Mid Term

Right to counselor

-6th amendment provison of right to counsel grants indigent defendants charged with a felony the right to an attorney paid by the government -Gideon vs. Wainwirght

3 ways to accomplish the right to counsel

1. Engaging a private attorney-best way to go 2. Public defender system- huge caseloads in some places, get burned out, not paid as well 3. Assigned counsel- in very small rural areas or if no other attorney available, an attorney may be assigned to defend someone

There are 3 standards of evidence:

1. Relevancy- logical relationship between evidence and fact to be established (part of corupus delicti) 2. Materiality- degree of relevancy (probative value) -probative value tends to prove the linkage 3. Competency of the evidence -Presence or absence of witness - Witness may not be qualified to give testimony-poor credibility -Witness does not want to prosecute

Gregory v. Ashcroft

Article V, § 26 of the Missouri Constitution provides a mandatory retirement age of 70 for most state judges. Petitioners, judges subject to § 26, were appointed by the Governor and subsequently were retained in office by means of retention elections in which they ran unopposed, subject only to a "yes or no" vote. Along with other state judges, they filed suit against respondent Governor, alleging that § 26 violated the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court granted the Governor's motion to dismiss, ruling that there was no ADEA violation because Missouri's appointed judges are not covered "employees" within the Act's terms, and that there was no equal protection violation because there is a rational basis for the distinction between judges and other state officials, to whom no mandatory retirement age applies. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

defense attorney role

Defense attorney is not to consider whether the client's case is right or wrong and is not to allow societal or public needs to affect the manner in which the client is represented

poor police writing

Poor police writing is one of the biggest reasons cases fall out

Weakest member

The weakest member of the courtroom work group is the defense attorney

prosecutorial immunity

complete freedom from civil liability for everything they do with regard to the core prosecutorial functions of initiating criminal charges and pursuing criminal convictions as the government's advocate

Code of Ethics

instructs lawyers not to lie- permissible to mislead opponents to benefit client • Legal ethics different from traditional standards of ethical behavior • Legal ethics- some things lawyers are obligated to do for their clients would violate traditional standards of ethical behavior • Very controversial • Adversary system must function because it is our basic protection against government overstepping its bounds • Job of defense attorney is to challenge the government • Role of the defense attorney is hardest role in the criminal justice system to explain to the public • Lots of potential conflicts (ethical concerns) the adversarial relationship can create between lawyers responsible to client and professional commitment to truth in legal procedures The public relexively links the client with his/her attorney and fails to appreciate the professional and consitutional responsibility which defense attorneys must exercise

merit selection

involves the establishment of a judicial nominating commission composed of lawyers and lay persons who suggest a list of qualified nominees to the appointing authority who is usually the governor, The state's chief executive makes the final selection but is limited to choosing from those nominated by the commission.

Aresinger v. Hamlin

is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the accused cannot be subjected to actual imprisonment unless provided with counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright made the right to counsel provided in the Sixth Amendment applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. -US supreme court ruled that no person may be imprisoned for any offense, even if the crime is classified as a petty misdemeanor -indigent nonfelony defendants have the right to appointed counsel if they are facing jail time

Gideon vs. Wainwright

is a landmark case in United States Supreme Court history. In it, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states are required under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases to represent defendants who are unable to afford to pay their own attorneys. The case extended the right to counsel, which had been found under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to impose requirements on the federal government, by ruling that this right imposed those requirements upon the states as well. -indigent felony defendants have the right to appointed counsel

Contract system

providing counsel for indigent defendants under which government contracts with a law firm to represent all indigents for the year in return for a set fee

adversary system

requires defense attorneys main responsibility to be to the client

ABA Standards

says that it is proper to destroy a truthful witness when essential to provide the defendant with a defense and that failure to do so would violate a lawyers duty under the model code of professional responsibility

Chisom v. Roemer

supreme court ruled that the voting rights acts applies to judicial elections, judges can not be elected in ways that place minority candidates at an unfair advantage

Buckley v. Fitzsimmons

the Supreme Court conceded that it had accorded immunity to some officials whose "special functions" were similar to functions that were immune in 1871. But, to determine whether particular conduct fits either under the common law absolute immunity or qualified immunity, the Court applied a "functional approach" based on "the nature of the function performed." Id. at 269 The Court found no absolute immunity for a prosecutor when he acted as an investigator or administrator. Id. at 273-74. Therefore, the existence of a particular position or task in 1871 is not determinative; rather, a court examines the function performed by the government officer in light of the public policy behind immunity. In any event, judicial immunity predates 1871 and immunity for probation officers in this case is an extension of that immunity.

