The American Legal System- Chapter 8

Mal in prohibita

Offenses may require criminal intent. ex: in possession of a controlled substance. or could be no proof of intent at all.

Mal in se

Offenses require proof of criminal intent

Victimless crimes

Smoking marijuana, loitering and sodomy.

Stipulations for officers

1. They are only permitted to make arrests if they have sufficient evidence to constitute probable cause 2. They are also limited in conducting searches making seizures 3. They are limited in the way they conduct custodial interrogations and line-ups

Test for entitlement to defense of necessity

1.) Faced with a choice of evils and reasonably chose the lesser of the evils 2.) Reasonably acted to prevent imminent harm 3.) Reasonably anticipated a causal relation between his conduct and the harm to be avoided 4.) Reasonably believed there was no other legal alternatives to violating the law

The supreme courts opinions on sentencing

1.) a statue authorizing a jail sentence for drug addiction (because it is cruel and unusual punishment to incarcerate a person for being ill. 2.) A statue authorizing the death penalty for rapists 3.) A statue authorizing a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for a recidivist

Coercion Test

1.) an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury 2.) a well- grounded fear that the threat will be carried out 3.) no reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm.

Williams Blackstone definition of a crime

A crime is a wrong committed against the public. Because the general public is injured when a crime is committed as well as the person who was the perpetrator's target victim, the government and not the victim is responsible for deciding whether to initiate a criminal prosecution.

Draper v. United States

A federal narcotic agent with 29 years experience was stationed at Denver as a "special employee". Police department do not see anyone that fits description that Marsh said. Person had 2 envelopes containing heroin. Hereford died 4 days after the arrest and therefore did not testify at the hearing. Question is whether knowledge of the related facts and circumstances gave Marsh "probable cause" within the meaning of the 4th amendment and "reasonable grounds" to believe that the petitioner had committed or was committing a violating of the narcotic laws. If it did the arrest though without warrant was lawful. Petitioner says that Hereford information to Marsh was "hearsay" which is illegal. Marsh needs "probable cause" and "reasonable grounds" We find petitioner entirely in error. Use Brinegar v. United States as precedence. Confusing the difference between what is required to prove guilt in a criminal case and what is required to show probable cause of arrest for search. The information was not hearsay because coming from one employed has always been found accurate and reliable. Plus the guy looked exactly like what was described to the officer. Brinegar v. United States states that probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed. Motion to suppress is denied the officer has probable cause! Officer wins and request loses.

Frisk

A less than a full search and consits of a pat down of the outer clothing of a stopped individual in order to locate weapons that might be used against the officer. If officer feels during a pat down an object that might be a weapon than he can check.

Mala prohibita

Acts that were criminal only because the law defined them as such.

United States v. Juan Donaldo Per

Appeals his jury conviction for one count of illegal entry into the United States as a deported alien in violation. Must determine if it was under an objective and subjective standard that he need to act that way. Early mornings found Perdomo and four others hiding in a brush near the U.S Mexican border. He said that he was not a citizen was then arrested and found that this had happened twice before. Testified he had entered for fear of his life. Needed diabetic related treatment that he could not get in Mexico. Tried many types if Mexico but not like the United States kind had in prison. Try to go the right way because he was stroke level but they would not let him so he decided to sneak in. In Tijanan he saw that a person had to be dying on the street to get the treatment that he need and the US was not like that. Taken to hospital and was found as "non-urgent" needs some long term care though. Defense of necessity he wants the jury to be explained but the district court denies that because said it is hard to believe no where in mexico could he have found treatment. He was found guilty and is wanting a new trial. We asses a defendant's proffered neccesity defense through an objective framework. United States v. Schoon. U.S v. Arellano we upheld the district courts preclusion of a defendants proffered necessity defense, reasoning that the defendant had failed to show that the had no legal alternatives than illegally reentering the U.S and we denied the appeal. They apply objective standard to case. Multiple chooses in getting other medical treatment, no immediate dire need of medical treatment, and he was hiding up to no good instead of telling him his problems and why he should be let in. Agree with the case and affirm it say the jury made the right decision.

Misdemeanors

Are crimes served in county jails. Or one year or less.

Barbaric punishment

Sentences that are disproportionate to the crime committed. Is capital punishment this?

Defenses

Because of the constitutional presumption of innocence, criminal defendants are not required to prove anything at trial. One defense strategy is to establish reasonable doubt exclusively through the use of the government's own witnesses. ex: Say police did not use miranda laws or their witness was not close enough to the scene to know what was really going on.

