Principles of Criminal Procedure
Authors:
Weaver, Russell L / Burkoff, John M / Hancock, Catherine / Friedland, Steven I
Edition:
6th
Copyright Date:
2018
33 chapters
have results for principles of criminal procedure
Chapter 1 Introduction 59 results (showing 5 best matches)
- When state legislatures and courts consider the need to define or interpret statutory codes governing criminal procedure, they are often influenced by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and other federal statutes, and by the American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice. They also may be influenced by the American Law Institute’s Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure. However, there is little pressure for the “nationalization” of criminal procedure doctrine and practice, in part because of the long history of state and local autonomy and diversity in this field. In fact, the politicization of “law and order” issues in recent decades has created the opposite kind of pressure for constant local experimentation with criminal procedure rules. Public criticism of the weaknesses of the criminal justice system is a permanent feature of the modern legal landscape, and political calls for reform of the system have affected many aspects of criminal procedure, ranging from the...
- In addition to constitutional and statutory law, there are other sources of law that create rights for criminal defendants or regulate the criminal justice process in important ways. One case-law source is the body of judge-made rules that derive from a court’s “supervisory” authority over the criminal court system and its evidentiary rules. One statutory source is the rules of court adopted by judges to govern procedure in particular courts. These sources exist in both federal and state jurisdictions. There are also “local” sources of law that create rights and regulate criminal procedure, such as city ordinances and municipal court rules.
- SOURCES OF LAW THAT CREATE LEGAL RIGHTS FOR CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS AND REGULATE THE PROCEDURES OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
- While the Supreme Court’s federal constitutional precedents have been likened to a “code” of criminal procedure, they are neither as systematic nor as comprehensive as a legislative code. Instead, they reveal the Court’s historical preoccupations with particular issues that raise fundamental questions about fairness in the treatment of people who are charged with crimes, and about the needs of law enforcement officers to prosecute crimes effectively. For example, the Prohibition era provided the setting for the Court’s early development of Fourth Amendment law defining police powers to perform searches and seizures, and the focus on the prosecution of drug crimes in recent decades has provoked the Court to establish many new Fourth Amendment precedents. Moreover, the Court’s precedents are concentrated in particular fields of criminal procedure, so that some fields are heavily influenced by them and other fields are not. Even in fields where many precedents exist, the Court’s...
- Lawyers who work in the criminal justice system rely on many sources of law, including the constitutional case law of the United States Supreme Court. These famous federal precedents are part of the bedrock knowledge of defense counsel and prosecutors who practice in municipal, state and federal courts, and roughly a dozen precedents are produced by the Court every year. This case law is the primary source for most criminal procedure casebooks, but the significance of the Court’s rulings can be difficult to understand in context because of the narrow doctrinal focus exhibited in a single case. The Court’s opinions rarely describe the procedures and lawyering activities that occurred before a case was briefed and argued in the rarified forum of the Court’s chambers. Each opinion usually gives the reader only a tiny glimpse of the large backdrop of law, custom, and practice that surrounds each case. This chapter ...overview of that backdrop, which practicing lawyers take for granted...of
- Open Chapter
Preface 1 result
- This sixth edition of Principles of Criminal Procedure brings the book up-to-date through the pending cases in the 2017 Term of United States Supreme Court. Otherwise the book continues to analyze criminal procedure case and concepts, and presents them in a concise and easy to understand way. The book includes all the leading Supreme Court cases and some important state court decisions, as well as commentary on those decisions.
- Open Chapter
Title Page 5 results
- PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- Professor of Law & Distinguished University Scholar University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law
- Professor of Law Emeritus University of Pittsburgh School of Law
- Geoffrey C. Bible & Murray H. Bring Professor of Constitutional Law Tulane University School of Law
- Professor of Law Elon School of Law
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9 Initial Appearance and Pretrial Release 26 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(d)
- A defendant’s pretrial release from custody typically is in exchange for a pledge of something of value from the defendant to insure he will appear in court and will comply with the court’s orders in a pending criminal case. Bail is the Anglo-American criminal justice system’s answer to the issue of what is to be done with an accused, who is presumed innocent, during the time period between arrest and trial. Conceptually, the use of bail is to accommodate the defendant’s interest in pretrial liberty (consistent with the presumption of innocence) and society’s interest in assuring that the accused is present for trial so that the case can be properly adjudicated. In each case, a judge decides whether to grant pretrial release, and if so, what monetary amount and/or conditions of release will assure the defendant’s presence.
- Following an arrest and administrative “booking” procedures, the accused must be brought before a judge or other judicial officer (such as a magistrate) for a proceeding usually called a “first appearance” “initial appearance,” “presentment,” or “preliminary arraignment.” There are three main determinations that are normally accomplished at initial appearance: probable cause, bond, and counsel, with appointment of counsel if necessary.
- The Bail Reform Act of 1984 governs pretrial release decisions, and, for the first time in our nation’s history, explicitly authorizes the government to hold a defendant charged with an ordinary criminal offense in jail pending trial without any means for release—so called “preventive detention.” authorizes a judicial officer to order the detention of a defendant pending trial if the prosecution demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community or assure the defendant’s appearance at future court proceedings. In the Court upheld the constitutionality of this novel and controversial statute. After
- warrant is entitled to a judicial determination of probable cause for detention before the setting or denial of bail. However, this determination of probable cause does not require a formal adversarial proceeding and may be done outside the presence of the defendant or defense counsel. Because of the similarity between the timing of the initial appearance and the timing of the determination following a warrantless arrest, a judge may conduct both proceedings at the time of the initial appearance. Hearsay and written testimony are permitted, as long as the statements have been sworn to under oath. While the
- Open Chapter
Table of Contents 63 results (showing 5 best matches)
- A.Sources of Law That Create Legal Rights for Criminal Defendants and Regulate the Procedures of the Criminal Justice System
- C.The Roles of Prosecutors and Defense Counsel in Various Stages of a Criminal Prosecution
- b.Watershed Rules of Criminal ProcedureException
- Identification Procedures
- A.Sentencing Procedures
- Open Chapter
Summary of Contents 31 results (showing 5 best matches)
Chapter 2 Incorporation & Retroactivity 50 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.” at 311, 313 (Op. of O’Connor, J.); (“New constitutional rules announced by this Court that place certain kinds of primary individual conduct beyond the power of the States to proscribe, as well as ‘watershed’ rules of criminal procedure, must be applied in all future trials, all cases pending on direct review, and all federal habeas corpus proceedings. All other new rules of criminal procedure must be applied in future trials and in cases pending on direct review, but may not provide the basis for a federal collateral attack on a statecourt conviction.”).