Powell v. Alabama

the United States Supreme Court reversed the convictions of nine young black men for allegedly raping two white women on a freight train near Scottsboro, Alabama. The majority of the Court reasoned that the right to retain and be represented by a lawyer was fundamental to a fair trial and that at least in some circumstances, the trial judge must inform a defendant of this right. In addition, if the defendant cannot afford a lawyer, the court must appoint one sufficiently far in advance of trial to permit the lawyer to prepare adequately for the trial.Powell was the first time the Court had reversed a state criminal conviction for a violation of a criminal procedural provision of the United States Bill of Rights. -indigent defendants in a capital case in state court have a right to court appointed counsel

Collateral estoppel

the prosecutor cant try the person on just the murder and then try them again on the murder weapon it has to be one trial

Berger v. United States

the prosecutor's primary interest is in doing justice, not simply winning cases

Barker v. Wingo

was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically the right of defendants in criminal cases to a speedy trial. The Court held that determinations of whether or not the right to a speedy trial has been violated must be made on a case-by-case basis, and set forth four factors to be considered in the determination.

Burns V. Reed

was a United States Supreme Court case. A prosecutor was absolutely immune from damages based upon positions taken in a probable cause hearing for a search warrant. The same prosecutor was not held entitled to immunity for giving legal advice to the police about the legality of an investigative practice

Faretta v. California

was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings. -defendants have the right to self representation

Strickland v. Washington

was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.[1] The Court, in a decision by Justice O'Connor, established a two-part test for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim: a criminal defendant must show two things: Counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Counsel's performance gives rise to a reasonable probability that if counsel had performed adequately, the result would have been different. -a defense attorney is ineffective only if proceedings were unfair and the outcome would have been different

Republican Party v. White

was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the First Amendment rights of candidates for judicial office. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that Minnesota's announce clause, which forbade candidates for judicial office from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues, was unconstitutional. -in campaigning for judgeship a candidate may discuss their views

Miranda v. Arizona

was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court. In a 5-4 majority, the Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.

Real Criminal Court

• Courtroom workgroup: • Judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney must work together • No hierarchical system to control what they do • Learn that cooperation benefits all three • Shared decision making-share responsibility for decisions • Shared norms- as to proper professional conduct Socialization (teaching how things are done)

Courtroom work group

• Excessive caseloads- pressure to move cases through quickly • Central reason why plea bargains outnumber trials Discretion is exercised in every key decision

Prosecutor

• Has many choices to make • Can divert from system • Deny arrests (1/3 of all that come in) • Level of probably cause Willingness of victim to be part of process

Professional (the courtroom workgroup)

• Judge • Prosecuting attorney • Defense attorney • Bailiff • Court reporter • Clerk of the court Expert witness

Non-professional

• Lay witnesses • Jurors • Defendant • Victim • Spectators Press

Three major problems

• Police report writing • Corroborative evidence Victim involvement

Assistant District Attorneys (Deputy district attorney)

• Recent grads of law school • Few job opportunities • Burnout Psychological and physical pressures

Prosecutor's work involves being:

○ A fighter (trial advocate) ○ A negotiator (plea bargains) ○ Drafts briefs, warrants ○ Counselor of victims, witnesses, police Administrator (manager of office in some places)

The prosecutor is the most powerful. Why?

○ Acts as prosecutor (decides which offenders to charge) ○ Acts as jury (convicting defendant through plea bargaining) ○ And judge (sentencing defendant through sentence agreements) • Has many choices • Prosecutor is the chief law enforcement official in the community • Position characterized by broad discretion ○ Independent actor controls charging decision ○ Operates independently due to lack of decentralization and monitoring • Usually an elected official (can be appointed)

3 subcomponents of courtroom work groups

○ Legal judgments: may not charge ○ Policy priorities: may not have sufficient resources ○ Personal philosophies: different courts in different jurisdictions § In different states respond differently to various types of crime and offenders

Pro se

acting as one's own attorney in court, representing one's self