Study sets, textbooks, questions
Upgrade to remove ads
Criminal Procedures Final
Terms in this set (57)
-bans illegally obtained evidence in the case against the defendant (by far the most frequently used remedy)
-bans the introduction of "good" evidence (evidence that indeed helps prove the defendant's guilt) that was obtained by "bad" law enforcement.
Bad Methods violate any of these constitutional rights:
1. Unreasonable searches and seizures
2. coerced incriminating statements
3. right to counsel
4. due process of the law
created in Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
-local police officers broke into Weeks house without a warrant
-seized all his books, letters, money, papers, notes, stock certificates, deeds, etc.
-he was charged with illegal gambling
-the exclusionary rule in Weeks only applied to federal law enforcement: the states could fashion any remedy they saw fit to enforce their own citizens' constitutional rights under their state constitutions
U.S. v. Leon
In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court backed away from the bright-line rule that excluded all illegally obtained evidence from criminal trials, and adopted the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule.
-They held that:
1. The 4th Amendment exclusionary rule should not be applied so as to bar the use of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be invalid
2. the standard of reasonableness is an objective one
3. suppression is appropriate where officers have no reasonable ground for believing that the warrant was properly issued
4. the officer's reliance on the magistrate's determination of probable cause in the instant case was objectively reasonable
allows the gov. to use evidence obtained from searches based on unlawful search warrants if officers reasonably believed they were lawful
Justifications for the exclusionary rule
1. constitutional right - it is part of the constitutional rights against unreasonable seizure and coerced confessions and the rights to a lawyer and due process of law
2. judicial integrity - it preserves the honor and honesty of the courts
3. deterrence - it prevents officers from breaking the law (this is the most popular rationale)
the social cost of the exclusionary rule
freeing guilty people, undermining the prosecution's case, and obstructing the search by keeping good evidence out of court
fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
bans not only evidence illegally obtained directly but also evidence derived from it. The basic idea of the doctrine is that the government shouldn't be in a better position after it breaks the law
(says that illegally obtained evidence can come into court if the poisonous connection between illegal police actions and they evidence they got illegally from their actions weakens (attenuates) enough. One factor is closeness in time between illegal government action and getting its fruit (the evidence)
2. independent source
(even if officers break the law, unless their lawbreaking causes the seizure of evidence, the evidence is admissible in court.) Ex: they violate the constitution looking for evidence, and then it a totally separate action, get the same evidence lawfully
3. inevitable discovery
(would've eventually found it anyway)
Non Trial Proceedings (collateral use) exception
-illegally obtained evidence can be used in collateral proceedings (proceedings not directly related to the prosecution's case-in-chief at trial. Ex: bail hearings, grand jury proceedings, sentencing, parole revocations, and preliminary hearings
Knock and Announce Exception
-even if they violate the knock and announce rule, they can still use the evidence
Herring v. U.S.
-if an officer reasonably believes there's an outstanding arrest warrant against a suspect, but that belief turns out to be wrong because of a negligent bookkeeping error by another police employee, the arrest violates the 4th amendment
-BUT evidence obtained during a search incident to the unlawful arrest is admissible in court
-Criminal Actions - prosecution individual officers in criminal courts (judges and juries don't see police misconduct as a crime, because the gov has to prove criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt. If officers believe they were honestly enforcing the law, then they are not criminally guilty)
-Civil Actions - suing the officer; the police department, or the government in civil courts "tort action" (want monetary compensation/damages for the injuries they suffered
they can bring actions against officers and governments state and federal courts
-Internal and external departmental review - discipling the officer outside the judicial system
lawsuits against individual FEDERAL law enforcement officers
plaintiffs have to prove 2 elements:
1. officers were acting "under color of authority" or the appearance of power
2. officers' actions deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right
Federal Tort Claims Actions
lawsuits against the federal government for its officers' constituional torts
law enforcement officers have a defense called...
qualified immunity - individuals can't be held personally liable for official action if their action meets the test of "objective legal reasonableness"
doctrine of sovereign immunity
individuals can't sue governments without the government's consent. The U.S. and most state governments have laws waiving their sovereign immunity
defense of official immunity
-limits officers' liability for their torts
-says that a public official charged by law with duties which call for the exercise of his judgment or discretion is not personally liable to an individual unless he is guilty of a willful or malicious wrong
Civil Rights Actions (Section 1983 Actions)
allow plaintiffs to go into federal or state courts to sue STATE police officers and their agency heads; county sheriffs and their deputies; and municipal police officers and their chiefs for violating plaintiffs' federal constitutional rights.
