CRIM PRO RULES
Kaye
Spring 2017
Handout 1: Applying the Bill of Rights to State and Federal Government
Twining v. New Jersey
The SI privilege is not a P&I and not essential to DP
Palko v. Connecticut
A D’s 14A DP is deprived when a practice destroys the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty, and because a retrial based on legal error is not essential to a fundamental scheme of ordered liberty, and thus D’s request not be put in double jeopardy was denied.
Duncan v. Louisiana
When a crime is serious, DP requires a jury trial
“A crime punishable by two years in prison, based on past and contemporary standards in this country, a serious crime”
Benton v. Maryland
Once it was decided that a particular Bill of Rights guarantee is “fundamental to the American scheme of justice” (Duncan), the same constitutional standards apply against both the State and Federal Governments.
Handout 2: Due Process and the Right to Appointed Counsel
Powell v. Alabama
Johnson v. Zerbst
The 6th Am. withholds from federal courts, in all criminal proceedings, the power and authority to deprive an accused of his life or liberty unless he has or waives the assistance of counsel.
Betts v. Brady
Due Process “does not incorporate, as such, the specific guarantees found in the 6th Am.”
States shouldn’t be straight-jacketed by a construction of the 14th Am.
Due Process is “less rigid and more fluid”—requires an appraisal of the totality of the facts in a given case
Gideon v. Wainwright
the 14th amendment incorporates the 6th amendment right to counsel to the states
Summary: (Powell to Gideon)
Case-by-case search for special circumstances
Per se rule for capital cases
Per se rule for a broad range of cases (including petty offenses w/ imprisonment, broadly understood)
Right attaches at preliminary arraignment and applies to “critical stages”
Trial and pretrial preparation (Powell, Rothgery)
First Direct Appeal (Douglas)
Handout 3: Creating the 4th Amendment Exclusionary Rule
Weeks v. United States
4th Am. compels exclusion at a federal trial of papers from an unreasonable search/seizure by federal officials
When federal officials seize items from a defendant’s home in violation of the 4th Am., the federal government may no introduce them as evidence in the defendant’s criminal trial
Wolf v. Colorado
14th Am. Due Process includes 4A ban on unreasonable search/seizure, but it does not compel the exclusion at a state trial of papers from an unreasonable search/seizure.
In a prosecution in state court for a state crime, the 14th Am. does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search/seizure
Mapp v. Ohio (overrules Wolf)
14th Am. Due Process fully incorporates 4th Am. –both the ban on reasonable search/seizure and the exclusionary rule at a state trial
Handout 4: 4th Amendment: Scope
Defining Searches: Places
Hester v. United States
The special protection accorded by the 4th Am. to the people in their “persons, houses, papers, and effects” is not extended to the open fields. Distinction between the latter and the house is as old as the common law.
Silverman v. United States
At the core of the 4A stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be from Unreasonable gov’t intrusions.
Officers secretly listen with a spike man
Katz v. United States
The 4th Am. protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of 4th Am. protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.
The Government’s activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner’s words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth, and thus constituted a search/seizure w/in the meaning of the 4th Am. à the employment of an electronic devise has no constitutional
imited in the manner in which information is obtained and in the content of the information revealed by the procedure
Illinois v. Caballes
Car: 4A not violates when the use of a drug-sniffing dog during a routine traffic stop does not unreasonably prolong the length of the stop.
[F] Caballes stopped for speeding, second officer arrived with dog and circled the car, lasted 10 minutes without prolonging the stop, found drugs
Property Interests and Reasonable Expectations
United States v. Jones
The warrantless placement of a GPS tracking device on the undercarriage of an individual’s vehicle in order to track the person’s movements on public streets constitutes an unlawful search in violation of the 4th Am.
Florida v. Jardines
Unlicensed PIPA: The officer’s investigation took place in a constitutionally protected area. The detectives and dog were on the constitutionally protected extension of Jardine’s home. (curtilage)
That the officers learned only by physically intruding on Jardine’s property to gather evidence is enough to establish that the search occurred
Summary: Scope of the 4th Am.
Either REOP (Katz) or PIPA (trespass on some property in Jones, Jardines)
But the reasonableness of the expectations are influenced by protected areas:
Compare Karo (beeper in the home) with Knotts (beeper on a road)
Assume risk in conveying information
To associates (Hoffa, White), banks (Miller), garbage collectors (Greenwood)
General public (Katz dictum, Greenwood, Knotts)
