Criminal System and Appeals Class Notes PDF

Chapter 10: - Trial by Jury: Why It’s a Good Thing - Places “the common sense judgment of a group of laymen" between the government and the accused - * JURIES ARE THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE - Trial by Jury: What Crimes Does the Right Apply To? - Does n...

Chapter 10: - Trial by Jury: Why It’s a Good Thing - Places “the common sense judgment of a group of laymen" between the government and the accused - * JURIES ARE THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE - Trial by Jury: What Crimes Does the Right Apply To? - Does not apply to petty crimes (going off framer’s mind) - Trial by Jury: What is a Petty Offense? - Anything punsible by less than 6 months of jail (defenat ahs no right to jury is that is the case) - Jury Trials Versus Bench Trials:Which One Requires More Resources and Expense? - Jury trial bc it takes longer, there are fees, etc. - Jury Trials - So if a Legislature Wants to Maximize Efficiency by Reducing the Number of Jury Trials, What Would It Do? - Drop the maximum punishment for certain offenses to less than 6 months - Right to Trial by Jury: Defendant Waiver - Defendant has the right to waive his right to a jury and have his case heard by a judge - WHAT IS ONE POSSIBLE REASON WHY A DEFENDANT WOULD WANT TO DO THIS? - If case is complex, if you think peers will convict you bc they will lead by emotion - Right to Trial by Jury: Jury Size, which type of courts require 12 person? - TWELVE PERSON JURIES:Were the norm going back to the 14th century, and in the colonies; Were required By the U.S. Supreme Court in numerous decisions until SIX PERSON JURIE which Were found to be Constitutional by the Court in a 1989 case - all federal courts and most jurisdictions require twelve person juries - Who is More Likely to Benefit if a Case is Tried to a Smaller Jury, the Government or the Defendant? - Gov’t bc less ppl to prove burden of proof to - Right to Trial by Jury: Fair Cross-Section Requirement - Before juries only ahd white males but now SC has called for ppl to be fair cross section requirement - Fair Cross-Section Requirement – How Did It Happen?; how did Texas rule discriminate against ppl in the 20th century south? - * Long required defendants to show that a jury selection system was “intentionally discriminatory,” i.e., on its face - Discriminated against poor black ppl who didnt own property - U.S. CONGRESS: THE JURY SELECTION AND SERVICE ACT OF 1968  - * Established the process for selecting jurors in federal court, and requirements for citizens to serve on federal juries - * Ensured that jurors were selected at random from a fair cross-section of the community - * Gave all citizens the opportunity to be considered for jury service - Right to Trial by Jury: Jury Selection Process - The “venire”: panel of prospective jurors in a case - * “Venirepersons”: members of the panel - * “Voir dire” (literally “to speak the truth”): the process by which prospective jurors are questioned under oath about their background, attitudes and beliefs – can they be fair? - HOW IS THE VENIRE ASSEMBLED? Do you have to go to court if summoned? - * From lists comprising a cross-section of the community, often voter registration lists - * Court sends out notices with summons to report to court on a date and time – appearance is required by law - HOW IS VOIR DIRE CONDUCTED?who is in the courtroom? - In a courtroom, with judge, government, defendant and defense counsel present - * Venirepersons are asked questions that go their ability to serve (e.g., if they have health and other issues that would interfere) and be impartial (e.g., if they’ve heard about the case and already have an opinion about it) - CHALLENGES “FOR CAUSE” - Judge decides if a venireperson should be “stricken” for cause from serving on jury because of unavailability (e.g., medical emergency) or partiality (e.g., venireperson says that he’s heard about the case and believes defendant is guilty) - * Government and defense can both make motions to the judge to have particular venirepersons stricken for cause - “PEREMPTORY” CHALLENGES, what si the one expectation to do this rule? - * Definition of term “peremptory” here: “a challenge made as of right without assigning any cause” - * Strategic: “allow the parties to take advantage of the core of truth in most common stereotypes" – examples, social workers and cab drivers (social workers too forgiving based on sterotype so they would be booted out) - One exception is BATSON case: cant use permeptory challenges for discrimination:  - The Constitution prohibits all forms of purposeful racial discrimination in selection of jurors, and this protection applies to a defendant throughout the proceedings bringing him to justice, including during the exercise of peremptory challenges.” - Right to Trial by Jury: How the Batson Process Works - Defendant claims batson challenge - Gov’t has to show facts of permeptory challenges ahd nothing to do with race - Judge decides whether gov’t engaged in discrimination - * If Batson violation is found on appeal, conviction is overturned - * PROFESSIONAL CONSEQUENCES FOR PROSECUTOR Chapter 11: - Confrontation Clause: Sixth Amendment - In criminal