Criminal Procedure
Authors:
LaFave, Wayne R. / Israel, Jerold H. / King, Nancy J. / Kerr, Orin S.
Edition:
6th
Copyright Date:
2017
35 chapters
have results for criminal procedure
Chapter 1. An Introduction to the “Criminal Justice Process” 109 results (showing 5 best matches)
- As to almost every procedural element within the criminal justice process, a grouping of states, ranging from a handful to a majority, have adopted the basic features of the nonconstitutional law of the federal system. Undoubtedly, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide the most prominent illustration of the influence of this “federal model.” Roughly half of the states have court rules of criminal procedure or statutory codes of criminal procedure that borrow heavily from the Federal Rules. As a result of a substantial stylistic revision of the Federal Rules in 2002, no state has an exact replica of the Federal Rules, but a small group largely replicates the substance of the Federal Rules. Most of the states in the Federal Rules grouping have a criminal procedure law more loosely modeled upon the Federal Rules. They typically start with a set of provisions covering basically the same general subjects as the Federal Rules, utilize the specific standards of the Federal Rules...
- The federal system, the District of Columbia, and each of the states have an extensive group of statutory provisions regulating the criminal justice process. In particular, each jurisdiction has a series of sequentially presented provisions that typically are described as the jurisdiction’s “code of criminal procedure.” In only about a third of the jurisdictions, however, are these true codifications of the law of criminal procedure. Here, the “code” does set forth the basic governing standards, often accompanied by considerable procedural detail, in a conceptually integrated, comprehensive pattern of regulation. Its coverage reaches almost every step in the process, typically with separate chapters on over twenty separate topics. In contrast, in as many as ten states, the criminal procedure “codes” are little more than a loose conglomeration of criminal procedure statutes, providing spotty coverage on less than half of the subjects typically treated in complete codification. In the...
- The substantive law which is enforced through the criminal justice process encompasses a tremendously broad range of offenses. A criminal justice process that must provide for investigation, prosecution, adjudication, and sentencing on such a broad range of offenses has to include a broad range of procedures. That need is especially striking as to the investigatory stage of the process. Procedures that are more than adequate in investigating most crimes plainly will be inadequate as to some crimes. Procedures that are far too expensive to be employed in the investigation of most crimes may be readily justified as to a select group of crimes involving widespread harm or repeat offenders. So too, procedures viewed as too intrusive to be justified in the investigation of most crimes may be acceptable in the context of the special investigative needs presented by a particular type of crime or criminal.
- Under the American version of federalism, the states retain their “inherent police power,” which allows them to enact laws designed to promote the health, safety, and morals of the public. This regulatory authority supports the enactment of state criminal laws, which apply throughout the territorial jurisdiction of the state. It also supports the establishment of the other components of a “criminal justice system”—the establishment of governmental agencies assigned to the enforcement and adjudication of liability under those criminal laws, and the enactment of laws that shape and regulate the procedures through which enforcement and adjudication is achieved (i.e., the “law of criminal procedure”).
- Second, as discussed in § 1.5, even within a single jurisdiction, the authorized procedures will vary with certain characteristics of the case. The most critical line of distinction, as described in § 1.5(c), is between major crimes (typically all felonies) and minor offenses (typically all misdemeanors). In more limited respects, procedures differ for capital offenses and non-capital felony offenses, as discussed in § 1.5(e). This overview focuses on the procedures authorized for non-capital felonies. While the state criminal justice systems process far more misdemeanor cases than felony cases,
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2. The Constitutionalization of Criminal Procedure 138 results (showing 5 best matches)
- did not involve a criminal procedure issue, but rather whether selective incorporation made applicable to the states the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. See the text at note 19 infra. While the issue of making Bill of Rights guarantees applicable to the state bears on all of those guarantees, and not simply the criminal procedure guarantees, it often is given special attention in criminal procedure courses because the movement from the traditional fundamental fairness approach to the selective incorporation approach occurred in criminal procedure cases and had its greatest significance in the field of criminal procedure. Before selective incorporation was adopted as the governing standard in the 1960s, the Court had utilized the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause to make First Amendment guarantees (and the Fifth Amendment compensation clause) fully applicable to the states (see § 2.3(b)), so the adoption of the selective incorporation approach did not have a...
- Even the Warren Court only occasionally commented on the factors that led it to adopt an interpretive perspective favoring expansive interpretations of the Constitution’s criminal procedure guarantees. Commentators, in contrast, have offered a series of well developed rationales supporting expansionism, including several that find support in comments, typically brief, made occasionally in opinions for the Court, and more frequently in the opinions of individual justices. The rationales having such support look primarily to three factors, each discussed below: (1) the relationship of criminal procedure to the general protection of civil liberties; (2) the relationship of criminal procedure to the protection of minorities; and (3) the presence of various structural features that enhance the Court’s authority in exercising constitutional review of the criminal process. It seems likely that all three of these factors have contributed to some extent in the development of the preference...
- Adding to this supposedly firmer foundation for non-deferential judicial review in the criminal procedure area is the fact that the Court only infrequently is required to overturn legislative decisionmaking. Rulings on police investigative methods generally deal with practices that have been instituted by the police without formal legislative authorization. Rulings relating to trial and pretrial procedures similarly tend to deal with practices adopted by courts on their own initiative. Criminal procedure rulings, it is argued, largely bypass the concerns raised by the anti-majoritarian character of judicial overturning of legislation.