- , the Supreme Court ruled that “because we believe that trial by jury in criminal cases is fundamental to the American scheme of justice, we hold that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right of jury trial in all criminal cases which—were they to be tried in a federal court—would come within the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee.” stressed, however, that the “fundamentalness” test used to determine whether a right contained in the Bill of Rights should be incorporated and applied to the States was different from the tests used to assess whether a “fundamental right” existed in the pre-incorporation days. As the Court explained this difference, “earlier the Court can be seen as having asked, when inquiring into whether some particular procedural safeguard was required of a State, if a civilized system could be imagined that would not accord the particular protection. Recent selective-incorporation cases, on the other hand, have proceeded upon the valid assumption that state criminal...
- Watershed Rules of Criminal Procedure Exception
- 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.
- , 457 U.S. at 549 (“where the Court has expressly declared a rule of criminal procedure to be ‘a clear break with the past,’ it almost invariably has gone on to find such a newly minted principle nonretroactive.”). As the Court in rule, “under this “clear break” exception, a new constitutional rule was not applied retroactively, even to cases on direct review, if the new rule explicitly overruled a past precedent of this Court, or disapproved a practice this Court had arguably sanctioned in prior cases, or overturned a longstanding practice that lower courts had uniformly approved.”
- Open Chapter
Chapter 13 Joinder and Severance 26 results (showing 5 best matches)
- An important aspect of the test to determine whether joinder or severance of defendants or offenses is appropriate is whether it will lead to a fair trial. The issues are analogous to marriage (joinder) and divorce (severance), and create a structure that is similar to some of the fairness rules in family law. Most state criminal procedure rules, as well as the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, allow a prosecutor to combine offenses or defendants simply by charging multiple offenses and defendants in the same indictment or information. have been joined together in a single indictment or information, the criminal rules give a trial judge the discretion to do so, with or without a motion. This delayed joinder is called consolidation of the charges.
- The rules of criminal procedure address joinder and severance procedures where multiple defendants are jointly alleged to have committed one or more crimes. The policy behind this type of rule is to improve judicial economy and efficiency, since one trial is faster and less expensive than two (or more). The joinder of defendants is permissive and severance is discretionary with the court. When multiple defendants are jointly charged, a severance may be available based upon specific allegations of prejudice. A more general request for severance may be grounded on the proposition that the defendants should not have been joined in the first place. This circumstance is similar to misjoinder of unrelated offenses.
- Where a defendant is charged with multiple offenses, rules of criminal procedure usually govern the joinder and severance of the offenses to determine whether there will be a single trial or several trials. In general, the rules give the prosecution the discretion to charge in a single prosecution all of the offenses that a defendant allegedly committed in a closely connected series of events and within the same time sequence. Conversely, the rules permit the defendant to seek a severance of offenses that have been joined in a common prosecution. , allowing but not requiring the joinder of offenses, is typical. It states that two or more offenses may be charged together against a defendant if they are: “of the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.”
- Arguably, any joinder of offenses is prejudicial to some extent, but where joinder is otherwise proper under the rules of criminal procedure, the defendant must prove prejudice to justify and obtain a severance. There are several general discretionary considerations that may persuade a court to grant a severance. First, the jury may consider the defendant a “bad person” or infer a criminal propensity by the defendant simply because he is charged with so many offenses. Second, proof of one charge may “spill over” and assist in a conviction on another charge. Unless there is a high probability of an acquittal on one count, courts will usually deny a severance on this ground. (joinder of crimes not prejudicial solely because evidence of some crimes is stronger than evidence of other crimes). Third, the defendant may wish to testify about one offense, but not about another offense. ...want to claim an alibi as to one assault and insanity as to the other. Because one of the defenses...
- Joint trials play an important role in the criminal justice system, promoting efficiency and serving the interests of justice, , avoiding the cost and unfairness of inconsistent verdicts. Joint trials also save state funds, reduce inconvenience to witnesses and law enforcement authorities, and minimize delays in bringing defendants to trial.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 18 Freedom of the Press and Fair Trials 48 results (showing 5 best matches)
- While a defendant has a right to a criminal trial in the jurisdiction where the crime took place, defendant may desire a trial in another place and may file a motion for a change of venue. The right to request a change of venue belongs to both the defendant or the prosecution. Since venue is largely a creature of statute or rule, certain procedures should be followed before relief may be granted.
- Courts are reluctant to grant a change of venue due to the potential expense and convenience, and a change of venue may be sought as a dilatory tactic. Of course, a change of venue runs counter to the tradition that the administration of criminal justice is primarily the concern of the community in which the crime was committed. On the other hand, a change of venue is a federally protected right which may require the court to overlook statutory procedures in some instances. Most jurisdictions require that the application for a change of venue be made in a timely manner or it may be deemed waived.
- Charles A. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal
- Even though defendants may be concerned that the right to a fair trial can be compromised by too much openness and publicity, openness helps assure that established procedures are being followed and that any deviations become publicly known. It also enhances both the fairness of the trial and the appearance of fairness that is essential to public confidence in the criminal justice system. The problems attendant to closing a courtroom are complex because at issue are the defendant’s right to a fair and public trial, as well as the right of the press and public to attend the trial, even over the defendant’s objection. Questions of access have arisen in the context of pretrial proceedings and trials.
- Although this Court has said that the Fourteenth Amendment does not demand the use of jury trials in a State’s criminal procedure, every State has constitutionally provided trial by jury. In essence, the right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, “indifferent” jurors. The failure to accord an accused a fair hearing violates even the minimal standards of due process. In the ultimate analysis, only the jury can strip a man of his liberty or his life. In the language of Lord Coke, a juror must be as “indifferent as he stands unsworne.” His verdict must be based upon the evidence developed at the trial. This is true, regardless of the heinousness of the crime charged, the apparent guilt of the offender or the station in life which he occupies. “The theory of the law is that a juror who has formed an opinion cannot be impartial.”