prosecution,accused shall have right to confront witnesses against him - Confrontation Clause: Purpose; what is ex parte? What si ex parte affidavit - Prevent gov’t use of ex parte affidavits - Ex parte: by or for one party - Ex parte affidavits: sworn written statement filed by the gov’t/ prosecution with a court w/o defendant present - Confrontation Clause: Why Require Court Testimony; what is the greatest legal engine invented for discovery of truth? - Helps ensure adversarial criminal process by allowing for cross- examination (the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of the truth) - Promotes witness truthfulness - Allows jury to observe a witness' demeanor, “thus aiding the jury in assessing his credibility - Example of Importanceof Cross-Examination: Testimony of an Eyewitness - Hypothetical: Witness gave statement to police stating that he saw defendant commit a shooting date/ time/ place ; * If the statement were to be admitted in court without the witness testifying: no cross-examination - * So what can cross-examination do with that testimony? - Statement is hearsay so the witness would ahve to come in and tesity and there would have to be cross-examination otherwise statement can not be admitted unless it is under expections - Confrontation Clause: Hearsay; definition of hearsay? what does literal reading of US constitution imply about hearsay? When did court set the standard for hearsay?  - Definition: An out-of-court statement that is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement - * Literal reading of Confrontation Clause would bar ANY hearsay evidence from coming into trial against a defendant - * BUT U.S. Supreme Court (1895) said this was extreme: The witness testimony at the trial must occasionally give way to considerations of public policy and the necessities of the case” - * Court set no standard until 1980 - Which case set standard for hearsay? What does it say about it? What is the indicia of reliabilty? - Ohio v.Roberts - “When a hearsay declarant is not present for cross-examination at trial, his statement is admissible only if it bears adequate indicia of reliability” - * “Indicia of reliability” = indications that the statement is reliable - * “Such reliability is found automatically if the statement falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception” - Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule; where was it set forth? - Set forth in federal Rules of Evidence - Statements found to be admissible under an expectation to the Hearsya Rule - Excited Utterance - The caller is hysterical, upset, excited, etc. - Example -- 911 caller, hysterical: “I just saw a shooting outside my house” - * Reliability: More likely to be spontaneous, and truthful - Present Sense Impression - Crime is happening in that moment of the call - Example -- 911 caller: “I’m at my window and I’m watching a man break into my car” - * Reliability: Maker of statement has no time to fabricate - Business Records - Any record that was not made in anticipation for court - Example: Hospital records, prepared in the ordinary course of business - * Reliability: When businesses keep records in the normal course of their work, they have an incentive to have them be accurate - Who makes the decision on the reliability of witness statements? What can the defendant do? - Judge makes the decision but the defendant can still argue it isn’t - Confrontation Clause: Hearsaywhat does it say about autopsy? What case deals with this? - Crawford v. Washington - “When an out-of-court statement is ‘testimonial,’ the Confrontation Clause forbids its admission unless the person making the statement is subject to cross-examination” - Before this case, there was no testimonial standard, this case broadened defendant CC clause rights - Autopsy reports, if not prepared for court, may be admissible bc it would not be considered testimonial - The Confrontation Clause and Child Witnesses example; what two things are you balancing? - Balancing the Confrontation clause rights of the defendant AND Public policy: Interest in protecting vulnerable victims of abuse (very complicated cases) - Two cases examples Coy v. Iowa ( placed large screen where children could not see but the defendant could dimly see; not constitutional) and Maryland v. Craig (constitutional; children testimony on monitor and defendant watched on screen) - The Confrontation Clause and Co-Defendant Statements; what two things are you balancing? What case deals with this? - Balancing Confrontation clause rights of defendants AND Fifth Amendment rights of defendants AND Efficiency: System’s preference for joint trials of defendants charged with committing crimes together - Bruton v. US (holding defendant 1 statement against only defendant 1 but this is not right and still violates defendant 2 CC clause right (thinking about elephants)) - “Forfeiture by Wrongdoing”: Devonshire v. United States (KNOW THIS CASE) - You can forfeit, or give up, a Constitutional right if you do something bad - Man who beat and robbed women bf then go after the woman and kill her so he lost right to cross-examination and her our of court statements can beI given (CC clause rights) since he killed her - Holding: Today we