Select Page

Criminal Procedure II
SUNY Buffalo Law School
O'Rourke, Anthony

O’Rourke_Crim Pro_Fall ‘13
I.                   Screening and Charging
a.       Prosecutorial Discretion
                                                    i.      The Decision to Charge
1.      Considerations:
a.       Separation of powers
b.      Judiciary not good at deciding what to prosecute
–          Π’s have wide discretion
–          President can remove overzealous Π
2.      Assumptions
3.      No judicial review of decision not to file charges
a.       Π sought to compel U.S. attorney to investigate their claims of abuse
b.      Reluctance to direct federal prosecutor at bidding of private party
–          Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller
                                                  ii.      Selecting the Charge
1.      Π has wide discretion in charge selection
a.       Δ violated two statutes, one harsher than the other
b.      No due process right to be charged under lesser of crimes
–          U.S. v. Batchelder
                                                iii.      Limits on the Charging Power
1.      Equal protection limits on prosecutorial discretion
a.       Substantive standard
–          Can’t be racist / prejudicial
b.      Evidentiary burden
–          No discovery available without Prima Facie showing
1.      Requires “clear evidence to the contrary”
a.       Difficult to show gov’t has violated
b.      Limited evidence (proof)
c.       Selective prosecution: Elements
1.      Other violators similarly situated
2.      Intentionally selected
3.      Arbitrary and invidious classification
2.      Steep crack sentences fall disproportionately on blacks 
a.       Presumption Π acts accordingly – demanding evidentiary standard
b.      Must show discriminatory effect and purpose (similarly situated individuals were not prosecuted)
–          U.S. v. Armstrong
3.      Due process limits on charging decision
a.       Selective prosecution claim failed to show improper purpose:
1.      Protesting draft registry / 1st amendment rights] b.      Discriminatory purpose implies decision maker affirmed course of action because of its adverse effects upon and identifiable group
–          U.S. v. Wayte
c.       Protects against purposeful discrimination on exercising 1st amend. rights
                                                iv.      Charging Considerations
1.      Monopoly over criminal prosecutions
a.       Private citizens can’t bring cases or force Π to prosecute
–          Lack standing to prosecute their own decision “no cognizable injury” can’t show this arises from non-enforcement
                                                  v.      The Grand Jury
1.      “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except…”
a.       Evidentiary standard
b.      Voting rules
c.       Tenure
d.      Agenda Control
e.       Scope of Inquiry
f.       Technical Details
                                                vi.      The Screening Function
1.      Preliminary Hearings
a.       Purpose: to determine if there is probable cause to believe an offense has been committed and the Δ committed it – FRCP 5.1(e)
–          Adversarial in nature
1.      Right to cross examine and introduce evidence
2.      Rules of evidence relaxed / nonexistent: hearsay introduced
2.      Grand Jury Review
a.       Unless waived, charging decision always submitted to G. J. [5th amend] –          Generally little to no way to challenge Grand Jury
b.      Nature of evidence before a Grand Jury :          
–          Incitements valid on their face are valid
1.      Few limitations, Δ cannot challenge indictment for inadequate or incompetent evidence
–          Costello v. U.S.
c.       Evidentiary disclosure requirement:
1.      May not dismiss an otherwise valid indictment on the grounds that government failed to disclose substantial exculpatory evidence to grand jury
–          U.S. v. Williams
II.                The Right to Assistance of Counsel at Trial (K)
a.       K Requirements
                                                    i.      6th amend. – attaches as soon as formal adversarial proceedings brought:
1.      Indictment or Preliminary Hearing (Does not attach to appearances before G. J.)
                                                  ii.      Right to counsel in all felony prosecutions
–          Gideon v. Wainwright
                                                iii.      Right to counsel in non-felony cases resulting in actual incarceration
–          Argersinger v. Hamlin
b.      Misdemeanors
                                                    i.      No right to counsel for misdemeanors not resulting in incarceration
–          Scott v. Illinois
                                                  ii.      Misdemeanor convictions not resulting in incarceration can serve as basis for subsequent penalty increases
–          Nichols v. U.S.
                                                iii.      Right to counsel where Δ gets probation and two-year suspended sentence
a.       Court’s goal: whoever goes to jail definitely had a lawyer
–          Alabama v. Sheldon
III.             Bail & Detention
a.       Bail Amounts
                                                    i.      “Excessive bail shall not be required” – 8th Amend.
1.      Violates due process if used as punishment
                                                  ii.      Pretrial Release System:
1.      Δ agrees to show up, pledges property or security – forfeited if Δ fails to show up
                                                iii.      K Limits:
1.      When bail exists, it can be no greater than is necessary to ensure Δ appears
a.       FRCP 46(c) Factors when considering setting bail to ensure Δ’s presence:
1.      Offense
2.      Weight of evidence
3.      Financial ability
4.      Δ’s character                   
2.      Individual assessment of Δ’s likelihood to flee – not blanket determination
a.       i.e. Mike Bloomberg v. homeless guy (less to lose, greater flight risk)
–          Stack v. Boyle
                                                iv.      Capital cases:
1.      Where likelihood or proof of guilt it great, judges have discretion to deny bail
a.       i.e. N.Y. statute – village and city courts forbidden from granting bail for felony A proceedings

sumption of prejudice against Δ due to gov’t negligence – triggers Barker analysis
1.      Delay compromises reliability of trail. This case met Barker criteria:
a.       Extraordinary delay
b.      Gov’t negligence was to blame
c.       Δ asserted right (unaware of original indictment)
d.      Presumptively prejudiced Δ’s defense
–          Doggett v. U.S.
e.       Application of speedy trial to terrorist (unsympathetic Δ)
                                                    i.      Five year delay before trial, including Δ’s detention for interrogation and as an alien enemy combatant did not violate the Speedy Trial Clause
–          U.S. v. Ghailani
V.                Discovery and Disclosure
a.       5th Amendment right not to “be a witness against oneself” in a criminal case
                                                    i.      Criminal discovery tends to be more narrow than in civil cases
1.      Tension between who has inherent advantages and who should get more disclosure
b.      The Defense
                                                    i.      Constraints on Δ’s discovery obligations
1.      Due Process clause (mutuality required)
2.      Self-Incrimination Clause
a.       Covers only Δ’s communications
                                                  ii.      Constitutional Requirements:
1.      Florida’s “notice of alibi” rule, compelling Δ’s to inform gov’t of alibi ahead of time as well as names and addresses of witnesses they intend to use held constitutional
a.       Sufficiently balanced against state’s liberal discovery rules for Δ
1.      Aids in truth-seeking function in adversarial process
2.      Doesn’t require Δ to ‘fix’ defense or alibi, may change
3.      No opportunity to lie and deceive, keeps costs down
a.       Due process analysis = balance of forces btwn Π and Δ
–          Williams v. Florida
                                                iii.      Generally, Π disclosure is broader than Δ disclosure
1.      Overall expansion since Williams, at state level Δ disclosure is broader
a.       i.e. “notice of alibi” rule invalidated which did not provide reciprocal privileges for Π
–          Wardius v. Oregon
                                                iv.      Sanctions for Nondisclosure       
1.      Δ failed to identify witness during discovery. Judge’s sanction excluded witness from testimony as a result
a.       Held constitutional:
1.      Last minute witnesses are suspicious, tends toward disingenuousness – violation leads to assumption of fabrication: excluding ‘tainted’ evidence is appropriate