- Open Chapter
Chapter 19 Sentencing 50 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The proportionality principles in Justice Kennedy’s concurrence controlled the Court’s most recent application of the Eighth Amendment in . The issue there was “whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the State of California from sentencing a repeat felon to a prison term of 25 years to life under the State’s ‘Three Strikes and You’re Out’ law.” Justice O’Connor found that the states had an interest “in dealing in a harsher manner with those who by repeated criminal acts have shown that they are simply incapable of conforming to the norms of society as established by its criminal law.” The state’s interest in public safety and deterrence supported application of the recidivism principle in the absence of a grossly disproportionate sentence.
- . The punishment for a violation of the law may include a fine, in addition to or, in some cases, instead of imprisonment. The general authority for the imposition of fines for criminal violations is found in the governing statutes themselves. The procedure for the collection of fines is governed largely by statute. Due to certain constitutional limitations, an indigent person may not usually be imprisoned for failure to pay the fine or costs. . In instances when the defendant desires to appeal a fine, the trial judge may grant a stay of the payment and require bail.
- The Court ruled that “Texas was entitled to place upon Rummel the onus of one who is simply unable to bring his conduct within the social norms prescribed by the criminal law of the State.” The recidivism statute “is nothing more than a societal decision that when such a person commits yet another felony, he should be subjected to the admittedly serious penalty of incarceration for life, subject only to the State’s judgment as to whether to grant him parole.” The Court observed that “outside the context of capital punishment, successful challenges to the proportionality of particular sentences have been exceedingly rare.” Although it noted that “the proportionality principle would apply to the extreme example if a legislature made overtime parking a felony punishable by life imprisonment,” the mandatory life sentence imposed upon Rummel did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
- , the Court held that the principles of extend to the imposition of criminal fines, which are also a form of punishment. Where the jury made a finding of guilt only on the charged offense—that Southern Union violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 “on or about September 19, 2002 to October 19, 2004”—the trial court could not impose a fine for every day in that period because the jury never specifically found more than one day’s violation.
- This chapter addresses only non-capital sentencing and sentencing procedures. Capital sentencing procedures are highly specialized and have special constitutional requirements and limitations.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5 Police Interrogations & Confessions 175 results (showing 5 best matches)
- the methods used to extract them offend an underlying principle in the enforcement of our criminal law: that ours is an accusatorial and not an inquisitorial system—a system in which the State must establish guilt by evidence independently and freely secured and may not by coercion prove its charge against an accused out of his own mouth.
- majority proposed that different Sixth Amendment waiver standards should be used at different stages of a case, following the initiation of “adversary judicial proceedings.” The waiver standard should take into account “a pragmatic assessment of the usefulness of counsel to the accused” at a particular proceeding. Therefore, the waiver standard for a defendant seeking to waive the right to counsel at trial requires “rigorous restrictions on the information that must be conveyed to a defendant” because of the “enormous importance and role that an attorney plays at a criminal trial.” But for a defendant, “the role of counsel” at questioning is “relatively simple and limited.” Given the lack of “a substantial difference between the usefulness of a lawyer to a suspect during custodial interrogation, and his value to an accused at postindictment questioning,” the Court concluded that the waiver procedure at the latter stage should be “simple and limited” in the manner of the ...procedure...
- When Congress incorporated the substance of the Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in 1946, the new rule explicitly required that arrested persons must be presented to a judicial officer “without unnecessary delay.” In , the Court interpreted this term as allowing arresting officers only a “brief delay” for such purposes as “quick verification through third parties” of an arrestee’s statements. The Court repeatedly warned against the practice of pre-appearance questioning at “police headquarters” that “lends itself, even if not so designed, to eliciting damaging statements” from the arrestee. The six-hour delay in
- , the Court issued its first decision holding that the admission into evidence of an involuntary confession by a state court violated Due Process. Earlier decisions concerning the admissibility of confessions in federal courts had relied on the common law of evidence or the Fifth Amendment privilege. But these grounds were not available in cases involving state defendants. The Supreme Court has no authority to revise the state common law rules of evidence, and the Fifth Amendment privilege did not apply to the states at the time of Court was forced to rely on the few precedents where state trial procedures had been condemned because of Due Process violations—where both court and jury were deceived by the prosecutor’s deliberate use of perjured testimony, where indigent and illiterate defendants lacked defense counsel in a capital case, and where a defendant was “hurried to conviction under mob domination.” ...“method” of physical torture caused any confession to be “involuntary...
- , the Court took a step in the direction of expanding the Sixth Amendment right to consult counsel into the pre-indictment phase of a criminal proceeding in rights, this would cause a significant reduction in the number of confessions obtained from them. The Court rejected this argument as a reason for limiting the Sixth Amendment to the post-indictment phase of a criminal proceeding. The scope of the new
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7 Identification Procedures 51 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Applicability of Due Process Principles to Identification Procedures.
- Identification procedures can take many different forms. Most people are familiar with the so-called “lineup” (a/k/a “identification parade”) in which a defendant is placed in a line with several others, and the eyewitness is asked to identify the perpetrator of the crime. Police also use a procedure called a “confrontation” or “showup” in which a suspect is confronted by an eyewitness and asked whether the suspect committed the crime. Police also use a “blind lineup” in which two or more lineups are held, and the eyewitness is told that the suspect will not participate in one or more of the lineups. Finally, the police also conduct “photographic lineups” in which they display pictures of the suspect and others (in a format that is similar to a lineup) and ask the witness whether one of the pictures depicts the criminal.
- , the Court identified factors to be considered in determining whether an identification is “reliable,” including “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.”
- 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.
- It is important to emphasize that Wade only applies to lineups (and other identification procedures) that take place after the commencement of adversary proceedings. In the defendant had been indicted or otherwise formally charged with any criminal offense:
- Open Chapter
Chapter 15 Guilty Pleas 35 results (showing 5 best matches)
- This record represents another example of an unfortunate lapse in orderly prosecutorial procedures, in part, no doubt, because of the enormous increase in the workload of the often understaffed prosecutor’s offices. The heavy workload may well explain these episodes, but it does not excuse them. The disposition of criminal charges by agreement between the prosecutor and the accused, sometimes loosely called “plea bargaining,” is an essential component of the administration of justice. Properly administered, it is to be encouraged. If every criminal charge were subjected to a full-scale trial, the States and the Federal Government would need to multiply by many times the number of judges and court facilities.