hold, consistent with every state and federal court that has considered the issue, that a defendant who kills a potential witness, who is expected to give damaging testimony against the killer in some future proceeding, waives the right under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to object to the admission of that witness's out-of-court statements. We also hold  that, under such circumstances, a defendant waives the right to object on hearsay grounds to those statements.” - Devonshire v. United States: What Does Government Have to Prove? - That the defendant made unavailable a witness who would’ve given damaging testimony against him at trial (witness killed or gone missing, or injured,e tc.) - * Hearing is held before trial, with testimony - * Government’s burden of proof: NOT “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but by “a preponderance of evidence” – more than “probable cause,” less than “clear and convincing” – somewhat more than just probable - Why is Devonshire v. United States Important? - Its the law making sense Chapter 12: - Self-Incrimination:U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment, what is common law? How did 5th amendment evolve? - No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be witness aginst himself - Common law= case law or hnow the law has evolved over time - 5th amendment evolved primarily through cases or by way of common law; Broad principle that has needed to be interpreted and applied by the courts, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination - If you can say something that would incriminate (get yourself in trouble with the law) you, you have right to not speak - May be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, if the testimonial evidence that would be produced there might incriminate the speaker in ANY criminal proceeding – NOT just the proceeding in - which the testimony is being taken - Elements of the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination:Fifth Amendment - No person - Real person/not group of people - This includes witnesses or anyone compelled to give information, you either tell whole story or don’t say anything - NOT a corporation, a partnership or a union - * Definition isn’t restricted to defendants charged with a crime – example, a witness in a trial may invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege - Shall be compelled  - It’s when someone is forced to do something that they otherwise wouldn’t do - Need SUBPOENA’s - In any criminal case - So the Constitutional Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Applies - To any compelled statements that a person makes that could be used against him in a criminal trial or a criminal investigation - So the Constitutional Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Does NOT Apply - To compelled statements that a person makes in any proceeding that is NOT in the criminal justice system, e.g. proceedings that that could result in loss of employment, loss of student status - To be a witness against himself - Is it testimonial or real/physical evidence? - Does not apply to real/physical evidence such as fingerprints, DNA, etc. - Testimonial or Communicative - In order to be testimonial, a person’s communication must relate a factual assertion or disclose information - Real or Physical Evidence - Person can be compelled, without Fifth Amendment protection, to * Provide fingerprints, Give a DNA sample - Say words in a voice identification procedure, for example in a police- administered lineup - What Does “Exposure to a Criminal Charge” Mean? - Does what the person is compelled to provide relate to something he could no longer be criminally prosecuted for – e.g., statute of limitations has run? - Has the government agreed not to use the statement that the person was compelled to provide in any criminal prosecution of the person, for any charge? - Overcoming the Privilege: Immunity, what are the two types of immunity? - If there’s no risk that a person’s compelled statements will be used against him in a criminal case, the privilege doesn’t apply (have no 5th amendment right) - * If a witness is provided with immunity from prosecution for his statements, he can be compelled to testify  - 2 types of immunity: - TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY: is it given my US department of justice? - Person can’t be prosecuted as to any criminal matter that his compelled statements related to - * As a matter of policy, not given by U.S. Department of Justice: Too much of a concession - USE IMMUNITY - *t - * GRANTED ROUTINELY, AS A WAY TO OBTAIN THE TRUTH TO SERVE THE PUBLIC, WITHOUT JEOPARDIZING PEOPLE’S RIGHTS - If a Defendant Invokes His Fifth Amendment Rights Either Before Trial or At Trial, Can the Government Use His Silence Against Him at Trial? - No - If a Defendant Has Been Arrested, Given His Miranda Warnings, and Invokes His Fifth Amendment Rights, Can the Government Use His Silence Against Him at Trial? What cases is this based on? - No, based on Grifffin v. California case - If a Person Is Questioned By the Police About a Crime, Hasn’t Been Arrested, and Is Silent, Can the Government Use His Silence Against Him at Trial? - Yes, Right to Remain Silent