- During the 1960s, when the Warren Court was rapidly extending the reach of the criminal procedure guarantees of the Bill of Rights,
- While the overall trend of the Court’s constitutional criminal procedure rulings from that period onward reflects pro-expansion interpretive perspective, the degree of support for that perspective has varied considerably with the composition of the Court. Moreover, the perspective has always operated as no more than a general approach to interpretation that may be offset by the special characteristics of the individual case. During the 1960s, covering the latter half of Chief Justice Warren’s tenure, the Court undoubtedly showed a consistently stronger adherence to that perspective than during any other period in the Court’s history. The end result was a dramatic extension of federal constitutional regulation of criminal procedure that commentators came to describe as the “Warren Court’s criminal procedure revolution.” Yet, even during that period, the prevailing perspective accommodated other concerns that led to less than full acceptance of expansive interpretations.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 20. Pretrial Discovery 43 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Opponents of expansive defense discovery accepted the premise that a trial should be a quest for truth rather than a “sporting event.” Neither did they quarrel with the premise that expansive discovery in civil cases had reduced surprise and thereby permitted a more complete presentation of all relevant evidence. They argued, however, that three factors distinguished criminal discovery from civil discovery and made expansive criminal discovery far less desirable. Those factors were: (1) the criminal defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination, which would not permit the fully reciprocal discovery found in civil practice; (2) the greater likelihood that defense discovery in criminal cases would be used to facilitate successful perjury; and (3) the greater likelihood that criminal defense discovery would lead to the intimidation of witnesses. Opponents of expansive criminal discovery argued that when these three factors were taken into account, along with the availability of...
- During the 1930s and 1940s, through court rules and legislation, the vast majority of jurisdictions adopted procedures designed to promote full and open pretrial discovery in civil cases. By providing for depositions, interrogatories, production of documents, inspection of intangible items, and physical and mental examinations, civil discovery provisions sought to give each side pretrial access to almost all relevant information within the knowledge of the other side. The success of this liberalization of civil discovery naturally led courts and legislatures to consider whether a similar expansion of discovery should be attempted in criminal cases. The proposals for expansion in the criminal area did not utilize precise counterparts to the civil vehicles for discovery, but sought to achieve the same basic end—avoidance of “trial by surprise”—through
- . Opponents of liberal discovery also contended that pretrial disclosure of the prosecution’s evidence would greatly facilitate a defendant’s use of perjury. If a defendant learns in advance of the state’s evidence, he can carefully tailor his testimony, both to minimize conflict with the prosecution’s evidence and to take advantage of the weakest point in the prosecution’s evidence. Proponents of expansive defense discovery responded that this claimed facilitation of perjury was an “old hobgoblin” based on “untested folklore.” They argued that civil discovery had proven successful notwithstanding similar objections. The opponents of liberal defense discovery responded in turn that criminal defendants were more likely as a class to engage in perjury because: (1) many were criminals, (2) all were facing the potential of criminal sanctions, and (3) the criminal justice process lacked the pretrial deposition procedure that permitted a party in a civil case to “freeze” the opposing...
- Criminal Procedure
- In almost all jurisdictions there will be available to the defense, and to a lesser extent, to the prosecutor, various other procedures through which some degree of pretrial discovery may be obtained. Unlike the discovery provisions, these procedures are not designed specifically to gain disclosure of the evidence possessed by the other side, but they nonetheless reveal incidentally part of that evidence. Procedures providing such a discovery potential include the bail hearing (particularly where the prosecution seeks preventative detention), the preliminary hearing, the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury (available in only a small group of states), and hearings on various pretrial motions, such as the motion to suppress. The bill of particulars, though aimed at determining what the government intends to prove, can sometimes be used to identify some aspects of how it intends to make that proof. Some discovery also may be available outside of the criminal
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7. Identification Procedures 66 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Another possible consequence of a failure to cooperate in identification procedures is imprisonment. On occasion, courts have utilized civil contempt and criminal contempt as a means to coerce or punish the suspect who failed to comply with a court order to participate in some identification proceeding. Some, however, have objected to the use of such a sanction where the defendant has done no more than refuse to participate in a procedure that might identify him as the perpetrator of a crime.
- Criminal Procedure
- was more expansively stated as being “that a corporeal identification is a critical stage of a criminal prosecution for Sixth Amendment purposes,” and thus the Court concluded that there was a right to counsel at a one-on-one showup. Indeed, as the Court observed, such a procedure is so highly suggestive that the need for counsel is especially great. The identification in
- Eyewitness identification can be a powerful piece of evidence in a criminal prosecution. It is frequently an essential piece of evidence as well, as more scientific forms of identification evidence, such as fingerprint and handwriting analyses, are not always available. Yet it is well known that eyewitness evidence is inherently suspect and that suggestive procedures may prejudicially affect the ultimate identification. A pretrial identification proceeding may increase the risk of mistaken identification, as it occurs outside the courtroom and therefore is beyond the immediate supervision of the court.
- include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation. Against these factors is to be weighed the corrupting effects of the suggestive evidence itself.
- Open Chapter
Summary of Contents 5 results
Center Title 1 result
Chapter 22. Trial by Jury and Impartial Judge 49 results (showing 5 best matches)
- the Court held that the defendant in a criminal case has standing to raise the equal protection rights of excluded jurors, who would themselves confront “considerable practical barriers” to challenging their exclusion. After
- Criminal Procedure
- Given the ability of jurors to block the enforcement of criminal law, the composition of the jury has always been controversial. The Sixth Amendment provided little guidance on this score, and until the Civil War, federal courts followed the juror selection procedures of the state in which the court was located. After the Civil War, women and minorities remained absent from jury lists, and when they did appear were rarely selected. The next century saw the slow process of case-by-case challenges to state jury selection practices, summarized in § 22.2(c) and (d) below. By the 1960s, the federal courts had repeatedly reversed the convictions of defendants convicted by all-white juries due to intentional race discrimination in jury selection, and states began minimal attempts to include African-Americans in jury pools, if only to avoid a successful legal challenge.
- Although the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial by its own terms extends only to “criminal prosecutions,” it has been argued from time to time that the right extends also to other proceedings which bear some similarity to criminal trials. Courts have generally not been receptive to this contention. It has been held, for example, that this right does not extend to suits by the government to collect civil penalties, an application for a civil stalking protective order, proceedings determining eligibility for commitment as a sexually dangerous offender, or paternity actions. The same is true of certain proceedings ancillary to a criminal trial, such as an inquiry into defendant’s competency to stand trial.
- On two grounds: (1) there “the legislature had not set a specific penalty for criminal contempt,” in which case “courts use the severity of the penalty actually imposed as the measure of the character of the particular offense,” and (2) the “benefit of a jury trial,” as a protection against the arbitrary exercise of official power, “was deemed particularly important in [the criminal contempt] context.”
