Criminal Law Outline
Introduction: Political, Social, and Historical Context
Justifications of Punishment
• Retribution: offender who willingly commits deserves to be punished
• General Deterrence: Punishment deters potential offender in the general community.
• Specific Deterrence: Punishment deters the individual offender.
• Incapacitation: Punishment removes dangerous individuals from society by incarceration.
• Reform/Rehabilitation: Acquisition of training and resources to reform the defendant and make him a better, law-abiding individual.
• Expressive Punishment: Societal expression of condemnation.
• Reconciliation/Restorative Justice: Allowing victims and offenders to be involved in resolving the conflict, though dialogue and negotiation is central to restorative justice
Basic Principles of Criminal Justice System
• Presumption of Innocence
• Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
1. Guard against conviction of the innocent;
2. Immense stakes involved in a criminal case; accused faces loss of liberty and stigma of a conviction; and
3. Moral force of criminal law would be diluted by lesser standard of proof.
• Standard of Review
1. Sufficiency of the evidence. Could a rational juror decide that the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
2. Jury Instruction. Was the instruction an erroneous statement of law? If so, conviction is reversed and case is remanded for re-trial.
Sources of Criminal Law
• Statutes
1. State Criminal Codes
2. Federal Criminal Code
3. Municipal Ordinances (cities and towns); Tribal Codes; Military Codes
4. Rules 1 – 100: Read the Statute!
• Common Law
1. Appellate Precedent
• Constitution
Sentencing and Proportionality of Punishment
• Eighth Amendment: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.”
• General rule followed by majority of SC is punishment out of proportion to the crime violate the 8th Amendment
• Weems v. United States (1910). The cruel and unusual punishment clause is “directed, not only against punishments which inflict torture, “but against all punishments which by their excessive length or severity are greatly disproportioned to the offense charged.”
Graham v. Florida
Issue: Does a LOWP sentence a juvenile, non-homicide offender violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment (made applicable to the States by the 14th Amendment)?
Case Precedent and Reasoning:
· Interpretation of 8th amendment must evolve as moral standards shift. Definition of cruelty is dependent on social judgment.
· Inherently barbaric punishments as well as disproportionate sentences are banned
· Cases related to the proportionality of sentences to the crime fall into two categories: evaluating sentence in relation to specific crime and circumstances (typically applies to term of years sentence) vs. evaluating sentence in relation to categorical restrictions (typically applies to death penalty sentences)
• Specific Crime: Court considers all the circumstances of the case to determing whether the sentence is unconstitutionally excessive. Under this approach, court has held that life without parol for the 7th nonviolent felony is violation of 8th Amendment because punishment is out of proportion to crime.
• Harmelin v. Michigan (1991). No violation: Sentencing a first-time offender to LWOP for possessing 672 grams of cocaine. Employed test to determine if sentence for a term of years is grossly disproportionate to the crime: compare gravity of offense and severity of the sentence. If this leads to an inference of gross disproportionality, the court compares the D’s sentence with sentences received by other offenders in the same jurisdiction and with sentences imposed in other jurisdictions. If this comparison analysis confirms the intial judgment that the sentence is grossly disproportionate, the sentence is cruel and unusual.
• Categorical Restriction: Previously used to challenge applicability of death penalty to certain crimes and offenders.
• Considers 1) the nature of the offense
• Death penalty impermissible for nonhomicide crimes against individuals
• and 2) characteristics of the offender.
• Categorical restrictions on death penalty in cases in which D committed crimes before age 18 or with low intellectual functioning
• In the categorical approach, the court considers 1) objective indicia of society’s standards, expressed through legislative enactments and state practice to determine if there is a national consensus against sentencing practice at issue and 2) uses its own judicial discretion, informed by prior interpretation of 8th amendment and in context of the text, history, meaning, and purpose of the amendment, to determine if the punishment violates the constitution.
• Roper: prohibiting the death penalty for offenders who committed crime before the age of 18.
• Graham presents a categorical challenge to a term of years sentence. Not just challenging applicability of this sentence to the defendant given the circumstances, but challenging the sentencing practice of LWOP for juvenile offenders convicted of non-homicide crimes.
• Court employs categorical approach.
• National consensus: while 37 states allow LWOP for juvenile non-homicide offenders, actual sentencing practices indicate this sentence is rarely used (only 109 serving that sentence in the country).
• Independent judgment of court interpreting 8th amendment: consider culpability of offenders at issue in light of crimes and characteristics as well as severity of punishment in question. Roper established juv have reduced culpability and are less deserving of most severe punishments. Considers differences between juvenile and adult minds, and deprives opportunity for rehabilitation, good behavior and character improvement immaterial, and not accomplishing any penological justifications.
• Holding: Sentencing practice of LWOP for juvenile, non-homicide offenders is cruel and unusual. State is not required to guarantee eventual freedom to juvenile offender, but it must give these defendants a meaningful opportunity to obtained release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.
Judgment: Judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Other Cases Involving Proportionality of Sentence Challenges
1. Term-of-years
• Solem v. Helm (1983). Prohibiting LWOP for a 7th nonviolent felony, the crime of passing a worthless check
• Harmelin v. Michigan (1991). Allowing sentencing a first-time offender to LWOP for possessing 672 grams of cocaine
2. Categorical Rules
• Nature of the offense
• Coker v. Georg
e per case
• Fixed fee-all cases.
WA State Model
• Nine Public Defender
• Three Assigned Counsel
• Thirty Contract Attorneys
• 5 contract with non-profit providers,
• 4 employ a professional public defense coordinator,
• 21 contract with private attorneys/firms.
Strickland v. Washington (1984): Evaluating Effectiveness of Defense Counsel (Difficult Standard to Meet)
Performance prong: “counsel’s performance feel below an objective standard of reasonableness.”
Prejudice prong: “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
Adequacy of Plea-Bargain Counsel
Padilla v. Kentucky (2010): Attorney must provide client with adequate immigration-impact advice regarding a given plea offer.
Lafler v. Cooper (2012): Where counsel’s ineffective advice led to offer’s rejection, and where the prejudice alleged is having to stand trial, defendant must show that but for the ineffective advice, there is a reasonable probability that plea offer would have been presented and accepted by the court and that conviction or sentence, or both, would have been less severe than under the actual judgment and sentence imposed.
Missouri v. Frye (2012): Right to effective assistance of counsel extends to the consideration of plea offers that lapse or are rejected and that right applies to “all ‘critical’ stages of the criminal proceedings.
ABA Standards, along with the Model RPCs are “important guides” in assessing IAC claims.
Excessive Caseloads, Insufficient Resources
CrR 3.1 and CrRLJ 3.1 and JuCR 9.2
(4) Before appointing a lawyer for the indigent person or at the first appearance of the lawyer in the case, the court shall require the lawyer to certify to the court that he or she complies with the applicable Standards for Indigent Defense Services to be approved by the Supreme Court.
Standard 3.4: Caseload Limits
• 150 Felonies; or
• 300 Misdemeanor cases or, in jurisdictions that have not adopted a numerical case weighting system as described in this Standard, 400 cases; or
• 250 Juvenile Offender cases; or
• 80 open Juvenile Dependency cases; or
• 250 Civil Commitment cases; or
• 1 Active Death Penalty trial court case. . .; or
• 36 appeals.
• Resolutions of cases by pleas of guilty to criminal charges on a first appearance or arraignment docket are presumed to be rare occurrences requiring careful evaluation of the evidence and the law, as well as thorough communication with clients, and must be counted as one case. This provision applies both to systems that employ case weighting and those that do not.
