Rules of Criminal Evidence Test 1 Study Guide: Ch.1-4

Right to an indictment

About half of the states follow the Fifth Amendment requirement of a grand jury indictment for capital or "infamous" crimes. In other states, elected prosecutors determine whether to charge a defendant and what crimes to charge. ¡Defendants charged with a felony by a prosecutor have the right to a preliminary hearing.

Cullen vs. Pinholster 131 S. Ct. 1388-2011.

Affected review of habeas petitions by federal courts. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with petitioner's claim that his conviction and death sentence were flawed because his mental condition was not taken into account. U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that evidence presented at a habeas hearing could not be considered.

Plea bargaining

Agreement to enter a guilty plea in return for a reduction in the charge or sentence. For example, first-offense shoplifters are often given the opportunity to plea to disorderly conduct in a municipal court instead of going to trial for a theft charge. First-offense drunk drivers are often permitted to enter a guilty plea in return for the dropping of one of three or four criminal charges that they face.

The Not Guilty Plea

All defendants in criminal cases are presumed innocent until proven guilty through the use of evidence and witnesses presented during a trial. The burden of proof is always on the state or government to prove the elements of the crime charged. The level of proof required in all criminal cases is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. ¡This means that the evidence presented during the trial must convince the fact finder of the defendant's guilt to a moral certitude. The defendant can remain silent, appear as a witness on his or her own behalf, or actively attack or seek to hinder and minimize the state's evidence and case. The defendant can deny performing the acts charged or assert an affirmative defense. ¡To assert an affirmative defense, the defendant must come forward with evidence showing a basis for it, e.g., entrapment.

Notice of Alibi Statutes

An alibi defense alleges the defendant could not have committed the crime that is charged because the defendant was at another place at the time the crime was committed. Most states have notice of alibi statutes that require defendants who plan to use an alibi defense to serve notice on the prosecutor within a certain period of time before trial.

The American Declaration of Independence

British abuses abounded in the colonies prior to the creation and signing of the Declaration. Many of these abuses concerned liberty, freedom, and the judiciary. Eventually many of these abuses were specifically corrected in the U.S. Constitution. In declaring independence from Great Britain, this U.S. document repudiated the doctrine of the divine right of kings. ¡Declared that governments derive power from the consent of the governed. ¡Stated that all men are created equal and "endowed with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Civil Commitment

Civil commitment can be authorized under state or federal statutes to involuntarily confine a person who is deemed a present danger to themselves or others because of mental health problems or sexual predator histories, among other circumstances. ¡Most states have mental health laws authorizing involuntary, short-term mental observations of persons with mental illness. ¡Longer detentions requested by the government require them to prove the potential for violence beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court has held that civil commitment of mentally ill, sexually dangerous prisoners beyond the date of release is constitutional if the government can show proof of dangerous behavior in the past among other factors. U.S. v. Comstock (2010).

Federal Rules of Evidence

Codification in 1975 of common-law rules of evidence; applicable only in federal courts but provide the model for most state evidence codes.

The Right of a Defendant to be Present During Trial

Common law principles mandate a defendant has the right to be present during his criminal trial and cannot be trial in absentia. The Supreme Court has held that federal rules require that in felony cases the defendant must be present at the beginning of the trial.

Competent Evidence

Competent evidence includes relevant, reliable evidence that is not otherwise rendered inadmissible. ¡Communications between a patient and a treating physician are considered privileged and thus inadmissible. ¡Evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement is inadmissible.

Inferences

Conclusions that may be drawn from facts.

Fry versus Piller 127 S.Ct. 2321-2007

Defendant was convicted of murder after two successive mistrials. During trial defendant tried to introduce testimony that a third party had committed the murders. The trial judge excluded one of the witnesses from testifying. The defendant appealed and filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal court and ultimately to the Supreme Court. The Supreme court granted certiorari to consider the scope of review of constitutional error in habeas corpus cases. The Court affirmed the lower court's holding denying habeas relief, holding that even if the testimony was wrongly excluded, a trial judge's decision to exclude evidence can only be overturned if it has a "substantial and injurious effect" on the jury verdict.

Fast-Track Trials and Plea Bargains

Defendants in "fast track" trials must prepare for a speedy trial or have the choice of "fast-tracking" plea bargaining. The ability of defendants to receive reduced sentences in federal districts that have fast-track programs has caused problems for judges sentencing defendants in other districts, where fast track plea bargains are not available.

Brady versus Maryland 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194-1963

Despite a request from defense counsel, the prosecution withheld a statement by an accomplice who had admitted to killing the victim. The real issue was the suppression of the statement favorable to the accused upon the request of that information; this was deemed a violation of due process since the evidence was material to both guilt or punishment.

Peremptory challenges and discrimination

During jury selection, both sides are given peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors from being selected. Both sides are also given unlimited challenges for cause. Preemptory challenges are determined by state law and are not required by the U.S. Constitution. Both parties are generally entitled to strike any prospective juror for cause. ¡They may also strike a limited number of potential jury members without having to explain the reasons, called a "peremptory challenge." The peremptory challenge can be used to exclude potential jurors who might be reluctant to find the defendant guilty.

Duty to Disclose Evidence Showing the Innocence of the Accused

Evidence that tends to show innocence is called exculpatory evidence. A prosecutor has a duty to disclose evidence favorable to an accused upon request where the evidence is material to the defendant's guilt or innocence (the Brady rule). oThis requirement is extended to law enforcement officers as well. oSteckler v. Greene (1999), Banks v. Dretke (2004), and Smith v. Cain (2012) further define the limits of exculpatory evidence.

Courts and Trials in the United States

Federal and state courts. ¡These courts handle about 95 percent of all criminal trials in the United States. Military courts. ¡These courts are for members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Military commissions. ¡These courts were established in 2004 for "enemy combatants" held by the U.S. military.

Some Inferences Should Not be Drawn

Impermissible inferences include: ¡When a defendant exercises the privilege against self-incrimination (e.g., Griffin v. California); ¡When the information is protected by the rape shield law (e.g., Commonwealth v. Nieves); and ¡The cessation of signature crimes after a suspect's arrest (e.g., State v. Miller).

Review of Sentencing

Imposed sentences may be reviewed by the following authorities: ¡Trial judge ¡Appellate courts ¡Federal courts ¡State parole board or parole authorities ¡The President of the United States and state governors

Innocence until Proven guilty

In a criminal prosecution, the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. ¡In Taylor (1978) and Pagano (2002), the courts have consistently held the accused is innocent until proven guilty. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the defendant's presumption of innocence is a basic component of a fair trial.