Plaintiffs have to prove two elements:
1. Officers acted "under the color of state law" which includes all acts done within the scope of their employment
2. Officers' actions caused a deprivation of plaintiffs' rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution
-Section 1983 Doesn't mean that officers are liable every time they violate individuals' constitutional rights.
1. Plaintiffs can only recover for deliberate actions, not for accidental or even negligent violations
2. State and local officers are protected by the same qualified immunity under Section 1983 that federal officers have under Bivens and the Federal Tort Claims Act
doctrine of respondeat superior
state and local governments and their agencies are liable for the torts of their employees, only if the employees committed the torts during the course of their employment
-Ex: if you get hit by a Tyson truck, Tyson pays, not the truck driver
plaintiffs can't sue individual officers or government units for failing to stop private people from violating their rights by inflicting injuries upon them
-there is only a duty to protect when the state CREATED the danger
(Ex: person in custody and they know a gang is going to attack/kill them, then they have a duty to protect)
(ex 2: witness protection)
The "Special-Relationship Exception" to the "No-Duty-to-protect" rule
Can you sue a judge?
No, judges can never be sued for damages resulting from actions performed in their official capacities. They enjoy absolute immunity, and they cannot be sued even if they acted maliciously and in bad faith.
Can you sue a prosecutor?
Prosecutors can hardly ever be sued. They have functional immunity. Their immunity depends on the function they're performing at the time of the misconduct. They are absolutely immune from civil liability when they are acting as advocates, even if they acted with malice. When they are acting as administrators or investigators, they have qualified immunity. This means that they are immune unless their misconduct violated clearly established law that a reasonable prosecutor would have known.
Why do people who sue the gov. or its officers rarely win?
3 major weaknesses to Section 1983 suits:
1. They are difficult and expensive to pursue
2. The Supreme Court has severely limited plaintiffs' legal capacity to get court orders (injunctions) to stop police techniques, even those that involve frequent use of excessive force
3. Juries are more likely to believe police officers' version of events than plaintiffs'. Juries don't want to believe their police officers are liars or bad people.
-the most common accountability procedure for all kinds of police misconduct is administrative review and discipline outside the courts
1. Internal Affairs Units - review of police misconduct by special officers inside police departments
2. External Civilian Review - review of complaints against police officers with participation by individuals who aren't sworn police officers
-internal review consists of four stages (intake, investigation, deliberation, disposition)
-the basic objection to internal review is that police shouldn't police themselves
-"blue curtain" the wall of protection that hides their "real work" from public view
Are remedies guaranteed in the constitution?
No, remedies are court created
Pinder v. Johnson
-officers responded to a domestic disturbance call at Carol Pinder's house
-Officer discovered that Pinder's ex boyfriend had broken into her home
-he was abusive/violent
-saying he would murder her and her kids
-he had just been released from prison for attempted arson at Pinder's residence
-wanted to know if it was safe to return to work and leave her kids at the house
-officer assured her that he'd be locked up overnight
-said that county commissioner wouldn't even be able to hear the charges until next morning
-that same evening, he brought him before a county commissioner
-was only charged with trespassing and destruction of property (misdemeanor offenses)
-released him on his own recognizance
-returned to Pinder's house and set fire to it, killing her 3 kids while she was at work
-rejected the state-created-danger exception
-pinder argued that the officer's explicit promise that he'd be incarcerated overnight created the requisite "special relationship". Supreme Court didn't agree.
Dwares v. City of New York
-at a rally, there was a demonstration that included the burning of the American Flag
-Dwares did not physically participate in the desecration, but he voiced his support for those who did
-also present was a group of "skinheads" with a history of racism and engaged in violent attacks on individuals engaged in lawfully protected 1st amendment activity
-Dwares was attacked by skinheads, who repeatedly hit him in the head with a bottle
-this occurred in the presence of an officers who made no attempt to intervene or protect Dwares
-police officer had told skin heads that unless they got completely out of control, he wouldn't do anything about it
-Supreme Court allowed this one to go forward
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez
-Gonzalez had restraining order against ex husband
-in the order, it said "A KNOWING VIOLATION OF A RESTRAINING ORDER IS A CRIME... YOU MAY BE ARRESTED WITHOUT NOTICE IF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE KNOWINGLY VIOLATED THIS ORDER"
-There was also a notice in the order to law enforcement officials that said "YOU SHALL USE EVERY REASONABLE MEANS TO ENFORCE THIS RESTRAINING ORDER"
-Gonzalez husband took the 3 daughters while they were playing outside the family home. No arrangements had been made for him to see the daughters that evening
-She called the police and showed them a copy of the order and requested it be enforced
-officers said there was nothing they could do and said to call again if they weren't back by 10pm
-she had talked to husband on phone, he said he had them at an amusement park
-she called police again and they said to wait
-at 10:10 she called again and said they were still missing, she was told to wait until midnight
-went to husbands apartment, found nobody there, called police again at 12:10 and told to wait for an officer to arrive
-when none came, she went to department at 12:50 to submit a report
-at 3:20am, Gonzalez husband arrived at police station, opened fire, police shot and killed him.