- Open Chapter
Chapter 26. Sentencing Procedures 80 results (showing 5 best matches)
- concluded that “the risk of error under the procedures already required and the probable value of a further notice requirement are sufficiently low” that failure to require advance notice of the court’s intent to depart “passes constitutional muster.” In
- Forfeiture statutes generally mandate special procedures for determining which assets are subject to forfeiture. These procedures, including notice and jury trial, tend to be more protective of the defendant’s interests than those followed in typical sentencing.
- ...sentencing but not to guilt. Each defendant had been charged under the Texas habitual criminal statute. One of the defendants, convicted of murder, became eligible for the death penalty because of his previous murder conviction, and was sentenced to death. The other two defendants were convicted for robbery and burglary—their prior offenses led to life sentences. In each case the trial judge had admitted documents establishing the defendant’s prior convictions but instructed the jury not to consider the prior convictions in passing upon the issue of guilt or innocence. Rejecting the claims of the defendants that the admission of the prior offense evidence violated due process, the Court noted that there were various situations in which a judge could admit evidence of prior offenses on the issue of guilt under traditional rules of evidence, albeit with limiting instructions. Accordingly, “to say [that] the United States Constitution is infringed simply because this type of...criminal
- Criminal Procedure
- remains the leading ruling on the content of due process as it applies to procedures in traditional discretionary sentencing in non-capital cases. Commentators predicted that the “revolution” that transformed much of constitutional criminal procedure after
- Open Chapter
Chapter 28. Post Conviction Review: Collateral Remedies 45 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Federalism and State Criminal Procedure, 70 Harv.L.Rev. 1, 25 (1956)
- Every jurisdiction has one or more procedures through which defendants can present post-appeal challenges to their convictions and sentences on at least limited grounds. In addition, through the federal writ of habeas corpus, a state defendant may challenge his state conviction on federal constitutional grounds in the federal courts. These procedures for presenting post-appeal challenges are commonly described as “collateral remedies.” That description is not limited to separately filed suits challenging some aspect of a judgment in a criminal case, but means simply that the remedy “provide[s] an avenue for upsetting judgments [of conviction] that have become otherwise final.”
- Criminal Procedure
- E.g., Bousley v. United States, discussed in § 21.4(c), and in § 28.4(f), (“[D]ecisions of this Court holding that a substantive federal criminal statute does not reach certain conduct * * * necessarily carry a significant risk that a defendant stands convicted of ‘an act that the law does not make criminal.’ * * * Accordingly, it would be inconsistent with the doctrinal underpinnings of habeas review to preclude petitioner from relying” on such a decision in a proceeding under § 2255);
- which forbid habeas courts from expanding the rights of criminal defendants.
- Open Chapter
Table of Contents 35 results (showing 5 best matches)
Chapter 12. Pretrial Release 39 results (showing 5 best matches)
- also declared that as a constitutional matter it was necessary that the procedures afforded juveniles “provide sufficient protection against erroneous and unnecessary deprivation of liberty.” Such procedures were deemed present there, as the juvenile was entitled to a prompt adversarial determination of probable cause of a delinquent act and that the serious risk of a criminal act in the immediate future existed. Because the statute required a finding of facts and statement of reasons supporting preventive detention, the Court concluded the statute need not enumerate the specific factors upon which the juvenile court judge might rely. The Court in
- Criminal Procedure
- Despite the success of the longstanding practice of having the police issue citations for all but the most serious traffic violations, for years there was very little movement to extend these procedures to more ordinary criminal cases. As of 1960 only four states had adopted police citation statutes that extended beyond traffic offense cases, though more recently the number has increased dramatically. Many of the relevant statutes and rules of court do not require the police to utilize the citation alternative in any particular circumstances. A great many of them do nothing more than declare that the officer is allowed either to arrest or to issue a citation for certain offenses, without any suggestion that citation is the preferred alternative. Some other provisions make issuance of a citation the disfavored alternative by setting out certain circumstances that must exist before the officer may give a citation instead of or just after making an arrest. By comparison, certain other...
- Pretrial Release Procedures.
- Pretrial Release Procedures
- Open Chapter
Chapter 16. The Location of the Prosecution 29 results (showing 5 best matches)
- ...” formula is imposed as a constitutional requirement in the federal system under Article III. Only a handful of states have constitutional venue provisions (all of which impose the crime-committed formula), but many additional states make the location of the trial in the district of the crime a constitutional command through the combination of a constitutional vicinage provision requiring the jury to be selected from the county in which the crime was committed, and the absence of legislation authorizing jury selection in a district other than the venue district. Where venue is challenged in such jurisdictions as not meeting the crime committed formula, a constitutional claim is inherent in that challenge because the jury is not being selected from the district in which the crime was committed. In both jurisdictions with and without constitutional adoptions of the crime-committed formula, that formula will be set forth as the general venue standard in either the code of criminal...
- Criminal Procedure
- The distinction between venue and vicinage underlies the adoption of separate jury selection and venue provisions in the federal constitution and in Congress’ initial legislation implementing those constitutional provisions. Though the framers of the Constitution initially saw no need to safeguard by constitutional provision the basic rights of the individual (a position later altered with the agreement to add the Bill of Rights), they nonetheless did include in the body of the Constitution certain requirements of criminal procedure that would protect the accused. Not surprisingly, one of those safeguards guaranteed that the accused would not be forced to trial outside of the state in which the charges against him arose. Appropriate venue had been a matter of great concern to the colonists. They had fiercely opposed Acts of Parliament that allowed the Crown to take colonists to England or to another colony for trial on various capital offenses. Article III, Section 2, of the...
