to proscribe’ ”; and 2) “watershed rules of criminal procedure: … those new procedures without which the likelihood of an accurate conviction is seriously diminished.”
- b. The second exception is “extremely narrow” and relates to “watershed rules of criminal procedure: … those new procedures without which the likelihood of an accurate conviction is seriously diminished.”
- • Unless they fall within an exception to the general rule, new constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be applicable to those cases which have become final before the new rules are announced.
- 1. “Unless they fall within an exception to the general rule, new constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be applicable to those cases which have become final before the new rules are announced.”
- Watershed Rules of Criminal Procedure Exception.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Police Interrogations and Confessions 8 results (showing 5 best matches)
- 1. Congress incorporated McNabb into Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in 1946, requiring that arrested persons be presented to a judicial officer “without unnecessary delay.”
- into Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in 1946, requiring that arrested persons must be presented to a judicial officer “without unnecessary delay.” A confession obtained during a period of unnecessary delay is inadmissible.
- procedure may be excluded from the suspect’s trial. The Fourth Amendment “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine may not apply in the
- d. criminal experience,
- did not provide for police recitation of all rights potentially useful for a criminal defendant prior to custodial interrogation. For example, 1) there is no right to be informed that if a defendant invokes silence or counsel rights, a cut-off of questioning will follow, 2) a lawyer does not have to be “present at all times to advise prisoners,” 3) there is no right to contact people outside the interrogation room, and 4) there is no right to defense counsel’s access to a client during interrogation. None of these techniques of psychological “domination” is a
- Open Chapter
Appendix A. Mini-Checklists 13 results (showing 5 best matches)
- b. Generally, new constitutional rules of criminal procedure are not applicable to cases which have become final before the new rules are announced.
- IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES
- has two parts in relation to any identification procedure.
- 1. The first part of the test is whether the pretrial identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive. Judicial inquiry into the reliability of an eyewitness identification is required only when the identification was procured under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances arranged by law enforcement.
- Criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney have a constitutional right to appointed defense counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
- Open Chapter
Half Title 2 results
Chapter 7. Identification Procedures 27 results (showing 5 best matches)
- We turn, then, to the central question, whether under the “totality of the circumstances” the identification was reliable even though the confrontation procedure was suggestive. As indicated by our cases, the factors to be considered in evaluating the likelihood of misidentification include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.
- If the defendant did have a right to counsel for the identification procedure relating to the uncharged robbery, was that right violated? This issue is easy. Counsel cannot object to unfairness or even observe unfairness if counsel doesn’t know that an identification procedure is occurring. The rationale for providing counsel should lead to the conclusion that the defendant’s right to counsel was violated, if he had a right to counsel at all.
- • Factors that bear on reliability include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.
- Because both showups and unfair lineup procedures seemed to constitute Due Process violations, defense counsel were sometimes able to convince trial judges to suppress out-of-court identifications on Due Process grounds.
- indicate, the suggestiveness of an identification procedure by itself does not require suppression of eyewitness evidence, even if the suggestiveness increases the risk of mistaken identification.
- Open Chapter
Copyright Page 1 result
Chapter 2. Right to Counsel 25 results (showing 5 best matches)
- criminal defendants who could not afford an attorney had a Sixth Amendment right to have criminal defense counsel appointed for them. , 372 U.S. 335 (1963) held that this same Sixth Amendment right to appointed criminal defense counsel also applies to criminal defendants charged with a felony in state court criminal proceedings.
- A criminal defendant who possesses sufficient financial resources to retain her own private criminal defense counsel has the right to be represented at trial by any criminal defense attorney she chooses to employ. , 548 U.S. 140 (2006). Retained counsel must be admitted to practice law in the place where the criminal proceedings are to occur, unless the trial court exercises discretion to grant counsel special admission to the Bar of that jurisdiction for the limited purpose of representing defendant in that criminal proceeding (“
- , 372 U.S. 335 (1963), the same Sixth Amendment right to appointed criminal defense counsel is “fundamental and necessary,” and also applies to criminal defendants in state criminal proceedings.
