Lecture 3, Part 1 - Criminal Justice Lecture Notes PDF

SPEAKER 0 Greetings everyone. Today we're going to begin discussing criminal justice and the rule of law. Today, I'm going to try to get through a discussion centered on foundations of law, specifically covering substantive law and then moving into procedural law, specifically talking about the Fou...

SPEAKER 0 Greetings everyone. Today we're going to begin discussing criminal justice and the rule of law. Today, I'm going to try to get through a discussion centered on foundations of law, specifically covering substantive law and then moving into procedural law, specifically talking about the Fourth Amendment. So there are two broad categories of law that we need to be mindful of. One is criminal law and the other is civil. As you should know, a behavior is criminal only if there is a law that identifies it as such where it cannot punish behavior if it's not criminal. And the key feature of criminal law is the government's power to punish people for the damage they have done to society, according to Cole and colleagues. Civil law, on the other hand, deals with contracts, property and personal injuries. And for the purposes of this class, we're obviously going to be focused on criminal law rather than, um, civil law. So we need to talk about the burden of proof. Okay. What is the burden of proof or the evidentiary standards, um, that differ between criminal and civil courts in criminal court? As you might know, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, right? That means that if someone is accused of a crime that the jury or judge, if it's a bench trial, must, um, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant indeed engaged in the acts they were accused of committing civil court. On the other hand, the burden of proof is slightly different. The burden of proof and civil court is the preponderance of evidence. It sounds like a funny term and a very, um, opaque term. But the best definition that I've been able to find comes from Demogorgon and flute in 2006, were they define it as a degree of certainty, just above 50%. And we can probably, um, you know, understand why the evidentiary standards are so fundamentally different because in civil court, um, penalties are not nearly as severe as in criminal court, right? If you're going to send someone to prison for the rest of their life, or if you're going to sentence them to the death penalty, you want to be, um, pretty darn sure that that individual was guilty. In civil court, we're usually talking about financial damages that are paid and not that it's, um, unimportant to get it right. It's just that the severity of the offenses, um, or lower and pardon me, the severity of penalties are considered to be lower in civil court because we're not talking about taking someone's liberty or life. SPEAKER 1 We also need. SPEAKER 0 To be mindful of the distinction between substantive law and procedural law. Substantive law identifies and defines the types of conduct that are criminal and outlines the punishments that can be imposed. So when we're talking about criminal statutes that spell out what behaviors are criminal, and then also identify, um, the appropriate approved punishments that can be imposed for engaging in those acts. Procedural law, on the other hand, is concerned with the rules and procedures associated with administering justice and enforcing criminal laws. Both guide the administration of justice without substantive criminal law. There would be no illegal behaviors and therefore nothing to punish. And without procedural law, there would be no roadmap for doing business. Meaning a guide to assist criminal justice actors in enforcing criminal laws and administering justice when there is an accusation that a law has been violated. It's important to note that as we move forward, saying that people shouldn't do something is not the same as saying people can't do something right. So all of these laws really speak to shouldn't because can't speak to an impossibility. And of course, we know that people can do a whole lot of things that they shouldn't. So don't get caught up in that, that the law says you can't. Law says you shouldn't write or the law says you should. Um, just because you should or shouldn't do something doesn't mean that you do or don't. So again, procedural law defines how the state should process cases. It's defined by the Constitution and precedents set by the United States Supreme Court. The Bill of rights in the 14th Amendment are particularly important to, um, criminal justice. Of course, not all ten of the ten. Right, uh, bill of rights are important, but so several of them are, um, the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution, referred to as the Bill of rights. They were proposed to Congress in 1789 and codified in December 15th. On December 15th, 1791. So it took about two years, um, for Congress to, um, finalize the Bill of rights. Uh, the First Amendment speaks to freedom of religion. Press speech, right to assemble right to petition government for redress of grievances. The Second Amendment speaks to the right to bear arms. The Third Amendment speaks to quartering of soldiers in time of peace without consent of owner. The Seventh Amendment is a right to trial by jury and civil suits involving more than $20. The Ninth Amendment says that the government should not violate rights explicitly protected by the government, by the Constitution, and the 10th Amendment says any powers not explicitly defined in the Constitution are reserved for the state. Now you notice I did not mention the fourth, fifth, sixth, or eighth amendment. This is because we're going to cover these in greater detail as they directly relate to crime and justice proceedings. So these constitutional protections, as well as others were not applied to the states until the 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9th, 1868. So for 77 years, the rights contained within the Bill of rights were only enjoyed by defendants in federal court proceedings, but not necessarily those adjudicated in state courts. So unless a state court willingly adopted the Bill of rights or elements from the Bill of rights, they were not guaranteed those protections until the 14th Amendment was passed. In section one of the 14th Amendment reads, all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens or the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. So. 14th amendment was proposed to Congress on June 13th, 1866 and ratified on July 9th, 1868. So again about a two year process to finalize the 14th amendment. But importantly, the 14th amendment again applies the Bill of rights to the States subsequent to the codification of the 14th Amendment. Citizens adjudicated in state courts began to enjoy the protections automatically. The Supreme Court began to incorporate many of the constitutional protections at the state level. And as we look back over time, we can see the court's decisions ebb and flow in terms of procedural protections and crime control. So how many people sit on the United States Supreme Court assuming it's a full court? Well, there are nine. There's one chief justice and eight associate