Criminal Law Outline

 
Criminal Law Outline
Prof. Boucai
Fall 2013
 
 
 
Introduction
 
I.              What makes criminal law distinctive?
a) Must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt (standard of proof), cases are usually   brought by the state. 
b) Crimes are injuries to society not just individuals. 
c) Criminal cases require public enforcement and potential consequences are imprisonment and even execution- not completely distinct.
d) A hefty civil law fine can be worse than imprisonment to some people. Civil law detention for the mentally ill or immigrants.
 
I.              Henry Hart:  The judgment of community condemnation.  Society’s moral condemnation?
a.    Question: Is it only our moral condemnation of drug offenses that puts people in jail? An equal number of black and white men use drugs, but a vastly disproportionate number of black men are in prison.
 
II.            Mens Rea: 
a.    A guilty mind, someone can still be charged with a statutory crime despite lacking mens rea.
b.    A guilty mind is required that makes the criminal morally blameworthy.
 
III.           Sources of criminal law:
a.    Statutes (Legislature is primary source of criminal law). States have their own penal law
b.    Constitutional limits/safeguards (cruel/unusual punishment, ex post facto, etc.)
c.    Common law
d.    The Model Penal Code (MPC) (ideal set of criminal statutes).  Has greatly influenced criminal law reform. States have adopted large portions or used it for guidance.
 
IV.          Gopnick, The Caging of America:  25% of U.S. population in prison
 
V.  The criminal process:
Pre-trial (discretion is a major theme of the process):
a.    Legislation
b.    Commission of offense (alleged)
c.    Report
d.    Investigation
e.    Arrest (standard: probable cause)
f.     Charge: by a complaint or an information (document setting out the formal charges against the accused and the basic facts relating to them)
g.    Grand Jury indictment in some state & all federal courts
h.    Plea
 
Trial (6th Amendment, the exception not the rule):
a.  Right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury (Duncan v. Louisiana, 1968)
b.    Jury selection
i. 6-12 jurors
ii. Voir dire
 Entitlement to a fair cross section of the community
 If a potential juror’s response demonstrates partiality, the juror is excused “for cause.”
 Prosecutor/Defense attorney is also entitled to a limited number of “preemptory challenges”
– not based on cause, seem biased based on intuition
 Cannot violate based on race or gender (14th Amendment)
c.    Prosecution presents evidence
d.    Defense attorney can make a motion for directed verdict of acquittal: asserts the presumption of innocence, claiming The People failed to overcome the presumption in its presentation of its case. If there is no evidence upon which a reasonable mind might fairly conclude guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the motion must be granted. (Curley v. U.S., 1947).
e.    Defense presents evidence
f.     Closing arguments
g.    Judge instructs jury (c.b.11 for reasonable doubt sample instructions)
h.    Jury deliberation and decision (decide only if guilty/not-guilty).
i.      Sentencing
j.      Post-trial: Appeal?
 
V.            Proof beyond a reasonable doubt & the presumption of innocence
a.    Defined: A juror’s mind must be in a subjective state of near certitude of guilt.
b.    Constitutionally required standard: beyond a reasonable doubt MPC § 1.12(1).
c.    Rationale: to maintain the community’s respect and confidence in the application of criminal law.
d.    Rationale: It is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let 10 guilty men go free.
e.    A conviction based upon circumstantial evidence alone is not to be sustained unless the circumstances are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence (Owens v. State).
f.     Owens v. State (c.b.13):
                                          i.    Facts: D found unconscious behind the wheel of a running vehicle with its lights on and several beer cans in the passenger seat and a can between his legs. Note: DWI cannot be charged for driving on private roadways/parking lots.
                                         ii.     3 factors to lead to an unreasonable hypothesis of innocence: (1) his driveway or someone else’s? (unknown) (2) people don’t normally carry empty and open beer cans to their car after consuming them (more likely he was coming than going); (3) Suspicious complaints about a neighbor’s activities in their driveway are usually not called in, suggesting it was someone else’s driveway.
 
VI.          Punishment: Initial Considerations
a.    Why ask why? Punishment is unpleasant and we need to legitimately justify why we cause this unpleasantness. We must determine if something is punishment because constitutional safeguards might apply.
b.    Who should be punished? How much punishment is appropriate? Should we use more non-incarcerative methods of punishment?
c.    What is punishment?
                                          i.    Greenawalt’s (c.b.30,34) definition:  Punishment requires justification. We need congruence between threat and actual performance because future threats will be taken less seriously if past threats are not
fulfilled. Punishment is:
1) Performed by, and directed at, agents who are responsible in some sense.
2) Designed to be unpleasant.
3) Usually preceded by a judgment of condemnation.
4) Imposed by one with authority to do so.
5) Imposed for breach of an established rule of behavior.
6) Imposed on the one who violated the rule.
ii. Methods: Restitution, imprisonment, fines, seizure of property, rehab/counseling (could depend on the person if it is considered punishment – meant to be productive and not just punitive – Greenawalt would not consider it punishment because it is not unpleasant), community service, death, shame, threat/warning, loss of privileges, commitment of a predator (Greenawalt says this is not punishment because it is meant more to protect the public than to punish).
                                         ii.    Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997):  D’s sentence was extended beyond his punishment (he was civilly committed for mental illness. D argued this was double jeopardy. Commitment under the Act does not implicate either of the 2 primary objectives of criminal punishment: retribution or deterrence.
d.    Approaches to punishment: Halden Prison versus Pelican Bay Prison
                                          i.    Halden: utilitarian – cultivates a respect of the society that is punishing them. Treats them with 3 dignity by giving access to comforts and educational services, etc. that poor criminals typically lack access.
                                         ii.    Pelican Bay Prison: Retributive – Does the criminal deserve the treatment of Halden?
 
VII.         Theories of Punishment
a.    Utilitarianism:  Punish criminals because it is