Does Not Apply to “Non-Custodial Interrogation” Chapter 13 Burden of ProofDefinition; what cases is it used in? Who set the standards for this? What do teh 5th and 14th amendment say about this? ○ A legal standard that requires a party in a court case to provide evidence to demonstrate that their claim is valid ○ Difference between 5th and 14th amendment: 5= applies to federal; No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” 14= applies to state; No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. US Supreme court set standards for this but the Due process clauses of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments require the prosecution in a criminal case “to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged” Standards of crime  ○ * Probable Cause = Lowest, More Probable Than Not (Arrest, Search) ○ * Preponderance of the Evidence = Higher, 50.1% (Civil) , ex: used in order to see if defendant killed witness ○ * Clear and Convincing Evidence: standard for preventative detention ○ * Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (Criminal Trial Guilt) Standard Definition of“Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”:Federal Courts; what is a reasonable doubt? Is there a clear definition? ○ No clear definition but some judges give some guidelines as to what it is ○ gov’t must prove each and every element of offense charged ○ A defendant may not be convicted based on suspicion or conjecture, but only on evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ○ A reasonable doubt is a fair doubt based on reason, logic, common sense, or experience Elements of aCriminal Offense: Definition ○ An element is any part of the description of an offense that requires its own evidence ○ Gov’t needs to prove all elements, if they miss one, charge will no go through “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”:How It Works in Real-Life, what happens at trial if gov’t fails to meet this standard? ○ Every competent criminl defense attorney attacks the goverment’s case for failing to meet this standard “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”:Common Defense Arguments ○ ONE INCONSISTENCY IN A WITNESS’ ACCOUNT EQUALS A REASON TO DOUBT (depends on how major the inconsistency) Counter: Look at the Testimony as a Whole ○ ONE INCONSISTENT WITNESS IN THE GOVERNMENTS’S CASE EQUALS A REASON TO DOUBT Counter: football game analogy (if majority says one thing and minority say another, just go with majority) ○ “LINKS IN A CHAIN” Counter: strand of rope Unanimous andNon-Unanimous Verdicts: All You Need to Know, what cases must be unanimous? How number person of jury must be unanimous ? most cases have how mncy jurors? ○ In all federal courts and most state courts, verdicts in criminal cases must be unanimous ○ * In small number of states, non-unanimous verdicts are allowed, and have been permitted by the U.S. Supreme Court  ○ * Any verdict of a six-person jury must be unanimous; most cases have 12 jurors and require them to be unanimous Multi-Theory Verdicts and the Problems They Pose ○ We will not know the split; jury deliberations are secret and impenetrable ○ Jury can’t be asked how they decided a case ○ IS A PARTICULAR ISSUE an element or a means? What do jury have to be unanimous on? “Element”: Any part of the description of an offense that requires its own evidence -- jury has to be unanimous – example, Possession of an Unregistered Firearm * “Means”: The method by which a crime is committed – jury does not have to be unanimous -- example, whether defendant killed victim by shooting him or by drowning him ○ HOW PROSECUTORS AVOID UNANIMITY PROBLEMS: CHARGE SEPARATE CRIMES SEPARATELY, E.G. Inconsistent Verdicts; how do they happen? What does US Supreme Court say about it? Why do they happen? ○ Jury misunderstood law, or misapplied law to facts ○ * Jury compromised: Traded one charge for another ○ * Jury nullified: Purposely reached a verdict contrary to the evidence ○ U.S. Supreme Court: Inconsistent verdicts are neither unconstitutional nor unacceptable Happens bc Consequence of criminal justice system that relies on imperfect human beings in an imperfect world striving to come as close as possible to true justice How Jury Deliberations Proceed ○ Trial ends with closing arguments and then judge’s instruction to the jury ○ * Jury is sent off to a separate room to deliberate behind closed doors ○ * Jury is given all the physical evidence ○ * Jury elects a foreperson to conduct deliberations ○ * At a certain point, jury votes – could be more than one Deadlocked Juries ○ Jury sends note to judge saying it’s unable to reach a verdict ○ * If a short time has passed: Judge says, Go back and deliberate further ○ * If a longer time has passed: Judge gives supplemental instruction to help jury to stop being hung but dont want verdict to be coercise either What is being balanced with deadlocked juries? ○ Goals of efficiency and fairness AGAINST * Right of individual juror in a criminal trial to be free of coercion in deliberations  Jury Nullification; possible reasons for nullifcation? ○ When a jury purposely reaches a verdict contrary to the evidence (sometimes to have fair verdict) ○ * Term refers to acquittals, not convictions – remember, before a jury gets a case, a judge has already determined that there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find guilt ○ Possible reasons: Jury believes that the criminal law violated is immoral or unwise, or prosecution was unnecessary * Jury believes that defendant has been “punished enough” * Jury believes the police or prosecutor misbehaved – e.g., U.S. v. Lisa Anderson What does the jury nullifctaion serve as? ○ The jury nullification power serves as the community's safeguard against morally unjust or socially undesirable -- albeit legally proper -- criminal convictions What are two ponts to remember about jury nullification? ○ It Only Takes One Nullifying Juror to Hang a Jury ○ People Who Get on a Jury Planning to Act on an Agenda Violate Their Sworn Oath (dont go palkning to aqcuit ppl) How Prosecutors Pick Juries to Avoid Seating Potential Nullifying Jurors ○ Looking to seat agreeable people who appear to get along with others, and will seek consensus with others ○ * Use peremptory challenges to strike disagreeable people who are more likely to be outliers, consensus avoiders, and loner independent thinkers -- and also political activists of whatever stripe Chapter 14: U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment, is life or limb literal? ○ “No person shall be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ○ “Of life or limb …”: Not to be taken literally ○ U.S. Supreme Court: Defendant’s double jeopardy right applies in any criminal case in which he faces a penalty, even just a fine ○ WHAT OTHER CONSITUTIONAL RIGHT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED DIFFERENTLY FROM WHAT THE PLAIN CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE WOULD SEEM TO DICTATE? ○ 6th Amendment trial by jury; does not apply to all criminal prosecutions like lanaguge says (U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that so-  called “petty” crimes are not subject to the Constitution's jury trial mandate, since “petty offenses were tried without juries both in England and in the colonies” before the Constitution was enacted – Court trying to see into what was in the framers’ minds ) Back to Double Jeopardy: When Does Jeopardy Attach? ○ Jury trial: When the jury is sworn in ○ * Bench trial: When the government’s first witness is called Attachment of Jeopardy in the Real World ; Government never wants jury to be sworn? ○ * Before a long weekend (why?) bc things cna happen, such as witness becoming unavailable and if this does happen, than a jury can not bea reason bc that would be double jeopardy ○ * If it’s considering an “interlocutory appeal” (alway taken by gov’t, made before pre-trial notions; case wouldn’t go forward) of a judge’s adverse ruling Values Underlying Double Jeopardy Clause, Per the U.S. Supreme Court ○ What happens if subject is tried twice for same offense? Subjects him “to embarrassment, expense and ordeal, and compels him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity” * Creates an unacceptably high risk that the government will convict an innocent person by wearing him down with its superior resources ○ IN WHAT OTHER CONTEXT HAVE COURTS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE SUPERIOR RESOURCES THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS, AS OPPOSED TO INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS? Brady (evidence given to defendant) Double Jeopardy: Criminal Vs. Civil Penalties ○ A person may be subjected to a civil suit, and have a civil sanction imposed on him, even if he was previously criminally prosecuted and punished for the same conduct – and it can work the other way as well What’s Criminal and What’s Civil in This Context? ○ Criminal: Government charges person with a crime, person faces criminal penalties including possibly jail ○ * Civil: Government sues person or corporation for violation of a civil statute, person or corporation faces having to pay money damages Why Might the Government Decide to Go After a Corporation Civilly, Not Criminally? ○ If it is a lower standard of proof, can’t prove beyond beyond reasonable doubt  Double Jeopardy and Criminal Vs. Civil Penalties: Real World Example ○ U.S. Supreme Court: Federal government can * Prosecute a defendant in a criminal proceeding for a drug offense and obtain a criminal conviction, then, * Sue him civilly and obtain a judgment requiring him to forfeit monetary assets linked to the drug offense Double Jeopardy: The Dual Sovereignty Doctrine ○ An act deemed criminal by both the federal government and a state government “is an offense against the peace and dignity of both, and may be prosecuted and punished by each." ○ * Prosecutions under laws of separate governments (“sovereigns”) are prosecutions of different offenses, NOT “double” prosecutions of the “same offense” Double Jeopardy: The Dual Sovereignty Doctrine in Action ○ The Rodney King Case (example) Man who was beaten by cops after drunk high-speed chase even though eh posed no danger ○ What does under color of any law? Means acting under the government, such as police officers Double Jeopardy: Reprosecution After a Mistrial, what can cause mistrial(most commohn reason)? ○ A hung jury can cause mistrial (this does not bar gov’t