justices, assuming the court is full. Often the Supreme Court is referred to as the Chief Justice's Court, so currently it is referred to as the Roberts Court. Um Chief Justice John Roberts was appointed by George W Bush. Uh, the Warren Court, named after Earl Warren, who was the Chief Justice of the court from 1953 to 1969. Uh, often tended to hand down decisions that were centered on civil liberties, meaning protections of the, uh, defendant. It was under this court's rule that Gideon versus Wainwright was heard and decided, as well as others, um, that applied um, protections to the liberties of the defendants. The Burger Court, named after Warren Burger, who was chief justice of the court from 1969 to 1986, um remained a due process oriented court. Most of the protections outlined in the Constitution were applied to the states, eventually through Supreme Court decisions. Now, again, remember that the Bill of rights originally only applied to federal cases until the codification of the 14th Amendment, unless with the caveat that a state willingly adopted one of the protections. The Fourth Amendment is one of those protections initially enjoyed only by defendants in federal court. The Fourth Amendment we're talking about protecting citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment reads the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. So the Fourth Amendment is pretty explicit about what the expectations are for criminal justice actors when investigating a crime, right? A warrant is supposed to describe the place that is going to be searched, the persons or things that are going to be seized. Moreover, note that searches and seizures must be accompanied by a warrant. The Fourth Amendment, um, laid the foundation for the exclusionary rule. In 1914, the Supreme Court heard the United States versus weeks the facts surrounding this case suggests that police entered the home of Fremont Weeks and seized papers which were used to convict him of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. This was done without a search warrant. Weeks. Weeks took action against the police and petitioned for the return of his private possessions. And so the question before the court was, did the search of and seizure of weeks home violate the Fourth Amendment? In a unanimous decision, the court held that the seizure of items from weeks residents directly violated his constitutional rights. The court also held that the government's refusal to return weeks possession violated the Fourth Amendment to allow private documents to be a seized pardon me, and then held as evidence against citizens, would have meant that the protection of the Fourth Amendment, declaring the right to be secure against searches and seizures, would be of no value whatsoever. And this was the first application of what eventually became known as the exclusionary rule, in the sense that evidence that is obtained without proper procedure is excluded from supposed to be excluded from court proceedings. So again, that was 1914, when the court applied the exclusionary rule to cases originating in federal courts. But the exclusionary rule was not applied to the states until 1961, when the High Court heard map v Ohio. So it wasn't 47 years later, um, that the exclusionary rule was applied to the states. The facts of this case are as such. Delray Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression, and the question before the court was, were the confiscated materials protected from seizure by the Fourth Amendment? And in A63 decision, um, for Mapp, the court brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures and violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state court. So there are two, two issues here. The obscene materials, uh, was contested with under the First Amendment right to our First Amendment right to have these materials. Um, but the larger point in this case was focused on the Fourth Amendment and which she challenged the search of her home, um, without a warrant by police. And so the um, court in A63 majority opinion said, yes, uh, the police actions violated her Fourth Amendment protection and those, materials would not be admissible in court, and so the decision applied the exclusionary rule to cases originating in state courts. It's important to note, though, that the pendulum of justice swings both ways. And in 1984, when the United States Supreme Court heard United States versus Leon, the court established the good faith exception. The facts of the case in Leon R as such. As we know, the exclusionary rule requires that evidence illegally seized must be excluded from criminal trials. Mr. Leon was the target of police surveillance. Based on an anonymous informant's tip. The police applied to a judge for a search warrant of Leon's home based on the evidence from their surveillance. A judge issued the warrant, and police recovered large quantities of illegal drugs upon their search. Leann was indicted for violating federal drug laws. A judge concluded that the affidavit for the search warrant was insufficient. It did not establish the probable cause necessary to issue the warrant. Thus, the evidence obtained under the warrant could not be introduced at Leon's trial. And so the question before the court was, is there a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule? Right. If officers are operating under the assumption that they have a valid warrant, should evidence seized under that warrant, even if it's not valid, be excluded? And in A63 decision in favor of the United States, the court ruled, yes, there is such an exception. The justices held that evidence seized on the basis of a mistakenly issued search warrant could be introduced at trial. The exclusionary rule argued the majority is not a right, but a remedy justified by its ability to deter illegal police conduct in Leon. The cost of the exclusionary rule outweighed the benefits. The exclusionary rule is costly to society, they maintained. Guilty defendants go unpunished and people lose respect for the law. The benefits of the exclusionary rule are uncertain. The rule cannot deter police. In cases like Leon, where they act in good faith on a warrant issued by a judge. So what the court is saying here is that the exclusionary rule is meant to, um, deter or limit evidence knowingly seized without a proper warrant. But they felt that it was unfair to police and police work to exclude evidence where police thought that they were following the law, when in fact there was an issue with the warrant. So the court's ruling established that evidence collected by any officer acting within the color of the law and in good faith, would be exempt from the exclusionary rule. Now, something important, something else important about this case, aside from the ruling, is that we see, uh, Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the first female ever appointed to the United States Supreme Court. So she was appointed by President Reagan in 1981, and she served on the court for 25 years, retiring in 2006. So very, uh, important, um, period for the High Court in 1981, when president, then President Reagan nominated the first ever female Supreme Court justice.