Proving Corpus Delicti by Direct or Circumstantial Evidence

In all criminal cases, the prosecutor must prove: ¡A crime has been committed by someone (corpus delicti); and ¡The defendant committed the offense. The corpus delicti of most crimes is ordinarily proved by direct evidence, as when the victim or an eyewitness tells the police about the occurrence of a crime. The corpus delicti of other crimes can be proved by physical evidence; e.g., a burglary is shown by a broken window and missing valuables. The corpus delicti of a murder could be proved by a dead body with a knife in the chest. As a general rule, corpus delicti must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. ¡When an attempt is made to prove corpus delicti by circumstantial evidence, the general rule is that the evidence must be so conclusive as to eliminate all reasonable doubt a crime was committed.

The Reasonable Doubt Standard

In order to convict a defendant for the crime charged, every essential element of the crime must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Courts and legal scholars have not reached a consensus on the exact definition of reasonable doubt. ¡As a result, the instructions trial judges give juries can differ from state to state and from court to court within a state. ¡The instructions must inform the jury that they must judge the guilt of the defendant according to a high degree of certainty. The U.S. Supreme Court has examined this issue in a series of cases. The Court has interpreted reasonable doubt to mean less than "actual substantial doubt" but more than "a mere possible doubt." ¡In Sandoval v. California (1994), the Court held a jury should not find a defendant guilty because it did not have "substantial doubt" about the defendant's guilt, but it should not refuse to find that same defendant guilty simply because a "mere possible doubt" exists about the defendant's guilt.

Rape Kits as Circumstantial Evidence

In rape cases that go to trial, rape kits can be a valuable source of circumstantial evidence. ¡Where reports are made by a victim, it is important to collect and preserve physical evidence as quickly as possible. The Federal Violence Against Women Act, 42 U.S.C. § 13925, mandates that all states make forensic medical examinations available to victims free of charge. Victims have no obligation to report the sexual assault to police, but may do so anonymously to the police or to a hospital.

The Inquisitorial System

In some European countries, special judges are responsible for investigating serious crimes and questioning witnesses and suspects. Countries that use the inquisitorial system rely more heavily on obtaining confessions to solve crimes.

Use of Circumstantial Evidence Alone

In some cases, circumstantial evidence alone can be used. ¡Holland v. United States: "[C]ircumstantial evidence is ... no different from testimonial evidence." When only circumstantial evidence is used, many states do not follow a general rule like that set forth in the Holland decision, but add requirements. In a few crimes, such as treason, prosecutors use direct evidence in proving the offenses.

The Guilty Plea

In the United States, most people charged with felonies plead guilty. Most guilty pleas are entered because defendants realize the evidence against them will result in a conviction. ¡It is a standard practice to reward a defendant who acknowledges guilt in open court with a lighter sentence. The foundations of a valid guilty plea are: ¡the defendant's voluntary admission that he or she committed the acts charged; and ¡the defendant's knowing consent to the judgment of guilt without trial. Defendants who offer a guilty plea must admit that he or she committed the crime charged. It must be shown that the defendant entered a guilty plea voluntarily and intelligently. The trial judge must be convinced by the evidence presented that the defendant did in fact commit the criminal act. There is no constitutional right to plead guilty, but a state may create a statutory right to do so. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure lists fourteen specific topics that the trial judge must address, including: ¡The right to plead not guilty; ¡The right to have an attorney appointed; ¡The right to a jury trial; and ¡The right to information about the possible sentence. Rule 11 specifically states that the trial judge "must address the defendant personally in open court" to provide this information.

Law Enforcement in the American Federal System

In the United States, there are more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies. Most are at the local levels of government (city, counties, towns, etc.). ¡Local law enforcement agencies enforce city and county ordinances in addition to the criminal laws of their states. State rules of evidence are used in both municipal and state courts. Law enforcement agencies working at the state level of government are generally created by state law to enforce state criminal laws or to enforce hunting, fishing, health, sanitation, fire, and other state codes. Federal law enforcement officers work with federal law agencies created by Congress to enforce specific laws assigned to their agencies.

Fifth and Sixth Amendments

Individual rights in criminal prosecution are present in various parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. ¡The Fifth and Sixth Amendments provide an extensive list of those rights.

Right to Testify or Not Testify

It is the defendant's choice whether to testify in his or her own defense. Most defendants do not testify, for a variety of tactical reasons. ¡A defendant who testifies is subject to cross-examination. ¡Many defense lawyers want to avoid this risk.

Habeas Corpus

Latin name for the writ used to compel a government official, such as a prison warden, to show cause why the official is holding a person in custody.

Common law

Legal rules that evolved over many years in English and American court opinions.

The No Contest Plea

Most states also have statutes permitting a no contest plea, sometimes referred to as a nolo contendere plea. In most states and in the federal courts, this plea may be made only with the consent of the trial judge. Some states limit this plea to misdemeanor and local ordinance violations.

The Sufficiency-of-Evidence Requirement to Justify a Guilty Verdict

One of the most common grounds of appeal following a jury verdict or a judge's finding of guilty is that of insufficiency of evidence (sufficiency-of-evidence requirement). ¡Defense argues there wasn't sufficient evidence to support the verdict or finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Either direct or circumstantial evidence will support a finding of guilt if the evidence is legally sufficient to prove all of the essential elements of the crime charged.

Habeas Petitions

Prior to 1996, federal courts heard habeas petitions under "de novo" review which gave little deference to state court decisions. Since 1996, writs are limited to cases where the conviction or sentence was contrary to a clearly established federal law or based on "unreasonable determination of the facts."

Batson versus Kentucky 476 U.S. 79-1986

Prohibited the use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race of juror. Prosecution needs "race-neutral" reasons to justify the challenges during jury selection. The U.S. Supreme Court has not extended the Batson holding to include peremptory strikes based on other factors such as religion.

Fifth Amendment

Protects the accused from: ¡detention without a presentment or indictment by a grand jury; ¡double jeopardy; ¡self-incrimination; and ¡deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process.

Sixth Amendment

Provides the accused with the right to: ¡a fair, speedy and public trial; ¡an impartial jury; ¡information about the nature and cause of the accusation; ¡the ability to confront and cross-examine witnesses; and ¡counsel for assistance in defense.

Burden of Persuasion

That part of the burden of proof that requires a party to persuade the jury that a fact exists.

Burden of Production

That part of the burden of proof that requires a party to produce sufficient evidence to establish the fact at issue.

The Alford Guilty Plea

The Alford guilty plea permits a defendant to enter a guilty plea while at the same time asserting his or her innocence. Most state courts hold that an Alford pleas is the "functional equivalent" of a regular plea of guilty. ¡There may be different consequences of a regular guilty plea and an Alford plea.

Boykin versus Alabama 395 U.S. 238-1969

The Court defined the nature and consequences of a guilty plea in criminal prosecutions. The guilty plea is more than a confession; it is a conviction. When defendants plead guilty, they waive the following rights: ¡the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination; ¡the right to a trial by jury; and the right to confront one's accusers.

North Carolina versus Alford 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S.Ct. 160, 167-1970

The Court held that a defendant can voluntarily and knowingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even if the defendant is unwilling or unable to admit his or her participation in the acts constituting the crime. ¡The Alford plea permits a defendant to enter a guilty plea while at the same time protest his innocence. The Alford plea is not mandatory for states but many have adopted the concept.

Holbrook versus Flynn 475 U.S. 560-1986

The Court held that central to a fair trial is the principle that "one accused of a crime is entitled to have his guilt or innocence determined solely on the basis of the evidence introduced at trial, and not on grounds of official suspicion, indictment, continued custody, or any other circumstances not adduced as proof at trial." Each state has authority to commence a criminal prosecution if sufficient evidence is available to justify the criminal charges.

United States versus Salerno 481 U.S. 739, 752-1987

The Court held that pretrial detention is permissible in some circumstances under the Bail Reform Act, and does not violate the Eighth Amendment.

Freedom of Unreasonable search and seizures

The Fourth Amendment forbids searches without a warrant unless a justifiable exception can be shown. The historic foundation for the Fourth Amendment can be traced back to the Magna Carta and the probable cause requirement.

The Right to a Speedy Trial

The Sixth Amendment includes granting the defendant a speedy trial. ¡Courts are split as to whether this applies in situations where sentencing is delayed. A defendant may waive the right to a speedy trial with permission of the court. ¡The federal government and many states have enacted statutes that prescribe the time limit within which a case must go to trial.

Right to Confront Witnesses

The Sixth Amendment provides that "the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." ¡The famous trial of Sir Walter Raleigh in 1603 was one of the reasons the Confrontation Clause was included in the Sixth Amendment.

Right to be Informed of Charges

The Sixth Amendment provides that "the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation." ¡Can be an issue when a defendant later seeks to retract a guilty plea because it was not "voluntary and intelligent."

Right to Compel Witnesses

The Sixth Amendment provides that "the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor." ¡Witnesses can be compelled to appear through the use of subpoenas.

Public and Speedy trial

The Sixth Amendment provides that "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." ¡A public trial means all court sessions must be open to the public unless the trial court gives sufficient, specific reasons for closing the courtroom.

Victor versus Nebraska 511 U.S. 1-1994

The Supreme Court held that while the jury instructions may attempt to define reasonable doubt, they need not do so. All the U.S. Constitution requires is that "taken as a whole, the instructions properly convey the concept of reasonable doubt."

In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358- 1970

The Supreme Court held the Due Process Clause requires the prosecution prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court did not mandate any particular jury instructions on the exact meaning of the term reasonable doubt.

Miller versus Pate 386 U.S. 451-1967

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the defendant's murder and rape conviction because during the trial the prosecutor repeatedly referred to "blood-stained shorts" during the trial when the prosecutor knew, but did not reveal to the court or defense, that the red stain was actually paint. The Court held that the prosecution had "deliberately misrepresented the truth" and had used false evidence during the trial.

United States versus Williams 128 S.Ct. 1830-2008

The Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and held that the PROTECT Act was constitutional. The Act makes it a crime for a person to distribute information on the Internet in a manner that "reflects a belief" or is "intended to make another believe" the person is distributing child pornography. Distribution of child pornography can be a difficult crime to prove and the Act gives prosecutors the ability to prosecute if the image is of an actual child or appears to be a minor.

Tenth Amendment and Individual Rights

The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states or the people. ¡This distinction reinforces the basic concept of federalism.

Direct Evidence and Circumstantial Evidence

The U.S. Constitution requires that in all criminal cases the state or the federal government proves the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt through the use of two types of evidence. ¡Circumstantial evidence is that which indirectly proves or disproves a fact in issue and requires the fact finder to draw inferences. ¡Direct evidence is that which proves or disproves a fact in issue without any reasoning or inferences. ¡Direct and circumstantial evidence must also be used to prove mental elements that are required elements in many crimes. Direct evidence is evidence that proves or disproves a fact in issue without the fact-finder having to draw upon any reasoning or inferences. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that indirectly proves or disproves a fact in issue. The fact-finder must reason or draw an inference from circumstantial evidence.

Lost, Misplaced, and Destroyed Evidence

The U.S. Supreme Court has established rules concerning the government's duty to preserve evidence. The court held that lost, misplaced, or destroyed evidence is not a violation of due process unless: ¡The loss was due to bad faith on the part of the police or other law enforcement official. ¡The evidence was likely significant to the defendant's case. If a Brady violation is discovered, the penalty is severe, including a new trial or a dismissal of charges.

Uttecht versus. Brown 127 S. Ct. 2218-2007

U.S. Supreme Court identified four principles that must be used to determine if a juror has been properly excused for a cause in capital cases: 1. The prosecution may not challenge for cause any juror who expresses doubt about capital punishment. 2. The state has a legitimate interest in having jurors who are willing to apply capital punishment where the law so permits. 3. Unless a juror is "substantially impaired" in his or her ability to impose the death sentence, the juror's excusal for the cause is improper. 4. The trial judge is entitled to deference in the determination of when a prospective juror is "substantially impaired."

U.S. versus Mendez-Santana 645 F.3d 822-6th Cir. 2011

Under federal rules a defendant has an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea before the trial judge accepts the plea. ¡The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing for "fair and just" reasons. ¡In federal prosecutions, there is no jurisdiction in the trial court to grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea after sentence has been imposed.

Custody

Under police control; whether or not physically strained.

Right to a fair, not perfect,trial

Under the Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the law does "not require a defendant receive a perfect trial, only a fair one." ¡If a defendant is convicted in a trial where a harmless error occurred, the defendant is not entitled to a new trial. ¡If an error during the trial is deemed harmful, reversible, or plain, the defendant is entitled to a new trial or to have the charges dropped.

Impeach

Use of evidence to challenge the credibility of a witness.

Early Methods of Determining Guilt or Innocence

Use of ordeals was common; e.g., duels in which winners were considered innocent and losers were guilty. Later, judgment was often pronounced by the clergy through oaths and oath-helpers (similar to witnesses today). ¡Presentment juries composed of community residents were also used. Petit juries were charged with not only determining guilt or innocence but also with finding facts about this determination. Rules were gradually developed to govern the introduction of facts into criminal trials.

Gonzales versus Raich 125 S.Ct. 2195-2005

Users and growers of medical marijuana brought an action to declare the federal Controlled Substances Act unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Commerce Clause permits Congress to regulate local marijuana production because the activity "substantially affects" interstate commerce.

Disclosing Information in the Adversary System

When a criminal charge has been made, the prosecution and the defense begin separate investigations of the facts. The U.S. Supreme Court has placed limits on the unwillingness of the parties to share information with the other side. ¡Many of the rules that compel disclosure apply to the prosecution, but some compel the defense to disclose information to the prosecution.

Competent Evidence

Any evidence that is relevant and reliable and not otherwise excludable.

Crosby versus United States 506 U.S. 255-1993

Court held that Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires a defendant be present at the beginning of any felony criminal trial, forbidding in absentia trials for defendants who were not "initially present."

Federalism

Division of power between state governments and the federal government; in which the federal government has specific powers delegated to it, with the remaining powers vested in the states.

Habeas Corpus and Enemy Combatants

Enemy combatants at Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba have appealed their detention using habeas petitions. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court held that detainees on U.S. military bases had habeas corpus rights. ¡Suspected enemy combatants can be tried in military tribunals as opposed to federal district court.

Presentment Juries

English forerunners to grand juries; gave information that crimes had been committed.

Reversible Error

Errors that occur at a trial that might have had a bearing on the outcome. If the outcome clearly would have been the same without the error, it is not a reversible error.

Circumstantial evidence

Evidence from which proof of the fact in question may be inferred.

Discovery

Formal procedures used by prosecution and defense attorneys to gather documents, witnesses, and other evidence.

Permissible Evidence

Inferences made from proof of facts that a fact finder may, but need not, draw.

Witchcraft as a crime

Numerous trials charging witchcraft as a crime were held in ancient Rome and later in Europe. In Salem, Massachusetts witchcraft trials were conducted and people were executed and imprisoned. The crime of witchcraft no longer exists in the American criminal justice system and can never be resurrected.

Judgment NOV

A post-trial judgment made by a judge changing or reversing the jury decision; literally, non-obstante verdicto ("notwithstanding the verdict").

Sufficiency-of-evidence requirement

The demand for a reasonably substantial foundation of evidence to support a verdict or finding.

Thaler versus Haynes 130 S. Ct. 1171-2010

Illustrates limitations to habeas petitions. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned a Texas homicide conviction, was reversed by the Supreme Court because the appellate court applied a legal principle that had not be clearly established by the Supreme Court.

Team Review of Evidence

A 2008 FBI article on best practices in homicide investigations concluded that police departments that use the practice of team review of evidence have a higher clearance rate than the national average. Team review allows for better communication and exchange of information between investigating officers. Methods and questions raised in a team review can include: ¡What physical evidence is available? ¡Was the evidence obtained in a manner that can be attacked or suppressed? ¡What witnesses are available, and how reliable and dependable are they? ¡What are some likely ways that witnesses may be attacked on cross-examination? ¡Is there a suspect or suspects? ¡Are confessions or incriminating statements available?

Prima facie case

A civil or criminal case that is so strong that the opponent must respond with rebutting evidence to avoid losing the case.

Strickland versus. Washington 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052-1984

A convicted defendant claiming inadequate or ineffective defense must prove: ¡the defense fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and ¡a reasonable probability exists that the results would have been different but for the lawyer's errors.

Inferences Drawn from Other Bad Acts or Other Convictions

A defendant charged with a crime must answer for only that crime at trial. Evidence of prior crimes or other prior bad acts is generally held to be inadmissible because it could cause prejudice. ¡There are exceptions to the rule forbidding evidence of prior crimes or bad acts (see Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence). ¡In some circumstances, evidence of past violent acts of the victim may be introduced by the defendant. Rule 413 of the Federal Rules of Evidence makes evidence of prior sexual assaults admissible in criminal cases. Rule 414 of the Federal Rules of Evidence makes evidence of prior child molestations admissible in criminal cases. Most states have similar rules for the admissibility of past sexual offenses. ¡In states that have not adopted rules similar to Rule 413 or 414, there is often a "pedophile exception" to Rule 404 (b).

Bousley versus. United States 523 U.S. 614-1998

A defendant's guilty plea must be "voluntarily and intelligently" made in order to be constitutionally valid. If circumstances show that the defendant was misinformed by either the court or the prosecutor, the guilty plea is invalid.

Affirmative defense

A defense that admits the defendant committed the crime charged but asserts that the defendant should not be convicted.

United States versus Kebodeaux 133 S.Ct. 2496-2013

A former military serviceman was convicted of failing to register under SORNA based on a conviction of a sex offense while in the service. The court held that Congress has the power to enact SORNA under the Necessary and Proper Clause. ¡This clause authorizes Congress to pass laws necessary to obtain the object of permissible legislation.

Alford guilty plea

A guilty plea that permits the accused to maintain innocence.

Grand jury

A jury that hears evidence presented by the prosecution and determines whether to charge persons with crimes, used in federal and many state criminal proceedings.

Ordeal

A medieval method of proof that was an appeal to God to determine guilt or innocence.

No contest or nolo contendere plea

A plea in which the accused neither contests nor admits the charges against him; treated as a guilty plea.

Insanity plea

A plea to a criminal charge of not guilty because of mental disease or defect.

Motion to suppress evidence

A written or oral request to a judge to keep out evidence at a trial or hearing; often made when a party believes the evidence was unlawfully obtained.

Impermissible evidence

An inference a fact may not draw; an example is inferring guilt because the defendant does not testify.

Circumstantial Evidence and Probable Cause

Before a law enforcement officer may arrest a person, search a car, or take similar actions, the officer must have probable cause. ¡Probable cause requires that an officer have "reasonable ground for belief of guilt, and that the belief of guilt must be particularized with respect to the person to be searched or seized." Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 370 (2003).

Credibility

Believability.

Relevant Evidence

Evidence that has a tendency to make a material issue before the court more or less probable.

Reliable evidence

Evidence that possesses a sufficient degree of likelihood of that it is true and accurate.

Bond versus United States 131 S.Ct. 2355-2011

Defendant argued that her actions were totally local in nature and thus were reserved to the states or the people under the Tenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant could not raise the Tenth Amendment as a defense. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that in proper circumstances, one can claim the federal statute violated the Tenth Amendment.

Direct evidence

Evidence that proves or disproves a fact in question with no need for inferences.

Magna Carta

Established minimum standards for arresting and imprisoning individuals accused of crimes. Required a demonstration of probable cause before a person can be arrested or held in custody. This principle influenced the drafters of the American Declaration of Independence.

Using Direct and Circumstantial Evidence

Finding illegal drugs in a motor vehicle: ¡During a lawful stop of a vehicle, an officer may see or smell illegal drugs. ¡An informant or other sources might have provided probable cause to believe drugs were in the vehicle. ¡The location of the drugs, the amount of illegal drugs found, the criminal record of the passenger, and the passenger's relationship with the driver and owner would all be circumstantial factors in determining who in the vehicle should be charged. Proving the crime of possession of illegal drugs with intent to deliver: ¡When a defendant is apprehended in the act of selling illegal drugs ¡When the defendant has a large quantity of packaged illegal drugs in his or her possession ¡Possession of items associated with the drug trade such as the possession of cellphones, beepers, and/or firearms along with the illegal drugs Proving the use of the Internet in child pornography: ¡If a defendant is found to possess child pornography, the government must prove the defendant received the images over the Internet to obtain a federal conviction (an interstate violation). ¡Internet use must often be proved by circumstantial evidence. Proving physical and sexual abuse of a child: ¡In a situation where an adult is the sole caretaker of the child and it is shown the injury was not accidental or self-inflicted. ¡Some sexual abuse statutes require proof of forcible compulsion. When the victim is a child, the child often submits to the advances of adults who have parental or similar authority over the child. Proving the defendant was the driver of a motor vehicle: ¡Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was driving the vehicle is required and is central to the conviction of the defendant in many moving vehicle trials.

Fingerprints and Shoe-prints as Circumstantial Evidence

Fingerprints and shoe prints are circumstantial evidence, and inferences can be drawn from their presence at a crime scene. The jury may use a permissible inference to reach a conclusion. The prosecution retains the duty to persuade the jury to make the inference.

Writ of Certiorari

Formal notice from the U.S. Supreme Court to a lower federal court or state court that a decision of that court has been accepted for review by the Supreme Court.

Preliminary hearing

Full adversarial hearing with a lawyer present.

Evidentiary Rules

Gates through which evidence flows in our criminal court system. Most have their origins in English law. Important to safeguard rights of accused persons in a fair trial and to ensure the interests of the public in the proper functioning of the criminal justice system.

Right to Assistance of counsel

If charged with a crime, a person has the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. ¡If the defendant cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided by the state or federal government. The right to effective counsel applies at all stages of a criminal prosecution.

"Modus Operandi" as Evidence and Investigative Tool

Modus operandi ("method of working or operating") is commonly used as an investigative tool to link crimes to suspects. ¡Modus operandi evidence, such as evidence of other crimes with similar elements, permits the jury to draw inferences of guilt where the other crimes can be tied to the defendant. Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and most state evidence rules permit the prosecution to use evidence of past crimes to prove modus operandi only if the other crimes share peculiar or distinctive features with the crime(s) charged.

State and Federal Jurisdiction Over Crimes in the United States

Most crimes committed in the United States are violations of state criminal codes. Some crimes are federal offenses in violation of the federal criminal code. ¡A small percentage of criminal offenses are violations of both the federal criminal code and a state criminal code. The U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government general police power, nor has there ever been federal criminal, common law. ¡Common law is the set of unwritten legal rules that have been developed over many years by courts and judges. All federal crimes have to be statutory crimes enacted by Congress. States have general police power to regulate in providing for domestic tranquility. Criminal codes and rules of evidence enacted by state legislatures and found in the codified laws of each state. Criminal laws may be enacted by the federal government in the following areas: ¡To protect itself, its officials and employees, its property, and the administration of its authorized functions; ¡To regulate interstate and foreign commerce; ¡To protect civil rights; and ¡To enact criminal laws for places beyond the jurisdiction of any state. Congress may pass criminal laws under the Commerce Clause only if a prohibited activity: ¡Uses the "channels" of interstate commerce, e.g., by taking place in more than one state; ¡Uses the "instrumentalities" of interstate commerce, e.g., telephone lines or the postal service; or ¡Has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a), requires convicted sex offenders to register in the states where they live and to which they travel. Offenders who failed to register in another state when traveling filed federal suits claiming that Congress lacked the power to pass SORNA laws.

The Trial

Only about 8 percent of criminal cases in the United States actually go to trial. ¡About 20 percent of those are tried before a judge, and 80 percent are tried before a jury. Prior to the trial, the discovery process takes place; both the prosecution and the defense gather evidence through formal questions put to the other side, depositions of witnesses, and examination of documents and records. Various motions can be filed by the parties as a result of the discovery process. Jurors are selected from the community in which the court sits (the venue) from lists maintained by the court. Jurors are summoned and selected, and subpoenas are issued to compel witnesses to attend and testify at the trial. Depending on the seriousness of the crime charged and state rules, the jury may consist of six to twelve people. The prosecution presents evidence first and must establish a prima facie case. If the judge concludes the evidence is insufficient to support a reasonable jury verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the case will be dismissed. If the case is not dismissed, the defendant may present evidence to either cast doubt on the prosecution's case or to prove an affirmative defense such as insanity, immunity, entrapment, or double jeopardy. The prosecution may then offer rebuttal evidence to such defense and other new matters brought out in the defendant's case. After all evidence is in and both sides have delivered closing arguments to the jury, the trial judge issues jury instructions and jury deliberations begin. With a not guilty verdict, the case is over and the defendant is discharged from custody. With a guilty verdict, the defendant may file post-trial motions in the trial court such as judgment notwithstanding the verdict (sometimes called judgment NOV) or a motion for a new trial. If the defendant's motions are overruled, the defendant may appeal the criminal conviction and/or the sentence imposed upon the defendant. ¡In state cases, the defendant's initial appeals go through the state appellate process. The state appellate court does not conduct a new trial. Rather, it looks at the evidence to see whether it supports the conviction and determines whether the judge made any reversible errors. The state appellate court also rules on other claims the defendant may make, such as a constitutional violation. Appellate courts give deference to decisions made by the trial court on most questions. ¡Such decisions are reversible only if they constitute an "abuse of discretion." Appellate courts generally will review only those issues raised by the defendant at the trial. ¡The "plain error" rule is an exception to this general rule. After the defendant has exhausted his or her state court appeals, the defendant may seek review in the federal courts but only for violation of federal constitutional rights. ¡Writs of certiorari are filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. ¡Writs of habeas corpus are filed in U.S. district courts.

Additional Classifications of Evidence

Parole evidence is oral or verbal evidence. ¡If a confession is only verbal, it is a considered a parole confession. Testimonial evidence is the statements of witnesses in court under oath. Corroborative Evidence is evidence that adds weight or credibility to a case. ¡In rape cases, corroborative evidence is important to reinforce the testimony of the victim. Tangible evidence is physical evidence such as weapons, illegal drugs, or shoplifted items.

The Guilty Plea System, Plea Bargaining, and Victim's Rights Laws

Plea bargaining is when a defendant agrees to enter a guilty plea guilty in return for a reduction in the charge or sentence. Prosecutors often charge defendants with multiple offenses; as part of the plea bargain, the lesser offenses are dropped in exchange for a guilty plea to the principal criminal charge. In all guilty plea hearings, the defendant is entitled to an attorney unless that right has been waived. The trial judge questions the defendant to establish that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily is pleading guilty to the charge. The state must introduce sufficient evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. Victim's rights laws have been enacted in every state to give victims rights during the court process. ¡Crime victims must be informed of times, dates, and details for all court proceedings in their case. ¡Victims have the right to make a "victim impact statement" during sentencing. ¡In many states, victims may voice objections with a plea bargain agreement. Plea bargaining, negotiated pleas, and sentence pleading have become standard practice in most American communities. ¡It clears the court calendar of cases by providing a rapid trial and punishment. ¡Defendants participate and admit their guilt. ¡The practice eliminates many appeals. ¡The practice provides a certainty of adjudication. ¡A guilty plea could be the first step toward genuine rehabilitation. The main danger in the present system of nontrial dispositions is that it is so informal and invisible that it gives rise to fears that it does not operate fairly, or that it does not accurately identify those who should be prosecuted and what disposition should be made in their cases. The very informality and flexibility of the procedures are sources of both potential usefulness and abuse.

Humphries versus State 696 S.E.2d 400-Ga. App.2010

Police officers making a random check of license plates determined that a vehicle's owner, a male, had a suspended driver's license. The person operating the vehicle was a male, and the police made the inference that the owner was driving the vehicle illegally. The Court held that the police had reasonable suspicion to make a stop of the vehicle, in the absence of evidence showing that someone else was driving the car.

Presley versus Georgia 130 S. Ct. 721-2010

Pursuant to the Sixth Amendment the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. The Presley court held that "public trial" includes the voir dire (juror examination) portion of a trial. Closing the courtroom to the public requires the trial court to provide "sufficient" reasons or to consider alternatives.

Relevant Evidence

Relevant evidence is direct or circumstantial evidence that has a tendency to make a material issue before the court more or less probable. Rule 403 allows for relevant evidence to be excluded if it may: ¡Unfairly prejudice a party; ¡Confuse the jury; or Waste the court's time.

Reliable Evidence

Reliable evidence is evidence that possesses a sufficient degree of believability. ¡Evidence which is deemed unreliable is inadmissible at trial. Reliable and admissible evidence is required to justify charging a person with a crime. Each state has the authority to commence a criminal prosecution if sufficient evidence is available to justify the criminal charge.

Purposes of the Rules of Evidence

Rules of evidence that assist the judge or jury: ¡Requirement for relevant, reliable, and competent evidence. ¡Opinion evidence rule. ¡Hearsay rules. Rules of evidence that expedite trials: ¡Rules concerning judicial notice. ¡Rules concerning presumptions and inferences. Rules of evidence that have other purposes: ¡Testimonial privilege rules. Exclusionary rule.

U.S. versus Marcus 130 S. Ct. 1259-2010

States the meaning of the "plain error" rule in federal appeals of criminal convictions. ¡Error was clear and obvious, and ¡There is a "reasonable probability" the error affected the outcome of the trial.

Thompson versus United States 546 A.2d at 419-D.C. App. 1988

States why evidence of prior bad acts is inadmissible if only offered to prove character or propensity of the defendant. The court pointed out that "the jury may condemn the defendant because of his prior criminal behavior and not because he is guilty of the offense charged."

Is the Insanity Plea an Effective Defense?

Studies suggest that the insanity defense is the last resort for most defendants. ¡The defense is used in only about 1 percent of prosecuted felony cases and has a success rate of just over 20 percent. ¡The defense is risky and usually leads to longer sentences if the defense is unsuccessful. ¡Among defendants who are successful in raising the defense, only 1 percent are released after being found not guilty by reason of insanity. ¡For defendants found not guilty in violent crimes other than murder, the period of confinement in a mental hospital is twice as long as those convicted without making an insanity plea.

The promptness rule

Suspects arrested without warrant must be given a probable-cause hearing within 48 hours of arrest. Further delay requires the government to demonstrate why the circumstances could not be avoided. ¡Sanctions may include preclusion of evidence collected during the delay.

Mooney versus Holohan 294 U.S. 103, 55 S. Ct. 340-1935

The U.S. Supreme Court made it very clear that a conviction obtained by the knowing use of false testimony or false evidence is a denial of due process of law and will be reversed. The Court held that "such a contrivance ... is inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice as is obtaining of a like result by intimidation."

The American Accusatorial System

The United States and most of the English-speaking democracies in the world use the accusatorial system in criminal investigations and in criminal trials. Under this accusatorial system, suspects and defendants have an absolute right to remain silent about matters that could incriminate them. ¡Most European countries and other democracies of the world use the inquisitorial system, in which defendants do not have the absolute right to remain silent.

Federalism in the United States

The United States uses a form of government called federalism, which was first presented at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Federalism means that the central government has the power and authority to handle national problems, and the states have the power to regulate local needs and problems. Federalism allows for diversity and flexibility at state and local levels of government. States are primarily responsible for public safety and can enact laws they believe are most effective in providing for public order and an efficient, effective criminal justice system.

Probable cause

The belief of guilt based on reasonable grounds made particularized evidence of the guilt of the person to be searched or seized.

Corpus Delicti

The body of the crime; the requirement that the government must prove that the crime charged has been committed.

Beyond a Reasonable doubt

The burden that the prosecution must meet in proving guilt in criminal cases; applies to every element of the crime charged.

Conditional Guilty Plea

The defendant does not have the constitutional right to have his or her guilty plea accepted by the court. Under the laws of all states, trial judges have the discretion to refuse to accept a plea of guilty. Defendants who enter a guilty plea in any form to a criminal charge lost most of their right to appeal. ¡The defendant can enter a guilty plea conditioned upon the defendant's right to appeal the trial judge's ruling.

Commonwealth versus Lee 626 A.2d. 1238-Pa. Super. 1993)

The defendant testified that he did not intend to take the victim's life when he pointed a gun directly at the victim and pulled the trigger. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed, holding that "it is well settled that the intentional use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the body raises a permissible inference of malice."

State versus Fitzgerald 63 So.3d 75-Fla. App. 2011

The defendant was charged with driving a car while intoxicated. The state trooper found the defendant in the driver's seat of a vehicle parked at an intersection. The motor was off, but the keys were in the defendant's right hand. The court held that this constituted physical control of the vehicle under Florida law.

State versus Payano 768 N.W.2d 832-Wis. 2009

The defendant was charged with drug possession. The prosecution may not introduce evidence by a witness claiming to have seen the defendant in possession of drugs on other occasions. The prosecution may introduce testimony of a witness claiming that the defendant had illegal guns and drugs in his apartment the day before the defendant discharged a gun and hit a police officer who was attempting to enter the apartment.

Lee versus United State 59 Md. App., 28, 474 A.2d 537,35 CrL 2147-1984

The defendant's appeal argued that a shoplifter had to leave a store in order to be convicted of larceny (theft). The Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that once "a customer ... crosses the threshold into the realm of behavior inconsistent with the owner's expectations, the circumstances may be such that a larcenous intent can be inferred."

The U.S. Constitution

The delegates sought to write a Constitution which supported the new American democracy and would create a practical government to serve the people. ¡The concepts of habeas corpus and the right to a trial by jury were incorporated. ¡Bills of attainder and ex post facto laws were prohibited.

Use of False or Perjured Evidence

The deliberate use of false or perjured evidence in an attempt to obtain a criminal conviction is a crime. This conduct could also be the basis for a civil lawsuit in which compensatory and punitive damages could be awarded. ¡Mooney v. Holohan (1935) ¡Miller v. Pate (1967)

The Criminal Court Process

The filing of a criminal complaint with a magistrate or other judicial official is how a typical misdemeanor case begins. The complaint can be filed with the court before or after the defendant is placed under arrest, depending on the case. The magistrate determines only whether probable cause exists to believe a crime has been committed and that the named defendant committed it. The defendant appears before the judge at the initial appearance (arraignment) where the charges are read, a plea is entered, and bail is set. If a felony is charged in the criminal complaint, a preliminary hearing will be held. ¡The judge can also dismiss the charges if the prosecution's case is weak. In many states and in federal courts, the indictment system is used for felonies instead of public prosecutors issuing criminal complaints. If sufficient evidence is introduced to show probable cause, the defendant is bound over for trial. A criminal indictment uses a list of criminal charges issued by a grand jury, which has heard evidence presented by a U.S. Attorney or a state prosecuting attorney. ¡States that do not use the grand jury system may begin a criminal case with information. The defendant enters a plea at the arraignment and the case is bound over to the appropriate criminal court for trial.

Bill of Rights

The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Initial Appearance

The first appearance by an accused before a judge or magistrate; a plea is entered and bail is set at this hearing.

The Bill of Rights

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution were added to "embody certain guarantees and immunities which were inherited from our English ancestors." ¡Originally, these rights were applicable only to the federal government. ¡The U.S. Supreme Court, through the Fourteenth Amendment, applied these rights to the states.

Pleas a Defendant May Enter to a Criminal Charge

The following pleas are available to defendants: ¡Not guilty plea. ¡Guilty plea: This may be a regular guilty plea or an Alford guilty plea in states that permit them. ¡An insanity plea (or defense): Usually this plea is not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. ¡No contest plea (nolo contendere plea) : Permitted if the statutes of the state and the court allow it. ¡Standing mute or refusing to enter a plea: This plea ordinarily causes the court to enter a plea of not guilty.

Criminal indictment

The formal charge issued by a grand jury, listing crimes believed to have been committed by the named defendant.

Criminal complaint

The formal charge made by the prosecution against a defendant, which begins criminal proceedings.

Arraignment

The formal proceeding following the indictment or information, where a plea is entered and the case is bound over for trial.

The American Adversary System

The function of the criminal trial within the American court system is to provide a venue for determining the facts upon which the guilt or innocence of the accused is based. ¡The main actors in the courtroom are the judge, the jury, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney. In the American adversary system, the prosecutor and the defense attorney seek to establish the facts in opposition to each other. During a trial, both the prosecutor and the defense attorney have two main goals: ¡To present the facts that are the most advantageous to their position, and ¡To make it difficult for their opponent to do the same. The prosecutor attempts to prove his or her case "beyond a reasonable doubt by an unanimous jury." The defense attorney's duty is to represent his or her client "zealously within the bounds of the law." The judge and jury come to the trial uncommitted. Witness testimony and physical evidence are presented within the framework of the rules of evidence and court procedure. Witnesses are questioned by each side and evidence admitted during the trial can be challenged. The trial judge presides neutrally over the trial and is responsible for safeguarding both the rights of the accused and the interests of the public. The function of the jury is to determine the truth. The rules of evidence are in place to ensure that the evidence presented to the jury by both adversaries is relevant, reliable, and competent.

State versus Barker 945 N.E.2d 1107-Ohio App. 2010

The general rule is that corpus delicti must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. In the Barker case the defendant was convicted of murder based in part on the testimony of two witnesses who stated the defendant confessed he had killed his girlfriend. The Ohio Court of Appeals held the corpus delicti rule required independent proof in addition to the confession. The Court noted the fact the victim had been missing for three years and had not touched her bank account was evidence she was not missing, but in fact dead.

Goals of the Criminal Justice System

The generally recognized overall goals of the criminal justice system are to: ¡Discourage and deter people from committing crimes; ¡Protect society from dangerous and harmful people; ¡Punish people who have committed crimes; and ¡Rehabilitate and reform people who have committed crimes.

Magna Carta

The great Charter signed by King John of England and his barons in 1215; created the first standards for arresting and imprisoning those accused of crimes.

Tetso versus State 45 A.3d 788-Md. App. 2012, cert denied 52 A.3d 979-Md.2012

The husband of a missing woman was convicted of second-degree murder based on circumstantial evidence. The appeals court affirmed the conviction, saying that both corpus delicti requirements were satisfied by the evidence. ¡Proof of death included the facts that the victim's dogs were left alone at her house and that her credit cards had not been used since her disappearance. ¡Proof that the defendant committed the murder included the facts that he knew that his wife was having an affair and wanted a divorce and that he told others that he planned to buy a new boat using money from the victim's life insurance policy.

The Insanity Plea

The insanity plea is found in the criminal codes of most states. The insanity plea is used by defendants primarily in murder cases, for which sentences are severe. If an insanity plea were entered in a minor criminal matter, the state may agree and join the defendant in requesting the court to find the defendant legally insane. ¡The defendant would very likely then be held for mental observations and treatment for a much longer period than would have been the case had he or she been convicted of the crime charged. If a defendant decides to use an insanity defense, most defendants will enter a not guilty plea and proceed to trial. The trial will then be bifurcated, with the first part of the trial determining guilt or innocence of the charge and the second part determining whether the defendant was legally insane when the criminal act was committed. Most states place the burden on a defendant using the insanity plea to come forward with evidence showing that he or she was so mentally diseased or defective that he or she was unable to formulate the mental intent to commit the crime charged.

Adversary system

The judicial system in which the opposing parties present evidence, and an impartial judge or jury weighs the evidence; contrasts with the inquisitorial system, where the judge actively questions the accused and witnesses.

Presumption of innocence

The legal presumption required in all criminal courts that the defendant is innocent until sufficient credible evidence is produced to carry the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence and Proof

The means of establishing and proving the truth or untruth of any fact that is alleged is what is known as evidence. Proof is the result of evidence and evidence is the means of attaining proof. The burden-of-proof requirement has two components: ¡The burden of production requires the party with the burden on a factual issue to introduce sufficient relevant evidence to prove the fact at issue. ¡The burden of persuasion requires the party with the burden to produce sufficient evidence to persuade the fact finder that a fact exists.

Evidence

The means of establishing the truth or untruth of any fact that is alleged.

Due Process

The minimum procedural protections courts must afford those charged with crimes; guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Res Ipsa Loquitur as an Inference

The phrase, doctrine, or rule res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself") is used in civil and criminal law. Permits, but does not require, a jury to draw a conclusion. ¡In an assault case, photographs of the victim's injuries can be introduced into evidence through a medical professional who verifies the accuracy of the photographs taken close in time to the occurrence of the crime.

Federalism and the Law of Evidence

The powers of the U.S. Congress, the President, and the U.S. Supreme Court are limited to those powers granted in the Constitution. Each state is sovereign, and the officials of each state have the powers granted to them by the Constitution of that state. ¡Each state has its own criminal codes and codes of criminal procedure and evidence. State codes and the ruling of state courts must conform to the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. ¡State laws and state court rulings may provide additional rights. The Federal Rules of Evidence were enacted in 1975 by Congress. ¡Most states have adopted rules of evidence almost identical to the federal rules. Each state retains the power to interpret and modify the rules of evidence. The meaning and application of the federal rules of evidence can vary between federal courts and state courts. The federal rules of evidence and most state rules of evidence apply in both civil and criminal trials.

The Use of Presumptions and Inferences

The presumption stated in the jury instruction is ordinarily referred to as the "presumption of innocence" and is mandatory. This presumption can be rebutted but the burden remains with the prosecution throughout the trial. ¡Conclusive or irrebuttable presumptions are those that cannot be overcome by evidence showing otherwise. ¡Inferences are conclusions that a jury or judge may make based upon the evidence presented.

Relevant, Reliable, and Competent evidence

The prosecution and the defense seek to present the facts that are most advantageous to its position. Evidence that is not relevant, not reliable, or not competent is not admissible and cannot be used in trial.

The Use of Evidence at a Bail Hearing

The purpose of bail is to assure the defendant's appearance at trial. ¡During bail hearings, evidence of prior convictions and failures to appear in court are admissible. Historically, about 60 percent of persons charged with felony crimes are released on bail. Bench warrants are issued in approximately one-fourth of the cases of persons released on bail who fail to appear in court for trial.

Probable cause

The quantum of evidence required by the Fourth Amendment to make an arrest or to issue a search warrant; greater than reasonable suspicion but can be less than proof of reasonable doubt.

Proof

The result of evidence; the evidence is means of attaining proof.

Brady Rule

The rule that requires the prosecution to disclose, upon request, evidence favorable to the accused.

Evaluation and Review of Evidence

The rules of evidence ultimately decide what evidence will be presented to the judge and jury for evaluation. ¡Evidence may be evaluated in a variety of settings at various stages of the investigatory and criminal court process. There are many settings where the rules of evidence do not apply. In the process of review and evaluation of evidence, weaker cases are filtered out of the system or lesser charges are used. A motion to suppress evidence is a written or oral request to a judge to keep out evidence at a trial or hearing. Motions to suppress are often made when a party believes the evidence was unlawfully obtained. To rule on a motion to suppress, the judge must review the evidence.

Reasonable doubt

The standard of evidence that fact-finders must use in criminal cases to find a defendant guilty of the crime charged.

Right to an Impartial jury

This right is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Juror challenges, either for cause or peremptory, are designed to help ensure an impartial jury. Excusing jurors for cause has been an issue in death penalty cases.

Writ of Habeas Corpus

This writ serves as a safeguard against unlawful imprisonment. The writ requires that an official must present himself to a court to show cause for holding a person in custody. The right of habeas corpus is incorporated into the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Section 9. Habeas corpus writs provide another form of review in criminal convictions and sentences in addition to the appeal process. ¡28 U.S.C. § 2254 and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 authorize federal and state courts to hear petitions for habeas corpus. The petitioner must show the normal appeal process has been exhausted.

Use of a Guilty Plea Offer as Evidence

To encourage guilty pleas, the federal government and many states have statutes that forbid the use of any of the following as evidence: ¡Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn; ¡A plea of nolo contendere, or of an offer to plead guilty or nolo contendere to the crime charged or any other crime; or ¡Statements made in connection with any of the foregoing pleas or offers. States with similar statutes also prohibit evidence of pleas offered in plea negotiations.

The Inference of Intent

To prove intent, the law infers that people intend the reasonable, foreseeable consequences of their intentional and deliberate acts. These inferences must flow rationally from the evidence presented in court. ¡The "probable consequences" inference is often used for finding criminal liability of persons who "aid or abet" the commission of an attempted crime.

Means-Opportunity-Motive as Circumstantial Evidence

When eyewitness evidence is not available, the three questions used in investigating crimes are: ¡Who had the means of committing the crime? ¡Who had the opportunity to commit the crime? ¡Who had the motive to commit the crime? Most courts hold that proof only of motive, or only of opportunity, is insufficient to permit the submission of the case to the jury. If circumstantial evidence shows both motive and opportunity, a case can go to the jury. Conviction of a crime can require proof of motive. ¡For example, 18 U.S.C.A. § 248 makes it a crime to intentionally injure or intimidate a person working at or using a reproductive health clinic. If the prosecution does not introduce evidence of motive, defendants can argue to the jury that the failure to do so creates reasonable doubt. Defendants may also use circumstantial evidence.

The Appellate Process

Writs of certiorari are limited to a review of state court rulings that violate the defendant's rights under the Constitution. ¡Writs of certiorari are very rarely granted. Habeas corpus writs are filed with a federal district court to ask the court to determine whether the defendant is being held in violation of his constitutional rights. ¡The denial of a writ is itself appeal- able by the defendant through the federal appellate system. Filing successive habeas corpus writs is possible.