-inside the truck they found the bodies of all 3 daughters who he had murdered
-Supreme Court ruled that individuals have no constitutional right to have restraining orders enforced
-the document that formally charges defendants with specific crimes (authorizes magistrates to conduct the 1st appearance)
-magistrates complete 4 tasks at the 1st appearance
1. inform defendants of the charges against them
2. inform defendants of their constitutional rights
3. set bail and detain suspects
4. appoint attorneys for indigent defendants
a written formal charge made by prosecutors without a grand jury indictment
-they test their case at a preliminary hearing before a judge
-prosecutors decide who to prosecute
-how charges are filed in all federal courts
-result of a grand jury
-citizens decide who to prosecute
-for a "politcal cover"
-an adversarial proceeding that tests the government's case
-judges preside over preliminary hearings
-defendants and their lawyers attend too
-no constitutional right to a preliminary hearing
-bind over standard - there is enough evidence for judges to decide to go to trial
grand jury hearing
a secret proceeding to test the governments case
-jury of 24
-hear only the prosecution's case without the defense's participation
-prosecutors manage grand jury hearings without judicial participation
-defendants and their lawyers are banned from attending
-some say negotiation better serves the search for truth; others argue that the adversarial process better serves the ends of justice
-some maintain guilty pleas save time; others contend plea negotiations more than make up for the time it takes to go to trial
-some insist the CJ system would collapse under its own weight if only a few of the now vast majority of defendants who plead guilty asserted their right to trial; others contend banning plea bargaining would make little difference in how many defendants plead guilty
-some maintain the guilty plea intimidates the innocent and emboldens the guilty; other say outcomes between jury trials and guilty pleas don't differ much at all
-the public and police officers usually oppose plea bargaining because it "lets criminals off"
-"plea bargaining in the shadow of a trial model" - prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys act rationally to forecast the outcome of a trial
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy:
-the right to a speedy and public trial,
-by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and
-to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; --to be confronted with the witnesses against him;
-to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and
-to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
The 12-Member Jury Requirement
-the number 12 was only based on superstitions about that number (12 apostles, 12 tribes)
-the 6th amendment only demands enough jurors to achieve the goals of a jury trial to find the truth and allow for community participation in criminal justice decision making and that number isn't necessarily 12.
-6 member juries are enough to satisfy the 6th amendment, but what about 5? The supreme court says HELL NAH
-only have to be unanimous if there are less than 12 jurors
Batson v. Kentucky
-Batson, a black man, was on trial charged with second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods.
-During the jury selection, the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike the four black persons on the venire, resulting in a jury composed of all whites.
-Batson was convicted on both of the charges against him.
Question: Did the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to exclude the four blacks from the jury violate Batson's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a fair jury trial and his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws?
Conclusion: The Court found that the prosecutor's actions violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Racial discrimination in the selection of jurors not only deprives the accused of important rights during a trial, but also is devastating to the community at large because it "undermines public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice." Without identifying a "neutral" reason why the four blacks should have been excluded from the jury, the prosecutor's actions were in violation of the Constitution.
Determinate (fixed) sentencing
-fitting the punishment to the crime
-puts sentencing in the hand of legislators
-tailoring punishment to suit the criminal
-puts the power to sentence in the hands of judges or parole boards
Lockyer v. Andrade
-Andrade was found guilty of two felony counts of petty theft with a prior conviction after he stole approximately $150 worth of videotapes.
-Under California's "three strikes regime", a judge sentenced him to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life.
-Andrade argues that his sentence is grossly disproportionate to his crime, in violation of the Eigth Amendment
-Supreme Court held that it was not cruel and unusual punishment
denoting an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance to the defendant.
Why we have immunity for officials
the threat of being sued constantly would prevent them from doing their duty.
If somebody is in jail they have to be brought in front of a magistrate or a judge within 48 hours
to bring defendants to court to hear and answer to (plead to) the charges against them
-happens sometimes months after the arrest
4 possible answers to the charges:
1. not guilty
2. not guilty by reason of insanity
3. nolo contendre
-theyre also given a trial date
-most plead guilty for misdemeanors
Right to counsel also means a right to.......