- Disposition of charges after plea discussions is not only an essential part of the process but a highly desirable part for many reasons. It leads to prompt and largely final disposition of most criminal cases; it avoids much of the corrosive impact of enforced idleness during pre-trial confinement for those who are denied release pending trial; it protects the public from those accused persons who are prone to continue criminal conduct even while on pretrial release; and, by shortening the time between charge and disposition, it enhances whatever may be the rehabilitative prospects of the guilty when they are ultimately imprisoned.
- prohibits the judge from participating in plea negotiations. In federal court, therefore, the plea negotiation takes place solely between the prosecution and the defendant. While the judge may decide whether to accept a plea negotiated between the prosecution and the defense, the judge cannot participate in the process. The difficulty with this procedure is that it means that in most instances the defendant will not know exactly what sentence will be imposed if the defendant pleads guilty. Because this can significantly impede the process of reaching a plea agreement, most states, due to their criminal dockets being far more overcrowded than those in the federal courts, do not follow this rule. In most state courts, the judge plays an active role in plea negotiations, and will tell the defendant what the sentence will be if the plea offer is accepted.
- Most cases in which criminal charges are filed by a prosecutor in the United States end in a guilty plea being entered by the defendant. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice (BJS), of the estimated 1,079,000 felons convicted in state courts in 2004, the vast majority (95%) of those sentenced for a felony pleaded guilty. The remaining 5% were found guilty either by a jury (2%) or by a judge in a bench trial (3%). BJS, Felony Sentences in State Court, 2004. Moreover, “the predominance of guilty pleas is not new in the criminal justice system. A study in Connecticut covering 75 years (1880 to 1954) concludes that between 1880 and 1910 10% of all convictions were obtained by trial.” U.S. Department of Justice, Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice 83 (2d ed. 1988).
- We begin with the guilty plea. A defendant who stands trial is likely to be presented with choices that entail relinquishment of the same rights that are relinquished by a defendant who pleads guilty: He will ordinarily have to decide whether to waive his “privilege against compulsory self-incrimination” by taking the witness stand; if the option is available, he may have to decide whether to waive his “right to trial by jury”; and, in consultation with counsel, he may have to decide whether to waive his “right to confront his accusers” by declining to cross-examine witnesses for the prosecution. A defendant who pleads not guilty, moreover, faces still other strategic choices: In consultation with his attorney, he may be called upon to decide, among other things, whether (and how) to put on a defense and whether to raise one or more affirmative defenses. In sum, all criminal defendants—not merely those who plead guilty—may be required to make important decisions once criminal...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 12 Discovery and Disclosure 37 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Most jurisdictions provide statutory discovery that is more extensive than what the Constitution requires, but less than what is granted in civil cases. For example, a very few jurisdictions provide for depositions of witnesses. While states vary, most state discovery rules involve variations on Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The rules and statutes provide for discovery in a number of generalized areas as follows:
- Discovery in criminal cases is conceptually similar to discovery in civil cases: it is the process of exchanging information between the parties, which in a criminal case are the prosecution and the defense. This exchange of information is to be contrasted with other avenues for gathering information such as factual investigation. In practice, however, criminal and civil discovery are very different. While discovery in civil cases is broad and evenly pursued, in criminal cases, the prosecution holds the vast majority of the information. The reason for this is part structural—the prosecution gathers information from the police, who report to the scene of the crime and investigate immediately; the defense is not able to begin investigating the crime until the defendant obtains counsel (who has access to an investigator), and that may not occur until weeks or months after the crime is committed. In addition, law enforcement possesses formal statutory authority to investigate criminal...of
- Many jurisdictions give the prosecution an unconditional right to be notified prior to trial that the defendant intends to raise the defense of insanity and present expert testimony in support of that defense. Such provisions allow the prosecution the time to prepare its own expert witnesses to rebut the claim of insanity. embodies the approach utilized by a majority of states.
- , the Court exercised its supervisory power over federal courts to require disclosure of prior statements by witnesses , and the essence of the Act is now contained in Rule 26.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Jencks Act and witnesses. In order to qualify as “Jencks” and to trigger disclosure, the statement must be: (1) by a witness called by the party possessing the statement; (2) have been contemporaneously recorded (whether in writing, audio, or video); (3) be substantially verbatim; and (4) relate to the subject matter of the witness’ testimony.
- The criminal defendant’s right to pretrial discovery may come in conflict with the privacy rights of victims or other third parties. All jurisdictions empower the court to issue protective orders or limit the scope and terms of discovery, subject of course to constitutional limitations. If either party fails to comply with the court’s discovery orders the court generally has a number of options for dealing with the violation.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 11 Case Screening: Preliminary Hearings and Grand Juries 62 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(D)
- Historically, two types of immunity have developed. Originally, what has come to be known as was thought to be necessary in order to overcome a valid assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege. Under transactional immunity, the witness is given complete immunity from criminal prosecution for any offenses committed in connection with the criminal incident(s) for which the immunity has been granted. In other words, the witness simply cannot be prosecuted for anything in connection with the incident(s). During the Watergate era, however, attorneys at the Department of Justice came up with the concept of . Under use immunity, anything that the witness is compelled to say or disclose cannot be “used” against them at a subsequent criminal proceeding. However, a subsequent criminal proceeding is not completely barred (as under transactional immunity). Instead, the witness may still in fact later be prosecuted for offenses committed in connection with the criminal incident(s) about which they...
- determination of probable cause discussed in Chapter 9,
- against himself at a criminal proceeding. Therefore, if the compelled statements cannot be used against the witness at a subsequent criminal trial of the witness, then the privilege has not been violated despite the subsequent prosecution.
- Grand juries in individual jurisdictions differ greatly in their composition and the method by which they are selected. At common law, the grand jury was comprised of twenty-three persons, at least twelve of whom had to agree in order to hand down an indictment for a criminal offense. Today, federal grand juries consist of between sixteen and twenty-three jurors, twelve of whom must agree to indict the defendant for any charge. Other jurisdictions utilize much smaller grand juries, although all jurisdictions require that an indictment be based on the concurrence of at least a majority of the grand jurors empaneled to review the charges.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 16 Jury Trials 45 results (showing 5 best matches)
- , a white defendant alleged that the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude African-American jurors based on their race. Using third-party standing principles, the Court held that the white defendant had standing to assert an equal protection claim on behalf of the excluded African-American jurors. Second, the Court held that a criminal defendant also cannot engage in purposeful discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges. to find that the prosecution had third-party standing to assert the equal protection rights of excluded jurors. “As the representative of all its citizens, the State is the logical and proper party to assert the invasion of the constitutional rights of the excluded jurors in a criminal trial.”
