Crim Pro Outline, Combined
· Investigations:
o 4th Amendment: Unreasonable searches and seizures prohibited
o 5th Amendment: Compulsory self incrimination prohibited
o 6th Amendment: Right to counsel at post charging interrogations and identifications
o 14th Amendment (due process): Impermissible eyewitness ID’s prohibited
o 14th Amendment (equal protection): Invidious discrimination prohibited
· Judicial Proceedings:
o 5th Amendment: Prohibitions against double jeopardy, and against compulsory self incrimination in official proceedings
o 6th Amendment: Rights to counsel, confrontation, compulsory process, jury trial, speedy trial, fair trial, local trial
o 8th Amendment: Right to bail; prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments
o 14th Amendment (due process): Rights to notice, proof beyond reasonable doubt, disclosure of exculpatory evidence, fair proceedings generally
o 14th Amendment (equal protection): Invidious discrimination prohibited
· PURPOSES OF DUE PROCESS RULES
1. To protect citizens against misconduct by government officers (especially police), in order to promote:
· Privacy
· Liberty
· Dignity
2. To improve quality of our adversarial system of justice, in order to:
· protect citizens against government misconduct (in order to preserve privacy, freedom and dignity) and to increase accuracy
Fundamental Rights/Ordered Liberty Approaches
· Palko v. Connecticut:
Double jeopardy clause of Fifth Amendment
This didn’t violate the fundamental principles of liberty and justice, so not incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment
This was overruled in Benton v. Maryland, which found that double jeopardy prohibition represents a fundamental ideal and should apply to the states through the 14th amendment.
· Adamson v. California:
Privilege against self-incrimination clause of Fifth Amendment (limited comment about D’s refusal to testify)
Isn’t applied against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment because the Due Process Clause doesn’t draw all the rights of the Bill of Rights under its protection
In Dissent, Black wants to extend all the Bill of Rights against the states, no more and no less
Modern Approach: Selective Incorporation
· SC has made many individual rights guaranteed against the Federal Gov by the Bill of Rights applicable to the states by reading them into the due process clause of the 14th Amendment
· SC has never held the 14th totally incorporates all of the provisions of the BoR.
· Rochin v. California: P. 71
o D’s stomach was pumped to find heroin.
o Court ruled this unconstitutional because this type of behavior shocks the conscience.
o Evidence that has been obtained by means that shock the conscience will not be admissible even though no specific rule has been violated.
o Dissenters worry that this type of analysis will depend on the attitudes of the judges.
· Irvine v. California:
o Cops entered D’s home and installed a mic in his bedroom and listened for over a month.
o Whether or not this shocked the conscience it wasn’t enough to prevent admission of the evidence.
o Changed the incorporation for this test to specific, well-defined rights.
· Duncan v. Louisiana: P. 2
o SC decided that those portions of the BoR that are “fundamental to our concept of ordered liberty” have been incorporated by the 14th Amendment and are applicable to the states.
o Held that the 6th amendment right to a jury trial was a right incorporated into the 14th.
o This is because the right to a jury trial was deemed fundamental to the proper administration of justice. The new test is whether the right is fundamental, whether it is necessary to an Anglo-American scheme of ordered liberty.
Right to establish innocence after conviction
· DA’s office v. Osborne:
o State says no right because it will ruin the finality of judgments.
o SC says there is no constitutional right and the court can’t create a right, that’s better left to the legislature. This should be handled by state criminal procedure.
Retroactivity
· Danforth v. Minnesota:
o Rules announced by the SC on direct review apply retroactively to all other cases on direct review, all future trials, and all federal habeas corpus proceedings but they do not provide the basis for a federal collateral attack on a state court conviction.
o This rule doesn’t require states to retroactively apply decisions to cases that were already final but it also does not prohibit them from doing so.
Plea Bargaining P. 184
· North Carolina v. Pearce: P.190
o D may not be punished for appealing a conviction
o If D wins appeal and is retried and again convicted, the sentence is presumptively vindictive and therefore unconstitutional under the due process clause.
o Sentence can only be harsher if based on things that oc
e believes it is a good idea.
All that is required is that the prosecutor does what he agreed to do in the plea agreement.
Requisites for a valid plea P.182
Plea must be voluntary and intelligent.
D must be addressed personally in open court on the record.
The judge must make sure D knows the nature of the charge to which the plea is offered and the crucial elements of the crime charged.
D must know the max possible penalty and any statutory minimum penalty.
D must know he has the right to plead not guilty.
D must know that by pleading guilty he is waiving his right to a trial.
Competency is required.
D must have sufficient present ability to rationally understand the proceedings as well as the ability to consult with counsel.
North Carolina v. Alford: P. 183
In federal cases, before entering a plea, the court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea. This is in the fed rules of crim pro.
This isn’t constitutionally required in state cases but some states have rules requiring it.
D need not admit his guilt for a valid guilty plea to be entered (in some state courts).
All that is required is that the state has introduced strong evidence of D’s guilt and D’s voluntary plea appears to be an intelligent choice among his alternatives. The court may then accept the plea.
Arrest, Search and Seizure
Search and Seizure chart on P. 31.
The Exclusionary Rule P.3 chart P.4
Wolf v. Colorado: P.2
The prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is incorporated into the 14th amendment and is therefore applicable to the states.
Mapp v. Ohio:
All evidence obtained by searches and seizure in violation of the constitution is inadmissible in state court.
Exclusionary rule is incorporated into the 14th amendment.
U.S. v. Leon: P.11
As an exception to the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained in a search and seizure that violates the 4th amendment is admissible where the police officers acted under the objectively reasonable belief that they were
