1. LEGAL GUILT
A. Presumption of Innocence
Owens v. State
Man asleep in car on private driveway w/ open Budweiser between legs & other cans in car, car running.
HOLDING: The totality of the circumstances was inconsistent w/ a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The drawing of the inference of guilt is more than a mere flip of a coin between guilt and innocence.
RULE: Appellate judge is saying that even if I disagree with it, if there was a reasonable hypothesis in the trial court and there’s at least a 50% chance that the D is guilty/innocent, I can’t overturn it (the appellate court is applying a “preponderance of evidence” standard even if they don’t call it that – unlike the “reasonable doubt” standard that must be applied in the trial court).
B. Reasonable Doubt
· Different standards for different cases!!
1) Preponderance of evidence
· CIVIL
· Over 50% for liability
· More likely than not
· Has to be more than a flip of a coin
2) Clear and convincing standard
· Convince trier of fact that something is substantially more likely than not. (don’t tell you the number, but it’s more than 50%)
3) BEYOND a reasonable doubt
· Criminal cases (don’t put a number on it, but MORE than preponderance, more than clear & convincing)
· Each element has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not just “is he guilty or not”
· Concept derived from Constitution, from due process clause of 5th amendment
§ Standard is pretty novel
· JUDGE provides the definition to the jurors of “beyond a reasonable doubt”
o Some judges have gotten in trouble on appeal by explaining reasonable doubt too much to jurors
· ie: NV judge placed reasonable doubt at a 7.5 (ie: 75%), court said that’s not allowed, but didn’t provide a number that IS appropriate.
· Prefer qualitative, not quantitative.
· DIFFERENT instructions: (pg 12-13) Think about whether the instruction would lead to wrongful acquittals/convictions.
· LARGE doubt: fewer acquittals. Better for π.
· SMALL doubt: more acquittals. Better for Δ.
2. Jury Nullification
Jury is the community’s representative
Perhaps jurors believe Δ’s behavior doesn’t constitute a crime, even though the π’s case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is a power, not a right!! Courts are neutral: neither encourage nor discourage.
This works because acquittal is never appealed and the 5th amendment bans double jeopardy.
State v. Ragland
Δ = a previously convicted felon, was prosecuted for various offenses including armed robbery & possession of a weapon by a convicted felon.
ISSUE:Did the judge’s instruction of “…you must find [Δ Ragland] guilty of the [possession] charge” conflict with the jury’s nullification power, which the Δ claims is an essential attribute of his constitutional right to a jury trial. Should the judge have informed the jury regarding its power of nullification?
HOLDING: The power of the jury to acquit despite not only overwhelming proof of guilt but despite the jury’s belief in that guilt (beyond a reasonable doubt) is not one of the “precious” attributes of a jury trial – it is nothing more than a power, and it should not be encouraged by including it in the judge’s instructions.
RULE: Jury nullification is a power, not a right.
3. Principles of Punishment
· People tend to think that utilitarians are in favor of less punishment and retributivists in favor of more punishment, but that’s not the case. W/in each theory, can argue either way for a specific fact scenario.
UTILITARIANISM = Forward Looking
· “How will this punishment benefit us in the future?”
· Punishment is justified as a means to prevent more harm than caused, it is a necessary evil in that it is not a good thing, but the harm prevented by punishment is greater than the harm caused by punishment.
o Balancing act: Cost/benefit analysis
· GOALS:
a) Deterrence: Specific (Individual) and General
b) Incapacitation: Prevent those who would do harm from doing it.
c) Rehabilitation: Preventing future harm done by punishee.
i. “Pollyanna” view that you’ll change the person’s internal self so they don’t have the desire/need to commit that crime.
· BENTHAM is the father of Utilitarianism
1) Measure everything by whether it increases or decreases happiness
2) Government’s role is to augment that happiness
i. How do you measure it? Do some people matter more than others? Some communities?
3) Punishment in and of itself = evil
4) Have to be able to argue that pleasure/benefit outweighs pain in order for punishment to be used.
RETRIBUTIVSM = Backward Looking
· Focuses on “blameworthyness”: not exactly an “eye for an eye” but kind of.
· Restores equilibrium of justice.
o Affirms victim’s value and counters wrongdoers’ superiority so wrongdoer can re-enter society.
· Two views:
o One view: He should be punished, no matter what.
o Another view: Morally culpable? What if his buddy who actually pulled the trigger was already paroled? Could make argument that he shouldn’t have to pay more.
· Proportionality: Balancing the crime to the amount of punishment. Culpability – if you punish someone more than is necessary for the culpability the punishment is excessive.