- The purposes of the cross-section requirement are: (1) avoiding “the possibility that the composition of juries would be arbitrarily skewed in such a way as to deny criminal defendants the benefit of the common-sense judgment of the community;” (2) avoiding an “appearance of unfairness;” and (3) ensuring against deprivation of “often historically disadvantaged groups of their right as citizens to serve on juries in criminal cases.” . Most of the early fair cross-section cases concerned the systematic exclusion of racial or ethnic groups from the jury panel. Later cases recognized violations of the fair cross-section requirement on the basis of gender. In , the Court held that a male defendant had standing to challenge the constitutionality of a state law excluding women from jury service unless they had filed a written declaration. The Court also found that a petit jury must be selected from a representative cross-section of the community, because it is a fundamental aspect of the...of
- The Sixth Amendment grants to criminal defendants the right to a “jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” From this language has evolved the concept that the petit jury in a criminal case must be selected from a fair cross-section of the community where the crime occurred. Note that this requirement applies only to the jury panel from which the petit jury is selected. The jury which actually decides the case does not have to reflect a cross-section of the community. , the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment dictates restrictions on the composition of the petit jury.
- Contempt proceedings are at least quasi-criminal in nature, and in because the legislature usually has not set a specific penalty for criminal contempt. Instead, “courts use the severity of the penalty actually imposed as the measure of the character of the particular offense.”
- , the Court established a three step procedure for trial courts to apply in evaluating claims of discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges. First, the claimant must make out a prima facie case of discrimination. This is typically done by showing a pattern of strikes usually through statistics or a combination of statistics and other relevant circumstances such as a pattern of questioning. If a prima facie showing is made, the burden then shifts to the party exercising the strikes to provide race neutral reasons for the strikes. This burden, however, is merely one of production, not persuasion. At this stage, the reasons provided need not be persuasive or convincing. They need only be neutral on their face. Third, the burden then shifts back to the claimant to rebut the neutral reasons and persuade the Court that one or more strikes were based on purposeful discrimination.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3 Right to Counsel 140 results (showing 5 best matches)
- mean, the Court stressed, that criminal defense counsel can never engage in joint representation of more than one criminal accused charged with the same crimes. To the contrary, as the Court made crystal clear, “requiring or permitting a single attorney to represent codefendants, often referred to as joint representation, is not violative of constitutional guarantees of effective assistance of counsel. This principle recognizes that in some cases multiple defendants can appropriately be represented by one attorney; indeed, in some cases, certain advantages might accrue from joint representation. In Justice Frankfurter’s view: ‘Joint representation is a means of insuring against reciprocal recrimination. A common defense often gives strength against a common attack.’ ”
- the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches so as to entitle an indigent to the appointment of counsel. Because the Sixth Amendment text applies to “all criminal ,” not simply to “all criminal ,” the Supreme Court has held that the right to appointed counsel attaches prior to trial, at any “critical stage of the criminal prosecution” after the “initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings—whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.” (“The Sixth Amendment secures to a defendant who faces incarceration the right to counsel at all ‘critical stages’ of the criminal process.”).
- Counsel also excluded from the sentencing hearing other evidence he thought was potentially damaging. He successfully moved to exclude respondent’s “rap sheet.” Because he judged that a presentence report might prove more detrimental than helpful, as it would have included respondent’s criminal history and thereby would have undermined the claim of no significant history of criminal activity, he did not request that one be prepared.
- that conclusion is not undermined by the fact that Cronic’s lawyer was young, that his principal practice was in real estate, or that this was his first jury trial. Every experienced criminal defense attorney once tried his first criminal case. Moreover, a lawyer’s experience with real estate transactions might be more useful in preparing to try a criminal case involving financial transactions than would prior experience in handling, for example, armed robbery prosecutions. The character of a particular lawyer’s experience may shed light in an evaluation of his actual performance, but it does not justify a presumption of ineffectiveness in the absence of such an evaluation.
- a district court must pass on the issue whether or not to allow a waiver of a conflict of interest by a criminal defendant not with the wisdom of hindsight after the trial has taken place, but in the murkier pre-trial context when relationships between parties are seen through a glass, darkly. The likelihood and dimensions of nascent conflicts of interest are notoriously hard to predict, even for those thoroughly familiar with criminal trials. It is a rare attorney who will be fortunate enough to learn the entire truth from his own client, much less be fully apprised before trial of what each of the Government’s witnesses will say on the stand. A few bits of unforeseen testimony or a single previously unknown or unnoticed document may significantly shift the relationship between multiple defendants. These imponderables are difficult enough for a lawyer to assess, and even more difficult to convey by way of explanation to a criminal defendant untutored in the niceties of legal ethics...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 22 Collateral Remedies 55 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Although in form the Great Writ is simply a mode of procedure, its history is inextricably intertwined with the growth of fundamental rights of personal liberty. For its function has been to provide a prompt and efficacious remedy for whatever society deems to be intolerable restraints. Its root principle is that in a civilized society, government must always be accountable to the judiciary for a man’s imprisonment: if the imprisonment cannot be shown to conform with fundamental requirements of law, the individual is entitled to his immediate release. Thus, there is nothing novel in the fact that today habeas corpus in the federal courts provides a mode for the redress of denials of due process of law. Vindication of due process is precisely its historic office.
- , the Court held that a claim of racial discrimination in the selection of a state grand jury is cognizable on federal , even though the claimed error did not affect the determination of guilt and had been heard by the state court. The Court distinguished on three grounds. First, the Court was unwilling to assume that state judges could fairly consider claims of grand jury discrimination, since those claims required the state courts to review their own procedures rather than those of the police. Second, the right to an indictment by a grand jury free from discrimination in its selection process is a personal constitutional right rather than a judicially created remedy. Third, state courts could be expected to respond to a determination that their grand jury selection procedures failed to meet constitutional requirements,
- It would be marvelously inspiring to be able to boast that we have a criminal-justice system in which a claim of “actual innocence” will always be heard, no matter how late it is brought forward, and no matter how much the failure to bring it forward at the proper time is the defendant’s own fault. But of course we do not have such a system, and no society unwilling to devote unlimited resources to repetitive criminal litigation ever could.
