IX. Introduction: Setting the Stage
A. Trial by Jury pg.7
1. 6th Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury
a) Its most important element, the right to have the jury, rather than the judge, reach the requisite finding of guilty in all prosecutions for which the maximum potential punishment exceeds incarceration of six months. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, pg.8
b) Granted in order to prevent oppression by the government. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, pg 8.
c) Juries typically are 12 people but can be as little as 6 depending on the state.
B. Proof of Guilt at Trial
1. 14th Amendment: No state shall…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law
2. 5th Amendment: No person shall be….subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law
a) Since a criminal conviction includes loss of liberty and stigma, it requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard also helps to command the respect and confidence of the community in applications of criminal law. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), pg 9.
b) Reasonable doubt is not quantifiable: Subjective state of near certitude.
(1) The meaning of reasonable doubt is self-evident and efforts to define it lead only to confusion or even dilution of the state’s burden of proof. (see page 9 for unconstitutional instruction)
C. Enforcing the Presumption of Innocence
1. Owens v. State, 93 Md.App. 162 (1992) pg 13
a) Issue: Was the circumstantial evidence legally sufficient to find Δ guilty of DUI when he was found passed out in someone else’s driveway drunk with his car on.
b) Holding: The evidence was legally sufficient to find Δ guilty because the totality of the circumstances are inconsistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. They do not foreclose the hypothesis but such has never been required. They do make the hypothesis more strained and less likely. By an inverse proportion, the diminishing force of one inference enhances the force of its alternative.
c) Rules
(1) Circumstantial Evidence: A conviction upon circumstantial evidence alone is not to be sustained unless the circumstances are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
(2) State to prevail: There has to be some other factor to enhance the likelihood of the guilty inference and to diminish the likelihood of the innocent inference.
(3) Sufficiency of Evidence: A reasonable juror could find that the Δ engaged in conduct that the statute defines as criminal. Is a question of law but have to take into account fact. The bottom line is if there is enough evidence for the crime.
(4) Directed Verdict Standard: A trial judge must determine whether upon the evidence, giving full play to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weight the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact, a reasonable mind might fairly conclude guild beyond a reasonable doubt. If he concludes that upon the evidence there must be such a doubt in a reasonable mind, he must grant the motion. Pg 18
(5) Standard of Review for Conflicting Facts: An appellate court faced with a record of historical facts that supports conflicting inferences must presume that the trier of fact resolved any such conflicts in favor of the prosecution, and must defer to that resolution. Pg 18
(a) Trier of fact in a better position to resolve the facts (creditability & inferences)
D. Jury Nullification
1. The jury has the raw power to acquit for any reason whatsoever due to the double jeopardy clause. 5th Amendment
2. State v. Ragland, 105 N.J. 189 (1986). Pg 19.
a) Issue: Was the judge’s use of the word “must” in the instruction conflicted with the jury’s nullification power.
b) Holding: There should be no instruction given for jury nullification. The fundamental defect in jury nullification is obvious. It is a power that is absolutely inconsistent with the most important value of Western democracy, that we should live under a government of laws and not of men. Jury nullification is an unfortunate but unavoidable power. Efforts to protect and expand it are inconsistent with the real values of our system of criminal justice.
c) Reasoning: Weight of federal authority against. Power flows from double jeopardy, not the right to a jury trial. No constitutional or other legal authority mandates instruction. Not good policy
3. See People v. Williams pg 24 and note 5 pg 25 for further discussion
X. Principles of Punishment
A. Characteristics of Punishment
1. It is performed by, and directed at, agent who are responsible in some sense
2. It involves designedly harmful or unpleasant consequences
3. The unpleasant consequences usually are preceded by a judgment of condemnation; the subject of punishment is explicitly blamed for committing a wrong.
4. It is imposed by one who has authority to do so
5. It is imposed for a breach of some established rule of behavior
6. It is imposed on
to a prison sentence substantially longer than otherwise would have been required.
e) Restorative Justice: The emphasis is on restoration of losses, allowing offenders to take direct responsibility for their actions, and assisting victims in moving beyond their sense of vulnerability and achieving some closure.
(1) Victim-offender mediation typically occurs, the goal of which is to foster interpersonal reconciliation between victim and wrongdoer, as well as to strengthen social reconciliation between the offender and the community
f) United States v. Gementera, 379 F.3d 596 (9th circuit, 2004) pg. 59
(1) Issue: Is the punishment of a supervised release condition that requires a convicted mail thief to spend a day standing outside a post office wearing a signboard stating, “I stole mail. This is my punishment.” Constitutional.
(2) Holding: The condition imposed upon Gementera reasonably related to the legitimate statutory objective of rehabilitation. A per se rule that the mandatory public airing of one’s offense can never assist an offender to reassume his duty of obedience to the law would impose a narrow penological orthodoxy not contemplated by the Guidelines’ express approval of any other condition the district court considers to be appropriate.
(3) Reasoning: The fact that a condition causes shame or embarrassment does not automatically render a condition objectionable; rather, such feelings generally signal the defendant’s acknowledgment of his wrongdoing. The punishment could be considered crude but with the coupling with more socially useful provisions, including lecturing at a high school and writing apologies, that might loosely be understood to promote the offender’s social reintegration
g) Rule:
(1) Reasonable Relation Test: The court must determine whether the sentencing judge imposed the conditions for permissible purposes, and then it must determine whether the conditions are reasonably related to the purpose
(a) A very flexible due to the uncertainty about how rehabilitation is accomplished.