- where the Court stated that “questions of venue in criminal cases” should not be viewed as presenting “merely
- The jurisdictional limitation which, like venue, seeks to determine the place of crime, stems from the limited territorial reach of a government’s legislative power. If the events that would give rise to a criminal charge occurred beyond that territorial reach, then the government cannot grant to its courts the authority to apply its criminal laws to those events. If the government’s legislative power could reach those events, then the judiciary of that government is said to have “jurisdiction” over the offense. To say that the judiciary has such jurisdiction, however, is not to say that every judicial district within that judiciary is a proper locality for the prosecution of the offense. The determination of proper locality is what the setting of venue is about. It looks to the convenience of the forum rather than the territorial reach of the government’s legislative power.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 21. Pleas of Guilty 91 results (showing 5 best matches)
- in Criminal Procedure, 75
- Criminal Procedure
- In the material that follows, the concern is with what procedures are appropriate when a judge conducts an arraignment at which the defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. Statutes or rules of court often prescribe a set of procedures for such a situation. At least some of those procedures are constitutionally required, though it remains unclear in many respects just how much of the usual plea-receiving process is constitutionally mandated.
- it means that to prevail the defendant must “allege and prove serious derelictions on the part of counsel sufficient to show that his plea was not, after all, a knowing and intelligent act.” The Court then said this depends “not on whether a court would retrospectively consider counsel’s advice to be right or wrong, but on whether that advice was within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.” But the advice by counsel in
- holding that such a provision has the effect of preserving the claim for federal habeas corpus review as well, it constitutes a “commendable effort to relieve the problem of congested trial calendars in a manner that does not diminish the opportunity for the assertion of rights guaranteed by the Constitution.” The four major arguments made against such conditional pleas, that the procedure encourages a flood of appellate litigation, militates against achieving finality in the criminal process, reduces effectiveness of appellate review due to the lack of a full trial record, and forces decision on constitutional questions that could otherwise be avoided by invoking the harmless error doctrine, are less than compelling.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4. Network Surveillance 40 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal investigations often involve access to communications sent over networks such as the postal mail network, the telephone system, and the Internet. This chapter considers the Fourth Amendment and statutory rules that regulate procedures the government must follow to obtain access to these communications and information.
- Criminal Procedure
- , “the term ‘attorney for the Government’ has the meaning given such term for the purposes of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
- The statute also requires that the application contain “a full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous.”
- provides that “any attorney for the Government (as defined in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure)” may apply for court authorization of an interception of an electronic communication.
- Open Chapter
Title Page 1 result
Chapter 11. The Right to Counsel 99 results (showing 5 best matches)
- the Court had not previously set forth a particular due process structure for the proceeding at issue. Indeed, the Court had held that the Constitution imposed no obligation upon a state to grant appeals of right in criminal cases. However, once the state had created such a procedure as “ ‘an integral part of [its] system for finally adjudicating the guilt or innocence of a defendant,’ ” it could not, consistent with due process, first structure that procedure so that it was basically a “meaningless ritual” for a defendant lacking the assistance of counsel and then fail to
- ...Supreme Court has applied critical-stage analysis to a variety of different steps in the criminal prosecution. In the course of those rulings, it has referred to several different touchstones for determining whether a particular step constitutes a critical stage (and therefore gives the accused the right to the assistance of counsel as to that step). Courts are directed to ask whether the particular procedural step was one “where available defenses may be irretrievably lost, if not then and there asserted,” whether the assistance of counsel at this point is “necessary to mount a meaningful defense,” and whether “potential substantial prejudice to defendant’s rights inheres in the confrontation between the accused and the government” and counsel’s assistance can “help avoid that prejudice.” Supplemented by the analysis applied in the Court’s various rulings, these touchstones would appear to require a reviewing court to ask the following questions in determining whether a...procedure
- Criminal Procedure
- the majority characterized the issue before it as whether due process required the state to appoint counsel to assist the respondent in preparing a collateral attack upon her conviction under a state postconviction relief procedure. The state there had appointed counsel, but counsel had then been allowed to withdraw after concluding that the collateral attack lacked arguable merit. The Court majority reasoned that the withdrawal procedure would present a constitutional issue only if respondent had an underlying constitutional right to the appointment of counsel (a position rejected by the dissenters). Turning to that question, the Court did not focus on the possible need for counsel. Arguably, a stronger case could be made here than in
- majority noted, set forth a “prophylactic framework” for withdrawal, not as a constitutional mandate, but as an illustration of “one method of satisfying the requirements of the Constitution for indigent criminal appeals.” The state has leeway to craft other methods that also guarantee a “fair opportunity to obtain an adjudication on the merits of the appeal,” with that fairness judged in light of “the
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8. Grand Jury Investigation 87 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The use of immunity grants to preclude reliance upon the self-incrimination privilege predates the adoption of the constitution. The English adopted an immunity procedure, known as providing “indemnity” against prosecution, “soon after the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination became firmly established,” and a similar practice was followed first in the colonies and then in the states. The first federal immunity act was not adopted until 1857, however, and the first Supreme Court ruling upholding immunity grants did not come until 1896, when
- Criminal Procedure
- decided in 1892, put to rest any doubts as to whether the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was available to a grand jury witness. The grand jury witness testifies pursuant to a subpoena so the requisite element of “compulsion” clearly is present. However, the Amendment states only that a person shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself “in a criminal case.” The
- If the grand jury witness should voluntarily waive the privilege, the generally accepted rule is that he may still exercise the privilege as an accused in a subsequent criminal prosecution. Waiver of the privilege applies only to the particular proceeding, and the dominant view is that the grand jury investigation and the criminal prosecution are separate proceedings.
- Apart from the provisions on disclosures to government attorneys and assisting personnel which are discussed below, Rule 6(e) also has several other provisions that authorize disclosures to further criminal law enforcement. Thus, it authorizes disclosure without a court order to another grand jury and disclosure with a court order to state enforcement officials of grand jury matter that may disclose a violation of state criminal law, to Indian tribal enforcement officials of grand jury matter that may disclose a violation of Indian tribal criminal law, and to military enforcement officials of grand jury matter that may disclose a violation of military criminal law.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Interrogation and Confessions 52 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- procedures. Because
- Taking the “pragmatic approach” that the warnings and waiver procedure required depend largely upon “the scope of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel” at the particular stage of the criminal process at issue, the
- No area of constitutional criminal procedure has provoked more debate over the years than that dealing with police interrogation. In large measure, the debate has centered upon two fundamental questions: (1) how important are confessions in the process of solving crimes and convicting the perpetrators? and (2) what is the extent and nature of police abuse in seeking to obtain confessions from those suspected of crimes? Conclusive evidence on these two points is lacking, and thus it is not surprising that this debate continues.