- Because collateral proceedings are governed by civil rather than criminal rules, a Civil Rule 60 motion may also constitute a successive petition (and is therefore subject to AEPDA’s gate-keeping provisions) when it contests the merits of the court’s denial of relief or seeks to advance new grounds for relief.
- A collateral attack on a criminal conviction requires filing of a separate lawsuit, which is civil in nature.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 21 Post-Trial Motions and Direct Appeals 44 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure commands the court to “state its essential findings on the record.” The rule serves several functions. Findings on the record inform the parties and other interested persons of the grounds of the ruling, add discipline to the process of judicial decision-making and enable appellate courts properly to perform their reviewing function. If the district court not only fails to make “essential findings on the record,” but also expresses nothing in the way of legal reasoning, if it simply announces a result, it may frustrate these objectives. We say “may” because there are cases in which the facts are so certain, and the legal consequences so apparent, that little guesswork is needed to determine the grounds for the ruling.
- There was no right to appeal in criminal cases at common law, and England did not permit appeals from a criminal conviction until 1907. Appeals as of right in federal courts were nonexistent for the first century of our Nation, and appellate review of any sort was rarely allowed. The States also did not generally recognize an appeal as of right until 1889.
- , the Court approved the California approach of replacing an brief with a form of brief which provided that “counsel, upon concluding that an appeal would be frivolous, files a brief with the appellate court that summarizes the procedural and factual history of the case, with citation of the record. He also attests that he has reviewed the record, explained his evaluation of the case to his client, provided the client with a copy of the brief, and informed the client of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief. He further requests that the court independently examine the record for arguable issues.” The majority approved the California approach because “the procedure we sketched in , is a prophylactic one; the States are free to adopt different procedures, so long as those procedures adequately safeguard a defendant’s right to appellate counsel” and the State provides a review process that “reasonably ensures that an indigent’s appeal will be resolved in a way that is related...
- There are significant differences between the trial and appellate stages of a criminal proceeding. The purpose of the trial stage from the State’s point of view is to convert a criminal defendant from a person presumed innocent to one found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. By contrast, it is ordinarily the defendant, rather than the State, who initiates the appellate process, seeking not to fend off the efforts of the States prosecutor but rather to overturn a finding of guilt made by a judge or a jury below.
- Most jurisdictions provide one appeal of a criminal conviction as a matter of right.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6 Entrapment 17 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Whether 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 entrapment defense has been part of state and federal criminal law for many years. The defense was created as a means for courts to regulate the participation by government agents in criminal acts during undercover investigations. The entrapment defense developed before modern Due Process law established limits on police conduct during interrogations, searches, and seizures. Therefore, Due Process concerns in this earlier era were incorporated into doctrinal elements that took the form of criminal law rules.
- , some federal courts endorsed the need to create a remedy for predisposed defendants who are apprehended in an undercover operation that involves “outrageous government conduct.” The Supreme Court subsequently observed in dicta that “due process principles” may prohibit some “outrageous” entrapment-style conduct of government officials. . But the Court has not chosen to elucidate specific rules concerning Due Process limits on such conduct. The Court rejected two opportunities to vindicate Due Process claims in cases where predisposition evidence would have made it difficult for the defendants to present a successful entrapment defense under the “subjective” test. These defendants sought to expand “the traditional notion of entrapment” by seeking to prove that the conduct of government agents showed “an intolerable degree of governmental participation in the criminal enterprise,” and thereby violated Due Process. ...Court declined to find the conduct of government agents to be...
- majority emphasized that its new rule was not intended to alter the settled doctrine that “the ready commission of the criminal act amply demonstrates” a defendant’s predisposition. Nor did the majority explicitly impose a requirement that the government must have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before making contact with a target defendant. What did not, is careful judicial scrutiny of the conduct of government agents from the moment of first contact with a defendant until the moment the defendant commits the crime. Thus, shifted the Court closer to the values, if not the rhetoric, of the “objective” test. The majority viewed the lengthy pattern of repeated government contacts as casting doubt on the government’s claim of predisposition. The majority’s solution was to treat such contacts as foreclosing the ability of the government to prove predisposition. In this way,
- [The police should] act so as to detect those engaged in criminal conduct and ready and willing to commit further crimes should the occasion arise. [I]n holding out inducements [police agents] should act in such a manner as is likely to induce to the commission of crime only these persons and not others who would normally avoid crime and through self-struggle resist ordinary temptations.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8 Exclusionary Rule 113 results (showing 5 best matches)
- 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 ( , cars, boats, or airplanes used to smuggle narcotics). Such “forfeiture proceedings” are civil rather than criminal in nature. However, in a decision handed down before the Court began limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to situations where incremental deterrence of police misconduct is achieved, the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule apply with full force in forfeiture proceedings because of the “quasi-criminal nature” of these proceedings.
- However, there are significant limits to the permissibility of such inter-sovereign cooperation. In criminal trial. In reaching that conclusion, the Court rejected the so-called “silver platter doctrine” which permitted the agents of one sovereign (the state) to turn unconstitutionally-seized evidence over to the agents of a different sovereign (the federal government) “on a silver platter” for use in federal proceedings. applied to the use of unconstitutionally-seized evidence by another sovereign in a
- Of course, when governmental officials commit criminal acts, they can be criminally prosecuted for those acts. Justice Murphy, concurring in , flatly dismissed the possibility of criminal prosecution as a potentially significant remedy for police misconduct: “Little need be said concerning the possibilities of criminal prosecution. Self-scrutiny is a lofty ideal, but its exaltation reaches new heights if we expect a District Attorney to prosecute himself or his associates for well-meaning violations of the search and seizure clause during a raid the District Attorney or his associates have ordered.”
- The exclusionary rule’s deterrent aim is furthered, the Court has indicated, when the exclusionary rule is applied to suppress unconstitutionally-seized evidence that the prosecution seeks to introduce in its case-in-chief in a criminal trial. But, the Court has added that, given the substantial costs imposed by the rule, in the sense that it requires suppression of otherwise relevant evidence of criminal activity, the exclusionary rule should be applied in those settings where no additional, incremental deterrence of police misconduct is gained by its imposition. In other words, if police misconduct is not deterred by applying the exclusionary rule in a particular setting, it should not be applied because the social costs of the rule’s application ( some criminals will go free) are so great.
