Due Process and the Criminal Justice System
“No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (5th)
“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or properly, without due process of law” (14th)
Constitutional Restraints on Criminal Procedure
– barred from depriving of “life, liberty or property” without “due process of law” – fed govt (5th) and states (14th)
Incorporation of Bill of Rights into Due Process – First 8 amendments apply only to the federal government. However, the Supreme Ct has incorporated many of these rights into the due process requirement binding on the states by virtue of the 14th amendment. Those portions of the BOR “fundamental to our concept of ordered liberty” have been so incorporated. [Duncan v. la]
Const’l Req’s – Binding on States
– The 4th prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures [Wolf v. Colo], and the exclusionary rule requiring that the result of a violation of this prohibition not be used as evidence against the Δ [Mapp v. Ohio].
– 5th privilege against self-incrimination [Mallory v. Hogan].
– 6th right to public trial [oliver]
– 6th right to trial by jury [Duncan]
– 6th right to assistance of counsel in felony cases [Gideon v. Wainwright], and in misdemeanor cases in which imprisonment is imposed [Argersinger v. Hamlin].
Const’l Req’s – Not Binding on States
1.Right to indictment. The right to indictment by a grand jury for capital and infamous crimes has been held not to be binding on the states. [Hurtado].
I. Defining Due Process
Four strands of due process: (1) due process as rule of law, (2) due process as the Bill of Rights, (3) due process as accuracy, and (4) due process as “fundamental fairness.”
1. The Rule of Law
Hurtado v. California (1884) –charged with murder by information, rather than by grand jury indictment
– The Bill of Rights – Harlan’s dissent in Hurtado
– 4th forbids unreasonable searches and seizures. 5th bans compelled self-incrimination (also reqrs indictment by grand jury for capital or otherwise infamous crimes and bans double jeopardy) 6th grants Δs right to speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury, as well as the right to be informed of charges, to be confronted with opposing witness, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have assistance of counsel for his defense.
– 60s, series of decisions applied every one of rights listed above except the right to grand jury. Wolf v. Colorado – ct held that 4th am ban on unreasonable searches and seizures applied to the states through due process. Mapp v. Ohio – exclusionary rule
2. Accuracy (and Race)
Moore v. Dempsey (1923)–Although formally meet the requirements (counsel, jury) but this case shows that lacked substantive requirements
– sup ct willing to overturn state cts / Due process –fundamental fairness / Due process that is violated gives the Sup.Ct. to power to overturn the case because it so lacks the requirements of the 14th Amendment.
Brown v. Mississippi (1936) –“rooted in our tradition sufficient to warrant due process”
– Tortured Δs for confessions
– The Due Process reqt means that “state action, whether through one agency or another, shall be consistent with the fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions.” The right to be free of coercion in police interrogation is so important that it was a “fundamental right” as to which the 14th Amendment applies.
Powell v. Alabama
Duck Hill Lynching
South Carolina Lynch Trial
3. “Fundamental Fairness”
Twinning v. New Jersey –
Palko v. Connecticut – The fundamental rights approach holds that the fact that a particular criminal procedure is prohibited by the Bill of Rights does not necessarily mean that the 14th Amendment prohibits its use by the states. This approach views the 14th Amendment as requiring only that the states apply those procedures which are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”
Bodily Extractions
Rochin v. Calif– stomach pumping violates due process as shocking to the conscience.
Breithaupt v. Abram—An involuntary blood test does not violate the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, because that Amendment protects only against compulsion to give “testimonial or communicative” evidence.
II. Incorporation
Total v Selective incorporation –
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) – convicted of battery after a court trial contended he was constitutionally entitled to a jury trial / States must provide a Δ in a non-petty criminal proceeding the right to trial by jury.
– Fundamental rights approach à the 14th Amendment requires that the states apply those procedures which are “fundamental to the American scheme of justice.”
Baldwin v. New York—The dividing line between a “serious” crime and a “petty” one is a potential sentence of greater than six months. Thus, there is automatically a right to a jury trial for ay crime punishable by more than six months in prison, regardless of whether a more-than-six-month sentence is actually imposed.
Williams v. Florida—6 person jury okay
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld—
III. The Residual Due Process Clause
Medina v. California (1992) –Δ argued that a law that req’d him to prove his incompetency to stand trial violated due process.
– A state may constitutionally place the burden of proof on a criminal Δ raising incompetency as an issue
IV. Policing
Police Questioning of Law Abiding Citizens, Reich
Unconstitutional Police Searches and Collective Responsibility, Bernard Hardcourt
– Hardcourt’s Argument: that there is a tragic choice here (e.g. automobiles will account for 46,000 deaths/yr – so the tragic
m, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
Rule: judge-made doctrine that prohibits the introduction, at a criminal trial, of evidence obtained in violation of a Δ’s 4, 5, or 6 A rights.
Rationale: main purpose is to deter the govt from violating person’s constitutional rights / The rule also serves as one remedy for deprivation of constitutional rights (other remedies (other remedies include civil suits, injunctions, etc.).
Scope–
1. Fruit of Poisonous Tree—generally, not only must illegally obtained evidence be excluded, but also all evidence obtained or derived from exploitation of that evidence. Ct deems it tainted fruit of poisonous tree (Wong Sun)
e.g.— Δ was arrested without probable cause and brought to the police state. The police read Δ his Miranda warnings 3 times and permitted Δ to see two friends. After being at the station for 6 hours, Δ confessed. The confession must be excluded bc it is the direct result of the unlawful arrests—if Δ had not been arrested illegally, he would not have been in custody and would not have confessed (Taylor v. Ala.)
Compare— police have probable cause to arrest Δ. They go to Δ’s home and improperly arrest him without a warrant, in violation of 4th. Δ confesses at home and then later at the station. The home confession must be excluded, but the station house confession is admissible bc it is not a fruit of the unlawful arrest. Bc the police had probable cause to arrest Δ, they did not gain anything from the unlawful arrest, they could have lawfully arrested Δ the moment he stepped outside of his home. Thus the station house confession was not an exploitation of the police misconduct. (NY v. Harris)