- Many criminal cases, even when investigated by the best qualified police departments, are capable of solution only by means of an admission or confession from the guilty individual or upon the basis of information obtained from the questioning of other criminal suspects. * * *
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10. Administration of the Exclusionary Rules 23 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- An identification procedure may also be challenged on the ground that it was so unnecessarily suggestive as to violate due process. In such circumstances many courts have assumed, typically without extensive discussion, that the defendant has the burden of proving the due process violation because he is the moving party. But the prosecution should bear the burdens of production and persuasion whenever the identification procedure was conducted out of the presence of defendant’s attorney, for in such a situation the defendant may not even be aware that witnesses were seeking to identify him (e.g., where a “showup” was conducted through a one-way mirror), and even if aware, he still may be unable to know what facts existed that might make the procedure unnecessarily suggestive. Some jurisdictions have divided the burden of proof between
- that the New York procedure was constitutionally defective because at no point along the way did a criminal defendant receive a clear-cut determination that the confession used against him was in fact voluntary. The trial judge was not entitled to exclude a confession merely because he himself would have found it involuntary, and, while we recognized that the jury was empowered to perform that function, we doubted it could do so reliably. Precisely because confessions of guilt, whether coerced or freely given, may be truthful and potent evidence, we did not believe a jury could be called upon to ignore the probative value of a truthful but coerced confession; it was also likely, we thought, that in judging voluntariness itself the jury would be influenced by the reliability of a confession it considered an accurate account of the facts.
- The pretrial motion to suppress, made in the context of criminal proceedings, must be distinguished from the action that may be taken in many jurisdictions prior to the filing of criminal charges, in order to challenge continued government possession of objects acquired in an earlier search. Though this precharge motion is sometimes referred to as a motion to suppress, it is more correct to call it a motion for return of property or a motion to quash a search warrant, for even if the movant is successful it does not necessarily follow that this evidence will be suppressed if a criminal prosecution is later undertaken.
- It is thus clear that the states are constitutionally compelled to utilize a standard at least this demanding. Some states have carried this concept over to in-court identifications allegedly tainted by an out-of-court identification procedure that violated due process. Once the court concludes that the initial, out-of-court identification procedure violated due process, the state assumes the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence the independent reliability of the in-court identification. As to the due process violation in the original identification procedure, here the burden is usually placed on the defendant (at least in part), and the defendant’s burden typically is limited to a preponderance of the evidence standard.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 13. The Decision Whether to Prosecute 74 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- It is tempting to view discretionary enforcement in general and charging discretion by the prosecutor in particular as practices that need not be a matter of concern. After all, what harm can there be in the benign act of not invoking the criminal process against one who has violated an obsolete or overbroad law, one whose conduct is not serious enough to warrant the expenditure of scarce enforcement resources, or one who has committed a crime under strongly mitigating circumstances? But this vast and largely uncontrolled discretion cannot be dismissed on the notion that only acts of leniency are involved. Absent procedures that ensure that the “right” decisions are being reached regarding who should receive leniency and when, society at large and also the individuals dealt with by the criminal justice system are jeopardized.
- Indeed, it would seem that some sort of hearing is ordinarily required in this context as a matter of procedural due process. Revoking a person’s diversion status is quite similar to parole revocation and probation revocation, and this has prompted some courts to conclude that the procedures mandated in
- state criminal procedures can be challenged in federal court if the relief sought is not directed to the prosecution as such and if the federal claim is one which cannot be raised in defense of the state prosecution. See, e.g.,
- A criminal prosecution brought by a private individual must be distinguished from a
- Open Chapter
Chapter 15. Grand Jury Review 42 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- ruling rested on the premise that federal courts, in general, lack authority to prescribe grand jury procedures and to dismiss indictments apart from the prosecution’s violation of procedural rules derived from either the Constitution, statutes, or the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, the Court clearly indicated that establishing a prosecutorial obligation to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury would not be justified even if the federal courts had authority to prescribe grand jury procedures as part of a “sort of common law of the Fifth Amendment.” Requiring disclosure of even the most substantial exculpatory evidence “would neither preserve nor enhance the traditional functioning” of the federal grand jury, but instead “alter the grand jury’s historical role, transforming it from an accusatory body to an adjudicatory body.”
- When the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, the draftsmen sought to incorporate these rulings in Rule 7. That Rule originally set forth three categories of offenses that had to be prosecuted by indictment (assuming no waiver): (1) offenses punishable “by death”; (2) offenses punishable “by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year”; and (3) offenses punishable “at hard labor.” The Advisory Committee’s notes explained that the second category simply restated the standard of penitentiary imprisonment, as a sentence to a term exceeding one year, under federal sentencing law, is a sentence of potential imprisonment in a penitentiary. The third category later was removed from the Rule when federal statutes no longer provided for punishment at hard labor. Also, an exemption was created for criminal contempt prosecutions, which historically can be initiated by judicial complaint.