- Because the Sixth Amendment text applies to “all criminal prosecutions,” not simply to “all criminal trials,” the Supreme Court has held that the right to appointed counsel attaches prior to trial, at any “critical stage of the criminal prosecution” at or after the “initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings—whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.”
- a. Federal criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney have a constitutional right to have criminal defense counsel appointed for them under the Sixth Amendment.
- Open Chapter
Introduction 2 results
- This book does not attempt to explain constitutional criminal procedure doctrines in any great detail; rather, it merely seeks to organize doctrine into a dynamic tool that you can use to apply legal principles to fact patterns you will face on exams. You should use these checklists in conjunction with substantive course material to prepare for your exams. Use of these checklists should enhance your ability to write reasoned and sound responses to examination questions. Further, these checklists should be helpful in putting the course material in perspective and providing a clearer picture of how the concepts you are learning should be integrated into a legal analysis. Finally, you should make sure to modify these checklists according to the areas of emphasis and coverage of your professor.
- The purpose of this book is to present you with a comprehensive set of checklists pertaining to each of the topics typically covered in a criminal procedure course. The checklists are meant to provide you with a tool that facilitates the analysis of procedural problems. Each chapter focuses on a different topic, first presenting a brief review of the subject followed by the checklist for the subject. After the checklist is presented, problems are analyzed to illustrate how the checklist can be used to resolve such problems. Each chapter concludes with a section entitled “Points to Remember” to recapitulate key points that you need to remember when answering exam questions. A concluding chapter provides some final thoughts on preparing for and taking exams generally. At the end of the book there is an Appendix that presents condensed “mini-checklists” for each topic. You may find these useful during the time crunch of an exam when you need quick access to the full range of major...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8. Exclusionary Rule 31 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Prosecution.
- Some constitutional errors are so fundamental to the inherent reliability and fairness of a criminal trial that they involve “structural defects” in the criminal justice system. These errors are not subject to the ordinary
- Non-Criminal Proceedings: Incremental Deterrence.
- Many American jurisdictions have enacted statutes that permit the government to seek the forfeiture to the government of instrumentalities used in the commission of specified criminal activity (e.g., cars, boats, or airplanes used to smuggle narcotics). Such “forfeiture proceedings” are civil rather than criminal in nature. However, the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule applies with full force to suppress unconstitutionally-seized evidence sought to be introduced in such forfeiture proceedings because of the “quasi-criminal nature” of these proceedings.
- Identification evidence is a recognized context for the operation of the independent source exception. For example, if a trial judge has ruled that the police conducted an unconstitutional out-of-court identification procedure, the prosecutor still has the opportunity to show that the victim or witness can make an -court identification that is based on what he saw at the time of the crime rather than what he saw at the improper out-of-court identification procedure. In other words, the in-court identification has a source independent of the improper out-of-court identification.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9. Entrapment 12 results (showing 5 best matches)
- [w]hether the police conduct instigated a crime or merely infiltrated ongoing criminal activity, whether the defendant’s reluctance to commit a crime was overcome by pleas of sympathy, promises of excessive profits, or persistent solicitation, whether the government controls the criminal activity or simply allows for the criminal activity to occur, whether the police motive was to prevent crime or protect the public; and whether the government conduct itself amounted to criminal activity or conduct “repugnant to a sense of justice.”
- The sheriff, with the prosecutor’s knowledge, entered into an agreement with informant Berger, who agreed to sell several hundred pounds of marijuana that the county had seized in prior cases. The sheriff also agreed to let Berger keep 10% of all forfeitures arising from successful criminal prosecutions relating to his sales. To collect the 10%, Berger agreed to testify in the criminal prosecutions. Pursuant to the agreement, Berger sold over 100 pounds of marijuana to the defendants. Shortly thereafter, the sheriff’s deputies arrested the defendants and seized more than $80,000 in cash, subject to forfeiture. What result on the defendants’ motions to dismiss the criminal charges and to have the money returned? Do the defendants have any plausible Due Process defense?