- Some constitutional errors are so fundamental to the inherent reliability and fairness of a criminal trial that they are deemed to involve “structural defects” in the criminal justice system, and therefore are not subject to explained this difference (and provided examples of structural defects) as follows: “The admission of an involuntary confession—a classic ‘trial error’—is markedly different from constitutional violations not subject to harmless-error analysis. One of those violations is the total deprivation of the right to counsel at trial. Another is trial with a trial judge who is not impartial. These are structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism, which defy analysis by ‘harmless-error’ standards. The entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end is obviously affected by the absence of counsel for a criminal defendant, just as it is by the presence on the bench of a judge who is not impartial. Since our decision in ...the category of constitutional...of
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4 Search and Seizure 467 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In order to conduct an inventory search, the police are not required to show reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle to be searched contains dangerous items, or evidence of criminal activity. For example, in , after Bertine was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, his car was towed to an impoundment lot. While the police were waiting for a tow truck to arrive, they inventoried the contents of the car pursuant to police procedure. The search revealed controlled substances, a significant amount of cash, and drug paraphernalia. In upholding the search, the Court specifically rejected the argument that an inventory search must be premised on a specific danger to public safety, finding that “other considerations” were sufficient to uphold the search: “The police were potentially responsible for the property taken into their custody. By securing the property, the police protected the property from unauthorized interference. Knowledge of the precise nature of the...
- In order to conduct a valid inventory search, the police must have legally impounded the vehicle. Rules vary regarding the circumstances under which impoundment is permissible. In some states and municipalities, a vehicle can be towed and impounded merely for illegal parking. Sometimes, when the driver of a car is arrested ( , for driving under the influence), the police might impound the vehicle rather than leave it by the side of the road. In , the Court rejected the claim that Bertine should have been “offered the opportunity to make other arrangements for the safekeeping of his property.” While the officer could have allowed Bertine to make alternative arrangements, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment did not require the officer to do so. In the Court’s view, “reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith satisfy the Fourth Amendment, even ...might as a matter of hindsight be able to devise equally reasonable rules requiring...
- Establishing “probable cause” requires a showing of something more than “mere suspicion,” but something less than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the standard of proof required for a criminal conviction. More specifically, the Supreme Court has concluded that probable cause requires a showing by the Government of “a fair probability” on each of the points that the prosecution must establish in order for a warrant to issue.
- of the totality-of-the-circumstances test does not mean that the two Court pointed out, for example, “a deficiency in one [prong] may be compensated for, in determining the overall reliability of a tip, by a strong showing as to the other, or by some other indicia of reliability.” Among other such “indicia of reliability” commonly used by courts is assessing informant information are corroboration of some of the informant’s factual details (even if the specific facts that are corroborated demonstrate only otherwise innocent activity, 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 from the criminal milieu).
- We have never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing. Rather, our checkpoint cases have recognized only limited exceptions to the general rule that a seizure must be accompanied by some measure of individualized suspicion. We suggested in that we would not credit the “general interest in crime control” as justification for a regime of suspicionless stops. Consistent with this suggestion, each of the checkpoint programs that we have approved was designed primarily to serve purposes closely related to the problems of policing the border or the necessity of ensuring roadway safety. Because the primary purpose of the Indianapolis narcotics checkpoint program is to uncover evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, the program contravenes the Fourth Amendment.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 14 Pre-Charge Delay and Speedy Trial 18 results (showing 5 best matches)
- expressly stated that dismissal with prejudice is the only possible remedy for a violation of the Sixth Amendment speedy trial right. Trial courts therefore cannot devise less extreme remedies such as a sentence reduction. . The re-prosecution prohibition undoubtedly results in courts finding fewer constitutional violations because of the extremeness of the remedy. An alternative disposition is to find a violation of the relevant speedy trial statute (
- only govern delay from charging or arrest to trial. But what about delay between the criminal incident and arrest or charge? In , the Supreme Court made it clear that the Sixth Amendment’s language (“In all criminal prosecutions . . . ”), as well as the history and purposes of the Speedy Trial Clause mean that it does not apply to this pre-accusation time period. However, this does not mean that there is no constitutional protection against undue pre-charge delay. In , the Court held that claims of undue pre-charge delay are governed by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The protection afforded by the Due Process Clause in this circumstance is, however, very limited. Because of the broad deference granted prosecutors to decide when to bring a charge, claims of undue pre-charge delay under the Due Process Clause require clear proof of specific and significant prejudice to the defense (almost always in the form of impairment of the ability to present a defense), as well as...
- Defendants have two constitutional rights related to issues of delay. First, the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments offer some protection to an accused from delay between commission of the crime and arrest, indictment, or information, whichever comes first. Second, the Sixth Amendment protects a defendant from undue delay in bringing a case to trial after charging. The Sixth Amendment states, in relevant part, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy . . . trial.” This chapter will cover pre-charge delay, delays implicating the Sixth Amendment speedy trial right, and delays implicating the statutory rights created by the federal Speedy Trial Act.
- In addition to the constitutional speedy trial standard, many state legislatures and the Congress have enacted speedy trial legislation which establishes specific time limits for completing stages of a criminal prosecution. For example, the federal Speedy Trial Act ( et seq.) requires that an arrested defendant be formally charged within thirty days after the arrest and that the defendant’s trial begin within seventy days after the formal charge is filed. In addition, the trial cannot begin earlier than thirty days from the date the defendant first appears before the court unless the defendant consents in writing to an earlier trial. Unlike the constitutional standard which makes the passage of time a “triggering mechanism,” the statute makes the passage of time dispositive of whether there is a violation. Many speedy trial statutes, like the federal Act, do not require a defendant to show either a demand for a speedy trial or that the effect of the delay was prejudicial.
- once a defendant has been found guilty at trial or has pleaded guilty to criminal charges.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 20 Double Jeopardy 57 results (showing 5 best matches)
- , a police officer was charged with three counts of the distribution of illegal narcotics. The defendant moved to dismiss two of the three counts due to prejudice and the trial judge granted the motion. The Government appealed the dismissal of one count, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause barred further prosecution of that count. The Supreme Court reversed. Chief Justice Rehnquist observed that historically, the Government could not appeal in a criminal case unless by statutory authority. The Statutory Appeals Act, , permits appeals except if they violate double jeopardy rights. The Court reviewed existing case law in the area and teased out two double jeopardy principles. First, a successful appeal of a judgment of conviction permits a retrial. The second was that a midtrial termination of a case, regardless of whether the termination was based on guilt or innocence, prohibited an appeal if it meant consideration of the facts...