- It has adopted the position that the very presence of a guarantee in the Bill of Rights strongly suggests that the guarantee is one of those “fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions.” As a result, it has found Fourteenth Amendment due process to encompass almost all of the guarantees relating to criminal procedure that are in the Bill of Rights. Indeed, the only other guarantees, besides the grand jury clause, not definitely within the protection of due process are those as to which the Court has not had occasion to rule. Nonetheless the Supreme Court has
- ”. The word “person” is used to describe the subject of each of the criminal procedure rights specified in the Fifth Amendment—the right to be charged by the grand jury, the right not to be twice put in jeopardy, the right not to be compelled to be a witness against oneself, and the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. The term “person” is to be distinguished from “citizen”, and therefore courts have consistently held that these rights are available to aliens as well citizens. “Person” can be read to refer only to natural persons or to include, as well, collective entities (e.g., corporations). The Supreme Court has held that the privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to entities, in part because that privilege is based on respect for attributes of the human personality which are foreign to an artificial being. On the other hand, the Court has long held that the due process clause does protect entities, and it has more...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 17. The Scope of the Prosecution: Joinder and Severance 33 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- If a defendant at the first trial wishes to act in a fashion that will maximize his chances of being able to make a collateral estoppel defense later, he is placed in a dilemma. He must either put only a few of his defenses in issue, thereby assuring a collateral-estoppel effect in any future proceedings but at the same time increasing the risk of a conviction in this trial, or he must put all the defenses he has before the jury, thereby better shielding himself against a conviction but destroying the possibility of any future collateral-estoppel effect on the issues raised. It has been suggested that the solution is to utilize special verdicts in criminal cases, but this procedure is generally not available and is disadvantageous to a criminal defendant in other respects. In some jurisdictions a defendant tried by the court may upon request have the judge find the facts specially,
- does not enforce but virtually annuls the constitutional guarantee. For example, where a single criminal episode involves several victims, under the “same evidence” test a separate prosecution may be brought as to each. * * * The “same evidence” test permits multiple prosecutions where a single transaction is divisible into chronologically discrete crimes. * * * Even a single criminal act may lead to multiple prosecutions if it is viewed from the perspective of different statutes. * * * Given the tendency of modern criminal legislation to divide the phases of a criminal transaction into numerous separate crimes, the opportunities for multiple prosecutions for an essentially unitary criminal episode are frightening. And given our tradition of virtually
- Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
- which involved two consolidated cases in which the defendants were charged with crimes following their trials for criminal contempt based on the same conduct. After concluding that the double jeopardy protection is applicable “in nonsummary criminal contempt prosecutions just
- Open Chapter
Chapter 19. The Accusatory Pleading 28 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- The legislative effort that eventually did succeed in liberalizing pleading requirements centered upon the enactment of three interrelated reforms: (1) a single simplified pleading standard; (2) official forms for the most commonly prosecuted crimes; and (3) an expanded waiver rule. These reforms, which had already been instituted in a fair number of states, were included in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, when the Federal Rules were initiated in 1946. Today, they are found in almost all jurisdictions, with many states having provisions that are almost verbatim copies of the Federal Rules provisions. In many jurisdictions, these reforms did not replace, but were added to the earlier reforms discussed in subsection (b).
- ...pleading standard. It requires that the “indictment or information * * * be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” This standard—followed verbatim or in substance in the vast majority of states—offered several advantages over the provisions adopted in the first wave of pleading reforms. Many of those provisions dealt either with a specific common law pleading requirement or a particular crime. Rule 7(c), on the other hand, established a single standard, applicable to the pleading of all crimes and to all elements of the pleading. Moreover, the description of that standard was quite similar to the description that reformers had used to obtain simplified pleadings in civil cases (though the Rule 7(c) reference to pleading “facts” more closely resembled the earlier code pleading reforms than the more liberal Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). The incorporation of the basic thrust of an already achieved reform...
- As applied over the years, neither the essential elements requirement nor the requirement of adequate factual specificity have been fully tied to what is necessary to ensure that a court can determine, simply by comparing allegations, whether two pleadings charge the same offense. The essential elements requirement, as discussed in § 19.3(a), requires far more than the basic identification of the crime charged (e.g., by citation to the applicable criminal code provision), which would be enough to determine whether the offenses charged in two pleadings involved violations of the same criminal prohibition. As to factual specificity, such crucial matters as precise time and place traditionally have not been required, even though they may be critical in determining whether two pleadings charging violations of the same criminal code provision are also charging the same offense for double jeopardy purposes. Thus, commentators have questioned whether the double jeopardy function played a...
- The consequence of treating the defect as jurisdictional is that, in these jurisdictions: (1) a finding post-conviction that the defect exists requires automatic reversal of the conviction (i.e., the harmless error rule per se does not apply, without considering whether the defect would otherwise be exempt as a “structural error”); (2) the defect can be raised at any time during the proceedings (including being raised for the first time on appeal); (3) the defect is cognizable on habeas corpus or other collateral attack procedures for challenging a conviction (and can be raised there for the first time); and (4) the defect can be used to overturn a guilty plea under whatever post-conviction procedure is available to challenge a plea (typically, some form of collateral attack). Consider also § 16.1(a) discussing the treatment of jurisdictional defects.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 24. The Criminal Trial 75 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- model charges on all of the relevant principles of evidence and jury operations as well as the substantive law for many offenses. Treatises on evidence contain lengthy discussions of errors that may be made in dealing with such matters as presumptions and the burden of proof. Treatises on the substantive law provide similar assistance as to the elements of crimes, excuses, and justifications. Matters relating to the operation of the jury, because they commonly fall outside the scope of evidence treatises, will be treated briefly in § 24.9. Instructions on defendant’s silence are discussed in § 24.5(c). The lesser-included offense doctrine is discussed below. Although that doctrine might be viewed as raising issues primarily of substantive criminal law, it deserves consideration as an aspect of criminal procedure because of its close connection to the law governing pleadings, multiple prosecutions, and the role of the jury.
- Not only may the admissibility of both prosecution and defense evidence require examination of the possible bearing of constitutional guarantees, but it may also turn upon rules of exclusion designed to promote other goals of criminal procedure. The rule governing guilty pleas, for example, may preclude admissibility of statements made during plea negotiations, the rules on discovery may allow exclusion of evidence due to discovery violations, and rules requiring pretrial notice of intent to use evidence may be enforced through exclusion.
- The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, states that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” But the constitutional privilege against compelled self-incrimination has been interpreted by the Court to be much broader than those words would suggest. As discussed earlier, assertion of the privilege is not limited to defendants, nor is it limited to criminal trials.