- The Court recognized the entrapment defense in federal criminal law in
- argued that the “criminal conduct would not have been possible” if the undercover agent had not “supplied an indispensable means to the commission of the crime that could not have been obtained otherwise through legal or illegal channels.” Specifically, the agent supplied bottles of a chemical used in manufacturing methamphetamine, in return for the right to purchase part of the finished product.
- The defense regulates participation by government agents in criminal acts during undercover investigations.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3. Search and Seizure: Search and Arrest Warrants 10 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Other “indicia of reliability” may include corroboration by police of some of the informant’s factual details (even if the specific corroborated facts show only otherwise innocent activity, e.g., the wearing of clothing of a particular color or style, the same color or style as a criminal suspect) and the informant’s status as a “citizen” (as opposed to an informant with a criminal past).
- Additional factors relevant to the staleness inquiry are: the nature of the criminal evidence sought (e.g., large or small, moveable or fixed), the location of the evidence (e.g., in plain view or buried), the condition in which the evidence was observed (e.g., solid or liquid, easily disposable or permanent), and the nature of the place to be searched (e.g., readily moveable vehicle or a residential home).
- Some search warrants list as search targets “all persons on the premises.” Normally, if a person is a target of a search warrant, she must be described particularly (although not necessarily by name), just as with any non-human search target like a residence, business, or vehicle. The rationale justifying “all persons” warrants is that they are proper when the search premises are being used for such clearly criminal purposes, e.g., a “crack house,” that all persons present are necessarily involved with criminal activity. The Supreme Court has expressly reserved judgment on the constitutionality of such “all persons on the premises” warrants,
- The government must establish a fair probability that the specified items sought are evidence of criminal activity
- The prosecution may wish to keep confidential the identities of informants who have provided information about criminal conduct, subject to disclosure when there is some reason to believe that her information is not believable or that the informant does not exist.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5. Search and Seizure: Warrantless Searches and Seizures 28 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Inventories of lawfully impounded vehicles are permitted to protect the owner’s property, to protect the police from suits (false and true) over lost or damaged property, and to protect the police or the public from danger. In conducting an inventory, the officers must be following a standardized procedure. That procedure need not eliminate all police discretion, but the discretion must be exercised in light of standardized criteria and on the basis of something other than suspicion of wrongdoing.
- • Assuming that the procedure used presents little risk to the suspect, and is conducted under appropriate medical conditions, the police may be permitted to make a warrantless extraction of a blood sample from a person whom they reasonably believe was driving under the influence of alcohol.
- The booking exception is part of the routine administrative procedure at a police station house to process and jail the suspect.
- , 384 U.S. 757 (1966). The Court upheld a blood sample extraction to prevent the loss of evidence in a drunk driving case, because there was probable cause that the test would yield evidence, and the procedure used was effective and rarely painful.
- There was no individualized cause for the stop. Roadblock stops can be upheld only by dispensing with the requirement of individualized cause. Supreme Court cases have upheld fixed checkpoint stops. The annoyance from being stopped is reduced by the fixed location of the checkpoint, the fact that motorists were given advance notice, and the fact that everyone was subject to the procedure. This roadblock is not at a fixed place, the motorists have no advance notice, and the field officers have total discretion both in setting up the roadblock and in conducting it. Courts weigh the degree of intrusion against the law enforcement need for the procedure. The need to catch armed robbers is important. The time factor also is important. If the robbers get away, it will be much harder to solve the crime. If the use of the roadblock was permissible, there’s no problem with letting the white drivers go through. The robbers were described as black. There’s also no problem with the officer...
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: November 2nd, 2015
- ISBN: 9781634601337
- Subject: Criminal Procedure
- Series: Acing Series
- Type: Exam Prep
- Description: This product presents in checklist format the series of issues that must be understood in order to identify and resolve the range of legal issues presented in an examination question. Checklists are provided for all topics generally covered in the basic criminal procedure course.