-reasonably competent attorney standard -judges measure lawyers' performance against the "customary skills and diligence that a reasonable competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances"
2 pronged effective counsel test: (Strickland v. WA)
1. reasonableness prong - defendants have to prove that their lawyer's performance wasn't reasonably competent
2. prejudice prong - have to prove that their lawyer's incompetence was probably responsible for their conviction
-they do not contest to the issue of guilt or innocence
-"not saying i did it, not saying i didn't do it"
-you'll still be found guilty
-you also don't have to allocate (tell the story of what happened. instead, the prosecutor will) - this is handy for sexual assault cases so they don't have to admit it in front of mom, etc.
-allows one fair shot at convicting defendants
-limits the gov. advantage of greater resources
-reduced prolonged stress that multiple trials would lead to
-promotoes finality (closure) in criminal cases
-reduces the costs that multiple trials would lead to
-in jury trials, it kicks in when the jury is sworn in
-in bench trials, it kicks in when judge begins to hear evidence
-"linchpin" - the point where it kicks in
bans 3 actions:
1. a 2nd prosecution for the same offense after conviction
2. a 2nd prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal
3. multiple punishments for the same offense
-in cases where double jeopardy has kicked in, but the proceedings end before conviction or acquittal, the double jeopardy clause doesn't prevent a second prosecution for the same offense
-it is not double jeopardy to prosecute and punish a defendant for the same acts in separate jurisdictions
dual sovereignty - a crime arising out of the same facts in one state is not the same crime in another state.
Ex: Heath vs. Alabama -
-hired hitman to kill wife
-killer did it
-sentenced to life in Georgia
-part of crime was committed in Alabama, so Alabama prosecuted him too
The burden of proof
- the defense doesn't even have to present a case at all, it is up to the prosecution to prove they are guilty since they are "innocent until proven guilty"
Once you've been found guilty, presumption of innocence isn't there anymore, because you've been found guitly
-burden no longer on prosecutor
death penalty table info
-over 75% of the murder victims in cases resulting in an execution were white, even though nationally only 50% of murder victims are generally white
-black and whites who kill whites are more likely to receive the death sentence than someone who kills blacks
Factors that increases the severity or culpability of a criminal act, including, but not limited to, heinousness of the crime, lack of remorse, and prior conviction of another crime.
Ex: prior record of violent felony, felony murder, torture, etc
conditions or happenings which do not excuse or justify criminal conduct, but are considered out of mercy or fairness in deciding the degree of the offense the prosecutor charges or influencing reduction of the penalty upon conviction.
Ex: no prior record, youth, mental disturbance, etc
the place where you have the trial/where it is held
requires judges to impose a non discretionary minimum amount of prison time that all offenders convicted of the offense have to serve. Judges can sentence offenders to more than the mandatory minimum, but not less
-the practice of acquitting in the face of proof beyond a reasonable doubt
-if they do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, you MUST find them innocent
-if they do prove beyond a reasonable doubt, you MAY find them guilty
proven guilty but jurors say not guilty for political reasons, don't agree with law, etc
ex: OJ Simpson, marijuana cases
Stages BEFORE trial
2. 1st appearance (if they can't bail out)
3. Preliminary Hearing/Grand Jury
5. File Motions (suppression, etc)
Stages of Trial
1. Voir Dire
2. Jury Sworn in
3. Opening statements (prosecutor goes first)
4. prosecutor presents case in chief (evidence, etc.)
5. defense presents if they want to
6. (prosecution can do rebuttal if they want)
7. (defense can do sur-rebuttal if they rebut)^
8. closing statements
9. jury deliberation
10. jury comes with verdict
-when given a range (sentencing guidelines), judges can depart from the range set in the guidelines, but they have to give a written reason for their departure
-upward departures and downward departures
-black/hispanic defendants are less likely to receive downward departures and more likely to receive upward departures
-men less likely to receive downward and more likely to receive upward
- young defendants more likely to revise upward departures
and less likely to receive downward departures
you do NOT have a constitutional right to appeal
Sets with similar terms
Criminal Justice System
Criminal Procedure Quiz Chapters 8-11
Sets found in the same folder
Crim Proc mid term
Criminal Procedures Midterm - Jones
Criminal Procedures Final UARK Jones
Other sets by this creator
Biostats Exam 2 Vocab
Biostats Chapter 6
Biostats Chapter 5
Pediatric Habilitation Laws
Other Quizlet sets
World Civ. Chapter 1
1 N2-1 Mimi Kara Oboeru N2
BME 4400 Test II
Chapter 5.3 Pointless and absurd questions of the…
Herbert Packer's crime control model focuses on which of guilt?
Section 1988 of Title 42 United States Code was intended to
Under the Fourth Amendment, when executing a search warrant, police are authorized to use reasonable force if necessary to detain the occupants while the search is going on.
If a suspect is taken into custody but not questioned, they still have a constitutional right to Miranda warnings.