- . While there has been a recent push to find that when a defendant is at risk of conviction the double jeopardy principle should apply, the Supreme Court has resolutely disagreed. . If a case is tried before a judge, after waiver of a jury, jeopardy attaches when the first witness is sworn. Jeopardy also attaches when the trial court accepts a guilty plea. Conversely, withdrawal of a guilty plea is a waiver of the double jeopardy protection against trial on the charge in the indictment or information. If a case is dismissed or terminated prior to the attachment of jeopardy, the defendant may have to respond to the same criminal charges in subsequent proceedings.
- The most difficult problem in applying collateral estoppel is ascertaining what facts were established in the earlier case. Because juries render general rather than special verdicts in most criminal cases, a determination of which facts support the verdict requires careful analysis of the trial record. Only those fact determinations essential to the first decision are conclusive in later proceedings.
- In evaluating the defendant’s claim, Chief Justice Rehnquist cited a basic principle of double jeopardy:
- The second adjudication generally must risk a second prosecution of the same offense. What counts as “criminal” or “the same offense” in the second adjudication is not always easy to discern.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10 Prosecutorial Discretion 29 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Beginning in the 1960s, and escalating thereafter, Congress and most state legislatures, largely in response to public pressure, decreed that those convicted of crimes would serve ever-longer prison sentences. In the federal system, for example, this trend took the form of mandatory minimum sentences, sentencing guidelines, and the abolition of parole. Faced with the knowledge that their clients, if convicted after trial, would be sentenced to very long periods of incarceration, prudent defense counsel increasingly sought to negotiate plea bargains that would allow their clients to obtain lower sentences by pleading guilty to lesser counts or narrower charges, or in exchange for other sentencing concessions. The direct result was to increase greatly the percentage of criminal cases resolved by guilty pleas; such pleas now account for ninety-seven percent of all federal criminal convictions and ninety-four percent of all state criminal convictions.
- , the Court considered whether a passive enforcement of a criminal statute, in which only those persons who were reported as violating the law were prosecuted, was constitutional. Pursuant to Section 3 of the Military Selective Service Act, the President issued a proclamation requiring male citizens and certain additional residents born in 1960 to register for a draft. Petitioner failed to register and wrote letters to government officials indicating that he did not register and had no intention of doing so. The Department of Justice decided to prosecute those who were reporting as nonregistering, including the petitioner. The petitioner subsequently moved to dismiss his indictment based on selective prosecution. The Court noted in analyzing petitioner ...broad but not unfettered. The discretion is cabined by equal protection principles, such that the government cannot base decisions deliberately on such classifications as race, gender or religion. Given that the petitioner had not...of
- As a result of the wide discretion prosecutors have in prosecuting criminal cases, potential exists for abuse of that discretion. Misuse of that discretion especially presents itself when a prosecutor, with the requisite amount of probable cause, purposefully chooses to pursue a case because of the defendant
- Prosecutors have broad discretion in determining whether to bring criminal charges, as well as how to try cases once brought. The exercise of prosecutorial discretion poses ethical and professional questions for prosecutors, both individually and collectively within the criminal justice system. These questions range from whether to charge cases at all, how to charge the cases that are brought, and how to dispose of cases. Prosecutors have considerable leeway in making strategic decisions. Of course, the greater the prosecutorial discretion, the greater the possibility of abuse. Recurring questions arise about how much power prosecutors ought to be able to wield and what checks exist on that power. These questions have become particularly acute in light of controversial cases in recent years in Ferguson, Missouri; Orlando, Florida; and New York City, New York, among other places.
- Pretrial diversion provides prosecutors with the discretion to divert some cases from the typical criminal process and the opportunity for some defendants to avoid a trial and criminal conviction in exchange for law-abiding behavior.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 17 The Rights to Confrontation and Compulsory Process 55 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The abuses that the Court has identified as prompting the adoption of the Confrontation Clause shared the following two characteristics: (a) they involved out-of-court statements having the primary purpose of accusing a targeted individual of engaging in criminal conduct and (b) they involved formalized statements such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions.
- Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. They are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.
- It is common for the prosecution to use experts in criminal cases. Experts advise prosecutors on technical matters, testify about the modus operandi of criminal operations, and, in laboratories across the country, test contraband substances. Prior to , the experts could submit their test results as part of reliable reports under the public records hearsay exception recognized in state and federal courts alike.
- The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment protects criminal defendants by affording them the opportunity to confront the witnesses against them at trial. What it means to be “confronted with the witnesses against him,” however, is far from clear. Instead, the phrase has long depended on judicial interpretation, especially by the justices of the Supreme Court. The Clause protects the accused in federal court cases directly through the 6th Amendment, and in state court cases through the Incorporation Doctrine of the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
- provided a useful illustration of Justice Scalia’s narrow definition. In , the intentionality of the criminal act did not suffice to show there was a design to prevent a witness’ testimony at a subsequent time. Because the intent of the defendant was not considered by the lower court in determining whether there was such a design, the Supreme Court remanded for further consideration.
- Open Chapter
West Academic Publishing’s Law School Advisory Board 9 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Professor of Law Emeritus, University of San Diego Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Michigan
- Professor of Law, Chancellor and Dean Emeritus University of California, Hastings College of the Law
- Professor of Law Emeritus, Pepperdine University Professor of Law Emeritus, University of California, Los Angeles
- Justice Thurgood Marshall Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia School of Law
- Professor of Law and Dean Emeritus University of California, Berkeley
- Open Chapter
Table of Cases 27 results (showing 5 best matches)
Copyright Page 2 results
- The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice, and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional.
- Printed in the United States of America
- Open Chapter
Table of Rules 1 result
- Publication Date: July 3rd, 2018
- ISBN: 9781640202672
- Subject: Criminal Procedure
- Series: Concise Hornbook Series
- Type: Hornbook Treatises
- Description: This book gives you everything you need to know about basic criminal procedure principles, presented in a no-nonsense fashion. It includes references to recent, relevant decisions handed down by the United States Supreme Court. In addition, Principles of Criminal Procedure contains helpful study devices such as "focal points" at the beginning of each chapter, and "points to remember" at the end of each section. This is the only study aid you will need to help you understand basic criminal procedure principles in U.S. law.