from doing the case again) ○ Can jurors investigate? Not only can look at the evidence given to them ○ What is MISTRIAL * Defined: “A judicial termination of a trial after jeopardy has attached and before a verdict is reached, granted on the motion of either party or on the judge's own motion.” * Generally: “The intention of a judge in granting a mistrial is that the prosecutor will be permitted to proceed anew notwithstanding the defendant's plea of double jeopardy.” ○ IF THE DEFENSE REQUESTS A MISTRIAL, OR DOESN’T OBJECT Double jeopardy does not bar reprosecution Double Jeopardy: Reprosecution After a Mistrial; What happens if IF THE DEFENSE OBJECTS TO A MISTRIAL? ○ Reprosecution is only allowed if judge finds that a “manifest necessity” justified the mistrial (does it serve the public to not prosecute again) ○ * “Manifest necessity” = serving the ends of public justice ○ Who needs to prove manifest necessity?  * Burden of proof is on the government to show manifest necessity WHAT CAN CAUSE A MISTRIAL ○ Most common: A hung jury ○ * Juror misconduct ○ * Unusual incident occurs (that the prosecution wasn’t responsible for) – e.g., defense counsel’s wife unexpectedly goes into labor U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES WHERE “MANIFEST NECESSITY” HAS BEEN FOUND ○ Hung jury ○ It was learned mid-trial that a trial juror had served on the grand jury that indicted the case ○ * It was learned mid-trial that a trial juror actually knew the defendant U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES WHERE “MANIFEST NECESSITY” HASN’T BEEN FOUND ○ Judge granted government request for mistrial after jeopardy had attached because government hadn’t subpoenaed a key witness ○ * Government committed misconduct, or judge didn’t create a good enough record Double Jeopardy: Reprosecution After an Acquittal ○ Bar on reprosecution after an acquittal is absolute ○ * “Acquittal” is either jury finding of not guilty, or judge granting of defense “motion for a judgment of acquittal” (“MJOA”) ○ “Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal” (“MJOA”) made to the court by the defense in every case, both at the end of the government’s case-in-chief, and at the end of the presentation of all the evidence Judge grants MJOA “if no reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime charged” -- essentially means that the prosecution's evidence is too weak to support a conviction, viewing it as generously as possible GRANTING OF MJOA BARS REPROSECUTION DUE TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE Double Jeopardy: Reprosecution After a Conviction ○ Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar reprosecution of a defendant who has successfully appealed his conviction on the basis of prejudicial error in the prior proceeding ○ *However: Re-trial will likely be affected by appellate decision – e.g., government can’t use evidence in second trial that appellate court found was improperly admitted in the first trial Chapter 15: The Goals of Punishment ○ Four Classic Justifications: * Retribution (every crime prosecuted?): punish immoral offenders Looks only at crime commited Victims have rigths but not in same way defendandts do Not every crime prosecuted This is retropective (onyl looks at crime committed, doenst consider future effcts of crime) WHAT FAMOUS PHRASE IS WORLD HISTORY CAPTURES THE RETRIBUTIVE PHILOSOPHY OF PUNISHMENT? An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth (Hammurabi’s Code, Ancient Mesopotamia) OPPONENTS to retribution: Retribution is senseless as a goal when it gives society no benefits -- as deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation do Retribution is impractical as a goal in a contemporary justice system – e.g., How does “All offenders must be punished, and the punishment must always fit the crime” square with prosecutorial discretion and plea bargaining? * Deterrence( what are two types) : prevent future criminal offenses This looks forward, not backward (what can we do to make sure crimes dont happen) Protecting looking goal (prortecting society) General and specific ○ General: It’s the practice of punishing criminal offenders to convince the general community not to commit crimes in the future * People are discouraged from committing crimes by the message that offenders are punished, and don’t “get away with it” ○ Specific * It’s the practice of punishing a defendant so that he himself won’t commit crimes in the future  * The defendant’s punishment reminds him that if he commits more crimes, he’ll suffer further punishment Prospective unlike retribution Opponents to deterrence: ○ General deterrence: Most crimes go unprosecuted (e.g., car thefts), many crimes are committed impulsively, so punishment isn’t in a criminal’s calculus ○ * Specific deterrence: How is a specific person deterred from committing crimes if the system doesn’t prioritize rehabilitation? Philosophy: ○ Punishment is justifiable only to the extent that it results in a reduction of crime * Incapacitation: remove offended from society PHILOSOPHY ○ If a criminal offender is in prison, he generally can’t commit crimes against society outside the prison walls ○ * If a criminal offender is executed, he’s permanently