· Goals:
a) Justice: Just desserts.
b) Punishment: Way to cleanse society, that’s how the person comes back into the fold as an equal. “Time out.”
· KANT is the spokesperson.
1) The individual deserves to be punished.
2) Moral equilibrium/balance
3) Person who commits crime on deserted island, should they be punished? According to Kant, yes.
4) R’s think that U’s are dangerous, if it is proven that every time there’s an execution, homicide rate goes down, U’s would allow it even if it might not be a guilty person they are executing (ie, didn’t catch the right guy but just executing whoever).
o R’s say, “no way!” Innocent person should never be sacrificed.
The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens
Carnivore Castaways
HOLDING: The killing of Richard Parker by Dudley and Stephens was felony and murder because even though there was no appreciable chance of saving life except by killing someone for the others to eat, there was no greater necessity for killing the boy than any of the other three men. (they should have “drawn lots”!!)
People v. Superior Court (Du)
Lady in the Liquor Store
ISSUE: Did the trial court judge abuse discretion by placing Du on probation?
HOLDING: The appellate court concluded, based on the record presented, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the statutory conditions for probation (see brief for conditions) were satisfied in Δ’s case.
United States v. Gementera
OPTIONAL CASE
Scarlet letter for stealing mail
Rule of Law and Holding
Probation and supervised release conditions must meet a “reasonable relation” test to statutory objectives. Further, “a public apology may serve a rehabilitative purpose.”
4. Proportionality and the Eighth Amendment
· 8th amendment bars cruel & unusual punishment and punishments disproportionate to the crime.
o “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
· Solem Test to see whether a sentence is so disproportionate that it violates 8th Amendment:
1. The gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty
2. The sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction
3. The sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.
· Rummel Factors/Justice Breyer’s Threshold Test from the Ewing dissent:
1. Length of the prison term in real time, i.e, the time the offender is likely actually to spend in prison;
2. The sentence-triggering criminal conduct;
3. The offender’s criminal history.
· Should the 8th Amendment
orn but viable fetus a “human being” w/in the meaning of the CA statute defining murder?
REASONING: Statute says “human being” – how do we find out what the legislature meant? How does the court go about finding out what the legislature meant?
Look back to when the statute was drafted.
What was the common law at the time?
HOLDING: The Legislature did not intend for the words “human being” to apply to fetuses, and that for them to construe the statute to the contrary and apply it to this petitioner would exceed their judicial power and deny petitioner due process of law.
· Court is essentially saying that there’s just as good of arguments for the state and for Keeler, so their hands are tied. It’s a tie. What do they do when they can’t decide what the legislature thought?
· Rule in favor of the defendant because of Lenity
· Previous case mentioned in notes that Etienne mentioned:
· Chavez case (1947):
· “Mere fiction to hold that a child is not a human being because the process of birth has not been fully completed, when it has reached that state of viability when the destruction of life of its mother would not end its existence…”
IN RESPONSE TO KEELER:
· CA amended its murder statute to include “killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.”
NOTICE:
· Actual Notice & Constructive Notice
o For the above about criminals/people having “notice” that something is a crime we are concerned with Constructive Notice:
§ What they could have known, should have known, could have found if they looked.
o When we are talking about Intent, we are talking about Actual Notice:
§ Really goes to the mens rea of the crime, not the actual notice of what the specific words of the statute are.
§ If Δ knows she is in possession of stolen property but doesn’t know that it’s illegal to possess stolen property, she is still liable.
Commonwealth v. Mochan
SELECTIVE ENFOCEMENT: Who decides what is criminal conduct and what isn’t? We don’t have fair notice that what we are doing is a crime!
· Officer can basically selected based on the same conduct who can be charged w/t his and based on his knowledge of the victim- ie, if he receives the call and says, “oh, that guy is right, Mrs. Zivkovich IS all those things!” and doesn’t arrest Mochan
“A married woman of the highest character and repute” received prank calls with “obscene, lewd and filthy” language.
ISSUE: Does the conduct charged in the indictments, concededly not a criminal offense in Pennsylvania by any statute, constitute a misdemeanor at common law?
HOLDING: The factual charges identify the offense as a common law misdemeanor and the testimony established the guilt of the defendant.
DISSENT SAYS: Majority is declaring something to be a crime which was never before known to be a crime in PA.
City of Chicago v. Morales
Chicago ordinance preventing “criminal street gang members” from “loitering” with one another or w/ other persons in any public place.
ISSUE: Does the Gang Congregation Ordinance violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment?
HOLDING:
