Criminal Procedure Adversary System Outline

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ADVERSARY SYSTEM
JOHNSTON
SPRING 2013
 
 
 
I)       Steps in the Process
A)    Pre-Arrest Investigation
B)     Arrest
C)     Booking
D)    Post-Arrest Investigation
E)     The Decision to Charge
F)      Filing the Complaint
G)    Magistrate Review of the Arrest
H)    The First Appearance
I)       Preliminary Hearing
J)       Grand Jury Review
K)    Filling of the Indictment or Information
L)     Arraignment on the Information or Indictment
M)   Pretrial Motions
N)    Guilty Plea Negotiations and Acceptance
O)    The Trial
P)      Sentencing
Q)    Appeals
R)     Collateral Remedies
II)    Jurisdictions
A)    There are 52 jurisdictions: all 52 must, at a minimum meet the requirements of the guarantees of the constitution
1)      Each of the 50 state gov’t retains the authority to enact its own criminal code
2)      Even where the constitutional regulation is comprehensive the states remain free to go beyond the constitutionally mandated minimum and impose more rigorous safeguards.
III) Sources of Criminal Procedure Law
§  Constitution of the US, specifically various provision of the Bill of Rights (4th, 5th, 6th) as well as the DPC  of the 14th
o   Federal cases: federal court’s supervisory power over the administration of the federal criminal justice system provides an occasional source of authority
o   State cases: State constitutional provisions that furnish an individual more protection than does the US Constitution are also important.
A)    Theories of Incorporation
1)      Duncan v. Louisiana: 1968
(i)     Test for whether a right is fundamental: “The question thus is whether given this kind of system a particular procedure is fundamental—whether, that is, a procedure is necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty.”
(a)    Right must be fundamental to our concept of ordered liberty.
(ii)   Holding: Sixth Amendment right to jury trial applicable to the States in capital cases
(iii) “BC we believe that trial by jury in criminal cases is fundamental to the American scheme of justice we hold that the 14th amendment guarantees a right of jury trial in all criminal cases which—were they to be tried in a federal court—would come w/in Sixth Amendment’s guarantee
(iv) Fundamental=all rights except 5th amendment requirement of prosecution by indictment; maybe 6th amendment guarantee that jury be selected from “the state and district where the crime shall have been committed.
 
2)      Williams v. Florida: Harlan’s Concurrence
(i)     Six-person jury does not violate the Sixth Amendment
(a)    12 person jury fundamental to federal system, but state juries can be as few as 6 (Williams)
(b)   Jury unanimity fundamental to federal system but is not incorporated to states
(ii)   Reasoning
(a)    “that jury at common law was composed of precisely 12 is an historical accident, unnecessary to effect the purpose of the jury system,” thus 6-person jury in criminal cases does not violate the sixth amendment as applied to the States via the 14th.
(b)   “rather than bind the States hitherto undeviating and unquestioned federal practice of 12-member juries, the Court holds, based on a poll of state practice, that a six-man jury satisfies the guarantee of a trial by jury in a federal criminal system and consequently carries over to the states.
B)     Federal Courts Supervisory Power Over the Administration of Federal Criminal Justice
1)      Definition
(i)     Supervisory power refers to the power of oversight over an inferior body. It does not include any restraining authority over the supervised party.
(ii)   Exists to implement a remedy for violation of recognized rights, ensure conviction rests on appropriate considerations before jury, remedy to deter illegal conduct.
2)      United States v. Payner: 1980
(i)     Facts: Bahamian banker came to the U.S upon arrival an IRS agent stole his briefcase and photographed hundred of documents Payner ends up getting arrested bc of federal income tax violations.  Bc Payner lacked standing to challenge the briefcase caper under the Court’s 4th amendment precedents the federal district court invoked its supervisory power to exclude the tainted evidence.
(ii)   Holding: The supervisory power “does not authorize a federal court” to exclude evidence that did not violate the D’s 4th amendment rights
(a)    Basically the court has no power to exclude evidence under its supervisory power without having that power under the constitution.
(iii) Reasoning: Were we to accept this use of the supervisory power, we would confer on the judiciary discretionary power to disregard the considered limitations of the law it is charged with enforcing.
3)      United States v. Hasting: 1983
(i)     Facts: 5 Ds were convicted of kidnapping and transporting women across state lines during trial the prosecutor repeatedly mentioned how the Ds did not take the stand and had a habbit of not taking the stand.
(ii)   We proceed on the assumption that, without so stating, the court was exercising its supervisory powers to discipline the prosecutors of its jurisdiction. We hold that the harmless error doctrine may not be avoided by an assertion of supervisory power, simply to justify a reversal of these criminal convictions.
(a)    While it is normally impermissible to comment on such things in this case the Court responded it was harmless. The Court cannot reverse a conviction based on harmless error due to its supervisory power.
(iii) In the exercise of supervisory powers, federal courts may, within limits, formulate procedural rules not specifically required by the constitution of the Congress.
(iv) The purposes underlying use of the supervisory powers are threefold:
(a)    To implement a remedy for violation of recognized rights
(b)   To preserve  judicial integrity by ensuring that a conviction rests on appropriate considerations validly before the jury
(c)    And finaly as a remedy designed to deter illegal conduct.
(v)   Supervisory power to reverse a conviction is not needed as a remedy when the error to which it is addressed is harmless since by definition, the conviction would have been obtained notwithstanding the asserted error.
(a)    that is if an error is harmless you can’t get around it by using the supervisory power.
(vi) Note: The Hasting Court noted that, w/in limits, federal courts may exercise their “supervisory power to formulate procedural rules not specifically required by the Constitution or the Congress.”
4)      Takeaway
(i)     Three purposes underlying the use of supervisory powers: 1) To implement a remedy for violation of recognized rights; 2) To preserve judicial integrity by ensuring that a conviction rests on appropriate considerations validly before the jury; and 3) As a remedy designed to deter illegal conduct
(ii)   Both in Payner and in Hastings, the Court left no doubt that it took a dim view of the federal courts’ exercise of their supervisory power.”
 
Right to Counsel
I)       Introduction/ AG’s Committee on Poverty
A)    Concept of Poverty
1)      The constitutional rights to the appointment of counsel are not conditioned on a showing of total destitution. Rather, the criterion appears to be a lack of financial resources adequate to permit the accused to hire his own lawyer.
2)      It follows that concern w/ poverty and the administration of criminal justice requires attention to be extended beyond those who are unable at the outset of the proceeding to obtain release on bail or hire counsel. It requires consideration, also, of those who, although possessing the means to obtain some elements of an adequate defense, lack the means to secure other essential elements.
3)      A problem of poverty arises for the system of criminal justice when at any stage of the proceedings lack of means in the accused substantially inhibits or prevents the proper assertion of a right or a claim of right
B)     The Obligation of “Equal Justice”
1)      While government may not be required to relieve the accused of his poverty, it may properly be required to minimize the influence of poverty on its administration of justice.
C)    Poverty and the Adversary System
1)      It is clear that a situation in which persons are required to contest a serious accusation but are denied access to the tools of contest is offensive to fairness and equity, beyond these considerations, however, is the fact that the conditions produced by the financial incapacity of the accused are detrimental to the proper functioning of the system of justice and that the loss in vitality of the adversary system, thereby occasioned, significantly endangers the basic interests of a free community.
 
II)    The Right to Counsel
A)    The Right to Appointed Counsel in Criminal Proceedings
1)      Powell v. Alabama: 1932
(i)     Facts: Train ride from Memphis to Chattanooga Black youths (Scotsbourough boys) accused of raping two white womenimmediately arrestedtrial began 12 days after the incident and represented by a 7 year old lawyer who was basically senilestate sought death penalty main prosecution witness said the youths threw white boys off train and raped the girlsboth girls did not have injuries, only a little semenultimately convicted
(ii)   Reasoning: The right to be heard would be in many cases of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to heard by counsel.
(iii) Holding: Requires that counsel be appointed is limited in capital cases and the characteri