incapacitated from committing crimes against others OPPONENTS to incapacitation ○ Incapacitating prison sentences must be extremely long, at great personal cost to the incapacitated offender, and at enormous taxpayer expense ○ * End result of this being primary goal of punishment: MASS INCARCERATION * Rehabilitation: reform offenders PHILOSOPHY ○ Criminal justice system should be used to reform criminal offenders ○ * Rehabilitated ex-offenders will obey the law because motivations for offending have been eliminated ○ * Rehabilitative methods include drug treatment, psychiatric treatment and vocational training. OPPONENTS  ○ Crime Control” advocates: Prioritizing offender rehabilitation de-prioritizes retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and victims’ rights ○ (BUT some consideration of rehabilitation is measured into most criminal sentences) ○ Goes with due proces model The Goals of Punishment: In the Real World ○ All four goals are considered by legislatures in passing criminal laws, and judges in handing down sentences in individual cases Types of Sentences ○ Death Very controversy; takes years before completing (10-15yrs) * 27 states, federal government, and military have authorized it * 23 states and District of Columbia have abolished it * Death penalty cases are subject to complex procedures *Some prosecutors decline to be involved in death penalty cases on moral grounds ○ * Imprisonment, fine or both In actuality: Indigent defendants are not commonly subjected to fines, primarily for practical reasons * If they are: Potentially insidious impact on voting rights ○ * Suspended sentence Judge imposes jail term at sentencing hearing but “suspends” all or part, places defendant on term of probation Practical effect: Defendant has incentive to complete probation successfully because if he violates, he faces serving his “backup time” How many goals of punisohemnt does it balance? BALANCE MULTIPLE GOALS OF PUNISHMENT Does a defendant at sentencing have all those rights that they have at trail? ○ No ○ Williams V. New York: allows hearsay at sentencing So What Trial Rights DOES a Defendant Have at Sentencing? ○ Rights directed at ensuring a fair and balanced determination of the appropriate sentence ○ RIGHT TO COUNSEL Effective counsel ○ RIGHT TO HAVE GOVERNMENT DISCLOSE EXCULPATORY INFORMATION  Necessary to achieve the overall criminal justice system goal of FAIRNESS ○ PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION EXCEPT: If a defendant doesn’t accept criminal responsibility, either in a presentence interview or at the sentencing hearing, prosecutor can argue to the judge that the defendant has not taken the first step to rehabilitation Trial Rights a Defendant Does Not Have at Sentencing ○ RIGHT TO HAVE GOVERNMENT ESTABLISH FACTS RELEVANT TO SENTENCING “BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT” Sentencing courts have traditionally heard evidence and found facts – e.g., as to defendant’s criminal history -- without any prescribed burden of proof at all ○ CONFRONTATION CLAUSE RIGHT Hearsay is fully admissible, does not have to qualify under any “hearsay exception” * Common procedure: Presentence investigation is performed by a court office, report about defendant is submitted to judge ○ DOUBLE JEOPARDY RIGHT After a trial acquittal, government has no right to appeal * After a sentencing, government has full right of appeal if it believes judge imposed an illegal sentence ○ RIGHT TO A JURY Judges sentence defendants * Defendant has no right to have a jury sentence him (outside of a very small number of states) Victim Rights: CRVA ○ Can’t tesify at trial (can but not entitled to)but can at sentecning ○ ○ Before this act in 2004, victims did not have legal rights ○ Made prosecutors nervous bc now they have to take it into account and make sure victims have info etc. ○ Victim can argue a sentence to the judge if they don’t like prosecutors sentence and also have right to file a petition mandus (bascailly an appeal) ○ Right to be reasonably protected (victim security/witness program) ○ Right from unreasonable delay  Defense may try to delay trial bc sometimes it is win for them but victim can be also argue this right Chapter 16: Appeals: Why is there no point of allowing the government to appeal? What can the govt appeal on? ○ Bc even if they won it they wouldn’t be able to re-try the defendant ○ Govt can appela on motion to suppress (if evidence was supressed that wad detrimental to the case, then the case wouldn’t go to trail) What is Appellant, what is “Appellee? What si one major exception to the govt being the appellant? ○ Appellant” = The party that files an appeal ○ “Appellee” = The party against whom an appeal is filed, and who has to respond to it ○ One major exception: When government loses a pretrial ruling – e.g., on a motion to suppress evidence – and appeals it, government is the “Appellant” ○ “Appeal as of Right” A direct appeal to a court one level above the trial court ○ * Federal: To the U.S. Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the case was tried How many district courts are there and how many federal regional circuits? ○ * 94 district courts in 12 federal (regional) circuits Does a defendant have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to appeal a criminal conviction? ○ The U.S. Supreme Court has said ○ NO ○ * BUT every jurisdiction in the U.S. gives defendants one appeal “as of right” as to a criminal conviction State: ○ To the intermediary court of appeals above the trial court, and below the state supreme court “Discretionary Review”, does court have to hear it? Where doeas it go after direct appeal? ○ If defendant loses direct appeal, can ask higher court to review his appeal – but that court has discretion to hear it or not ○ Goes to state SC then to US SC (which only take 1% of cases) * Federal: ○ To the U.S. Supreme Court  Is there a constituional right to appeal? ○ No but SC allows defendants one Appellate Process: Defendant’s Right to Counsel ○ The Due Process Clause guarantees a criminal defendant the effective assistance of counsel” ○ Subsequent “discretionary appeals”: no constitutional right to counsel, many states leave it up to appellate courts as to whether to appoint counsel What Standards Do Appellate Courts Apply in Deciding Criminal Appeals? ○ SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE, whats does SC say Evidence shouldn’t have even gone to jury Was the evidence sufficient – in other words, was there enough of it – to support the defendant’s conviction at trial SC: Whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational jury could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt ○ * PLAIN ERROR, who si the burden of proof upon? If a defendant FAILS TO RAISE AN OBJECTION as to an issue in trial court – for example, to certain evidence or testimony being admitted -- he loses the ability to raise that issue on appeal Appellant (defendant on appeal) can only prevail on that issue if he can show that the trial court committed “plain error” that affected his “substantial rights” Burden of proof is on the appellant to show plain error Justifications for the “Plain Error Doctrine” Gives a defendant a strong incentive to raise any potential objection at the trial level Drawing objections to the trial judge’s attention reduces the number of errors that occur, and promotes efficiency by “getting things right the first time” Helps the appellate court by making the reason for the trial court's action more likely to appear in the record Prevents defense sand bagging What the Appellant Needs to Show Error committed by the trial judge must be “plain” – “clear and obvious”  * “Plain error” must have affected “substantial rights” – it must have must have been prejudicial, and affected the outcome of the trial * And even then.. Appellate court doesn’t have to consider an issue that wasn’t raised at trial – only if it “seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings” * HOW DOES ALL OF THIS AFFECT THE STRATEGY THAT AN EFFECTIVE DEFENSE COUNSEL USES AT TRIAL? ○ Makes them do alot of objections ○ * HARMLESS ERROR If a defendant RAISES an objection as to an issue in the trial court, appellate court reviews that issue on a “harmless error” standard * Burden is on the appellant to show error * Burden is on the appellee (the government) to show error was “harmless” * Trial error is considered to have been harmless if it didn’t affect substantial rights of the defendant – NOT harmless if the error had a “substantial influence” on the verdict ○ NON-Harmless Errors “Structural” errors, i.e., those that “affect the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply being an error in the basic trial process itself” Erros that can lead to overturn of conviction ○ Examples of Structural Errors * Deprivation of the right to counsel * Debilitating conflicts of interest on the part of judge or attorney *Batson error (WHICH IS WHAT AGAIN?) * Denial of the right to proceed pro se * Denial of the right to trial by jury * Erroneous instruction on reasonable doubt ○ Bottom Line on Error Given human fallibility, there is virtually no such thing as an error- free trial: A defendant is entitled to a fair trial, but not a perfect one * Overturning convictions and ordering new trials on the basis of any error, no matter how trivial, would exact a high cost * Appellate standards are designed to balance various goals of criminal justice system  ○ Retroactivity To make a law or rule effective as of a date prior to the passing of the law or rule” Example: Retroactive tax relief for the wealthy (boo!) Cases: - Coy v Iowa: - can’t block defendant from seing children during cross-exmaination; it si unconstitutional - Maryland v Craig: - Sepatte rooms for testimony of cross examination is necessary when dealing with children - Devonshire: - If you kill or get rid of witness the you lose constituonal right to confornttaion clause - Batson: - Dont get rid of jurors based ovn race and gender - Griffin v California: - Prosceutors can’t comment on silence - Crawford v.Washington - Autopsy - Ohio v Roberts - Inidicai of rleibailty and expectations ot hearsay - Bruton v US - (holding defendant 1 statement against only defendant 1 but this is not right and still violates defendant 2 CC clause right (thinking about elephants)) - Williams v. New york - Sentencing judge can’t impose snetcne or info not disclosed during open court - allows hearsay at sentencing