- ’s virtual presence in the courtroom have increased as well. Not having to bring an incarcerated defendant to the courthouse saves the government money, and avoids security risks associated with transporting detainees. The popularity of using off-site technology is reflected in recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow for alternative site video teleconferencing for first appearances and arraignments.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3. Arrest, Search and Seizure 151 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- The court should allow the parties to make their best case, consistent with the usual rules of criminal procedure. And the court should then evaluate the proffered evidence to decide what all the circumstances demonstrate. If the State has produced proof from controlled settings that a dog performs reliably in detecting drugs, and the defendant has not contested that showing, then the court should find probable cause. If, in contrast, the defendant has challenged the State’s case (by disputing the reliability of the dog overall or of a particular alert), then the court should weigh the competing evidence.
- Thus, while a “strict standard of waiver” applies “to those rights guaranteed to a criminal defendant to insure * * * a fair criminal trial,” it need not extend to the “protections of the Fourth Amendment,” which “are of a wholly different order, and have nothing whatever to do with promoting the fair ascertainment of truth at a criminal trial.”
- the cases upholding the federal wiretapping law have stressed that normal investigative procedures were tried and failed or appeared unlikely to succeed. It has been intimated that some such showing might also be necessary for a so-called “surreptitious entry” warrant, authorizing police to enter and merely scrutinize an ongoing criminal operation (e.g., an illegal drug lab) within, permitted in some circumstances by federal legislation.
- upheld a police officer’s search of a parolee notwithstanding the absence of any established standardized procedures or individualized reasonable suspicion (or, insofar as the recited facts indicated, any suspicion whatsoever). In support, it was asserted (i) “that parolees have fewer expectations of privacy than probationers, because parole is more akin to imprisonment than probation is”; (ii) that “the parole search condition under California law—requiring inmates who opt for parole to submit to suspicionless searches by a parole officer or other peace officer ‘at any time’—was ‘clearly expressed’ to Samson; (iii) that the state “has an ‘overwhelming interest’ in supervising parolees because ‘parolees . . . are more likely to commit future criminal offenses,’ ” as manifested by the fact “California’s parolee population has a 68-to-70 percent recidivism rate”; and (iv) that the “concern that California’s suspicionless search system gives
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5. Police “Encouragement” and the Entrapment Defense 37 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- This indiscriminate attitude toward predisposition evidence is by no means a necessary feature of the subjective test. This is because less prejudicial means of determining the readiness and willingness of a defendant to engage in the criminal conduct will often be available. The most promising alternative is testimony about the defendant’s actions during the negotiations leading to the charged offense, such as his ready acquiescence, his expert knowledge about such criminal activity, his admissions of past deeds or future plans, and his ready access to the contraband. Another possibility is evidence obtained in a subsequent search or otherwise showing the defendant was involved in a course of ongoing criminal activity.
- Encouragement of Criminal Activity.
- Government “Overinvolvement” in a Criminal Enterprise.
- Encouragement of Criminal Activity
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9. Scope of the Exclusionary Rules 31 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- Lower courts have had the least difficulty in applying the inevitable discovery doctrine where that discovery would have come about through a routine procedure invariably applied under the particular circumstances, as commonly is the case where the government argues that the evidence discovered through an illegal warrantless search would have been uncovered in an inventory search. But these courts often find more troubling a situation, such as
- Of course, to gain application of the inevitable discovery doctrine, the government must establish not only that its employment of an independent, lawful investigative procedure was inevitable, but also that that procedure inevitably would have led to the discovery of the same evidence actually found through the Constitutional violation. “Inevitably,” for this purpose means that the discovery definitely would have occurred, not that it “might” or “could” have occurred. However,
- Standing issues also arise infrequently with respect to unconstitutional identification procedures. But they can occur, as where in an accomplice’s trial identification evidence is offered to show that his principal committed the crime charged. Where the nature of the constitutional violation was denial of the right to counsel at a lineup provided under
- the prophylactic exclusionary rule adopted in that case to ensure that the police follow certain interrogation procedures is in many respects like the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, and thus it would seem that the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine (which developed in search and seizure cases) would also be applicable. But there has not been complete agreement on this score. One view is that if
- Open Chapter
Chapter 14. The Preliminary Hearing 23 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- The preliminary hearing screening, however, remained subordinate to the eventual screening by the grand jury. Thus, where a grand jury indictment was issued prior to the time set for the preliminary hearing, the defendant’s right to a hearing was “mooted.” The return of the indictment established probable cause, so there was nothing left for the preliminary hearing magistrate to decide. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure subsequently incorporated this analysis. Federal Rule 5.1(a) requires a preliminary hearing for a felony prosecution, but then recognizes an exception where the “defendant is indicted.”
- Preliminary Hearing Procedures.
- Finally, many prosecutors will bypass where they judge the discovery inherent in a preliminary examination to be too costly. Some will limit that judgment to the most pressing case for avoiding discovery, as where a key witness is an informer whose identity must be shielded until the last possible moment. Others also will bypass in particular types of cases likely to present an especially broad range of discovery (e.g., homicide prosecutions based on extensive circumstantial and forensic evidence), especially where that discovery would not be available under pretrial discovery procedures or would be available only if the defense granted reciprocal discovery to the prosecution. Critics of the bypass tactic, viewing the grand jury as by far the easier screening procedure, suggest that prosecutors are most likely to bypass where the prosecution’s case is weak, but the available studies do not support that contention.
- Other states have sought to place a greater focus on likely success at trial by emphasizing the procedures used in establishing a bindover, rather than the bindover standard itself. These states provide what is commonly described as a “mini-trial” hearing. The prosecution is limited to use of evidence that would be admissible at trial, and the defense is allowed full scope in cross-examination and the presentation of defense evidence. Though the mini-trial hearing fits naturally with a bindover standard requiring a prima facie case, it is seen as having value as well in a jurisdiction applying a probable cause standard requiring a degree of probability similar to an arrest warrant. A mini-trial hearing, particularly if combined with the magistrate’s capacity to judge witness credibility, provides a screening procedure that arguably is much more exacting even though it requires no greater degree of probability.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 18. Speedy Trial and Other Prompt Disposition 31 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- lost if trial of the pending charge is postponed. Secondly, under procedures now widely practiced, the duration of his present imprisonment may be increased, and the conditions under which he must serve his sentence greatly worsened, by the pendency of another criminal charge against him.
- Under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act,
- The purpose of a statute of limitations is to limit exposure to criminal prosecution to a certain fixed period of time following the occurrence of those acts the legislature had decided to punish by criminal sanctions. Such a limitation is designed to protect individuals from having to defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-distant past. Such a time limit may also have the salutary effect of encouraging law enforcement officials promptly to investigate suspected criminal activity.
- speedy trial doctrine is not standing alone adequate to deal with the matter of prompt disposition of criminal cases. For one thing,
- Open Chapter
Chapter 23. Fair Trial and Free Press 41 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- the Court held unconstitutional a state criminal statute prohibiting divulgence of information regarding proceedings before a state judicial tenure commission in the statute’s application to a newspaper that lawfully acquired such information. The Court recognized that premature disclosure could endanger a judge’s reputation, but noted that this legitimate interest in confidentially could otherwise be protected. Numerous other states had similar confidentiality provisions that were implemented by internal procedures and sanctions imposed upon participants who violated obligations of secrecy rather than by criminal sanction imposed upon a nonparticipant who published such information. The Court’s emphasis upon the alternative of imposing sanctions upon leaking participants would appear to doom as well criminal prohibitions aimed at other objectives, including avoiding the tainting of jurors, and preserving the secrecy of an ongoing investigation.
- , lower courts look to various functional enhancements that public access would contribute to the particular procedure. Opening a judicial proceeding, it is noted, can serve one or more of the following six “societal interests”: “[1] promotion of informed discussion of governmental affairs by providing the public with the more complete understanding of the judicial system; [2] promotion of the public perception of fairness which can be achieved only by permitting full public view of the proceedings; [3] providing a significant community therapeutic value as an outlet for community concern, hostility and emotion; [4] serving as a check on corrupt practices by exposing the judicial process to public scrutiny; [5] enhancement of the performance of all involved; and [6] discouragement of perjury.” Virtually every procedure in the criminal justice process that impacts upon decisionmaking would be enhanced by contributing to one or more of these societal interests. Thus, the “logic” issue...
- characterized a prior restraint as involving “an immediate and irreversible sanction,” in contrast to a “criminal penalty or a judgment in a defamation case [which] is subject to the whole panoply of protections afforded by deferring the impact of the judgment until all avenues of appellate review have been exhausted.” This might suggest that it would be constitutionally permissible for a state to adopt criminal statutes prohibiting reporting of certain identifiable prejudicial information, such as a defendant’s prior criminal record or his confession not yet ruled admissible. But other rulings of the Court indicate that criminal sanctions are not permissible except to “further a state interest of the highest order” that cannot adequately be protected by less stringent measures. Indeed the two key rulings holding unconstitutional criminal prosecutions of the media involved the publication of information relating to governmental records traditionally deemed confidential.
- , the Court pointed to traditions of openness that were clearly established and at least a century old. Some courts view such an historical tradition, showing “clarity, generality and duration,” as an absolute prerequisite for meeting the “experience” standard, at least to procedures which are not recent innovations. Other courts find no need for such a clearly established, lengthy tradition, even as to
- Open Chapter
Chapter 25. Double Jeopardy 26 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- There the justices considered whether the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the United States from pursuing criminal charges against defendants who had already been ordered to pay monetary penalties and who had been prohibited from participating in the affairs of any banking institution in a prior civil proceeding initiated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The majority stated that “
- “Congress may impose both a criminal and a civil sanction in respect to the same act or omission; for the double jeopardy clause prohibits merely punishing twice, or attempting a second time to punish criminally, for the same offense.” But merely labeling a proceeding as civil is not the end of the matter, as a legislature should not be able to bypass so easily the constitutional safeguards required in criminal proceedings. In some circumstances, a “civil” proceeding should, despite its legislative label, be treated as a criminal proceeding.
- concluded that the deprivation of citizenship was a criminal sanction for evading the draft, requiring the procedural safeguards incident to a criminal prosecution.
- test was not the sole measure of whether defendants facing both civil and criminal penalties for the same misdeed were entitled to relief under the Double Jeopardy Clause. In a unanimous decision in
- Open Chapter
Chapter 27. Appeals 56 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- While all of the above considerations have relevance to both civil and criminal cases, the delay that can accompany interlocutory appeals is especially pernicious in the criminal justice process, where a speedy trial advances a “societal interest * * * which exists separate from * * * the interests of the accused.”
- rule to criminal cases and characterized those orders in criminal cases that fit within the
- was written at a time when appellate review had only recently been introduced into the federal judicial structure. Congress did not grant circuit courts the authority to review federal criminal convictions until 1879, and did not give the Supreme Court jurisdiction to entertain writs of error in federal criminal cases until 1889. While the appellate review process in the state courts developed more quickly, it remained quite limited well into the mid-1800s.
- Today appellate review is a much more important element of the criminal justice process than it was when
- Open Chapter
Index 35 results (showing 5 best matches)
- See also Identification Procedures.
- See also Confessions; Counsel, Ineffectiveness of; Harmless Error; Identification Procedures; Indigents, Rights of; Self-Representation, Right of.
- See also Confessions; Network Surveillance; “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Doctrine; Identification Procedures; Network Surveillance; Search and Seizure Remedies; Searches and Seizures; Standing to Suppress Evidence.
- See Identification Procedures.
- Procedures, § 8.11(c).
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: December 12th, 2016
- ISBN: 9781634603065
- Subject: Criminal Procedure
- Series: Hornbooks
- Type: Hornbook Treatises
- Description: This title analyzes the law governing all major steps in the criminal justice process, beginning with investigation and ending with post-appeal collateral attacks. All major themes are covered, with emphasis upon those basic issues deemed most significant in the case law and literature. Because of their special importance, leading Supreme Court opinions are given in-depth treatment. All Hornbook sections are cross-referenced to comparable sections of the authors’ 7-volume Criminal Procedure treatise (readily available on Westlaw database CRIMPROC) containing more detailed analysis and citations to additional supporting authorities.