State v. Gordon

Charge and convicted of the specific intent crime of robbery. Appealed that he did not have specific intent to deprive the true owner of his property. Charged defendant Richard John Gordon with having committed the crime "armed robbery" in violation. The jury found defendant guilty of armed robbery. Appealed assigning ten claims of error. We deny the appeal! The jury was justified in its findings. He escaped where he was being held on a misdemeanor charge. Got 2 hand guns and a vehicle. Had trouble with the station wagon and found a chevelle with the keys in it. Held a gun at the owner and said they needed the vehicle but would return in when they were done and take care of it. So many events like trying a police shoot out. Defendant says it is not robbery because they told him they would get it back to him and was only a temporary borrow. Can infer that they are not bringing the vehicle back and are fleeing from authorities plus they abounded on car and could another. "lucri cause" is not an essential element of the "animus furandi" of robbery. "taking" and "temporary" Cannot take and leave it wherever he wants when he gets done with it. The owner recovers his property is correctly held specifically to intend that the owner be deprived permanently of his property. Defendant "leave the car and "get under cover somewhere" Actions greater than words. Appeal denied and he is gulity.

"American Statues"

Come from the english common law. When english common law was done with we created this. Today all criminal laws are defined mostly through statues.

Commonwealth v. Berggren

Complaint charging him with motor vehicle homicide by negligent operation of a motor vehicle so as to endanger public safety. Granted join motion to report an issue to the appellate court. Patrolman Michael Aselton of the Barnstable police department was on a radar duty . Finds the person speeding and chases after him but does not stop because he knows he has a bad license. Pursuit goes on for 6 miles. Had to go 76 to caught up and ended up hitting something, then flies into a tree and dies. For a high speed chase should ask commanding officer but that was not done. Died in line of duty. Support a conviction of homicide by negligent operation and we hold that it is! Does not believe that him being 100 feet ahead could make causation theory for proximate cause. However, he made the officer chase him and did not stop so it is his fault. Proper amount of causation and proximate cause was used. He made him die should be punished for it.

Ex post facto laws

Constitution Article I section 9 and 10 prohibit this. Laws that make acts criminal that were not criminal at the time that they took place. Statues that make a crime greater than when committed, impose greater punishment or make proof of guilt easier. Legislative only not judiciary.

Today 3 types of crimes

Crimes against a person, crimes against the government and crimes against property.

Mala in se

Crimes were offenses that were intrinsically bad, such as murder, rape, arson and theft

Proximate Cause

Criminal liability only attaches to conduct that is determined to be the proximate or legal cause of the harmful results. Direct and indirect. Punch someone you are direct or set a chain of events to harm the person indirect.

Basic components of a criminal offense

Criminal offenses traditionally consist of the following: 1.) The wrongful act 2.) The guilty mind 3.) The concurrence of act and intent 4) some crimes causation Each of these beyond a reasonable doubt.

Right to an attorney

Defendant has an unqualified right to the assistance of retained counsel at all formal stages of a criminal case. Right to counsel does not arise until after the government has formally initiated criminal proceedings against a defendant usually after the defendant initial appearance before a court.

Sentencing

Depending on the structure of the jurisdiction usually include confinement, fines, community service, restitution and probation. Can challenge with cruel and unusual.

Charles T. Dickerson v. United States

Dickerson was indicted for bank robbery conspiracy to commit bank robbery and using a firearm in the court of committing a crime of violence, all in violation of the U.S states code. Moved to supress a statement b/c claims he did not get his Miranda warnings. District Court granted the supression. Then the government took it to the U.S court of appeals for the 4th circuit. By a divided vote that court reversed the District Courts suprresion order. Agreed about not reviving Miranda warnings but decided it was voluntarily. Miranda is not a final say. Voluntariness test: 5th amendment right against self-incrimination and the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Police provide 4 warnings or the miranda warnings. 2 years later Congress passed that it can be fine without miranda if it was voluntairly given. Has to be to be admitted into the evidence. Looks at time, nature of the offense, advised or knew that he was not required to make any statements, defendant had been advised prior to questioning and defendant was without the assistance of counsel. Court has suprevsory authority of the federal courts. Totality test. The judgement of the Court of Appeals is therfore reversed . We decline to overrule Miranda ourselves. Miranda announced a constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede legislatively.

Vicarious liability

Employers can be responsible for the acts of their employees that occur within the course and scope of employment. Ex: Bartender sells liquor to minor the bartender and the company is responsible. Can be held vicariously liable only for strict liability offenses. Only subject to a fine or forfeiture. Second corporations can be held from criminal acts committed by authorized corporate employees who have acted on behalf of the company to enhance corporate profits.

Search and Seizures

Examinations of a person or premises are conducted by officers of the law in order to find stolen property or other evidence of guilt to be used by the prosecutor in a criminal action. With some exceptions a warrant must be obtained by an officer before making a search. Only constitutionally to do without a warrant and very selective cases with probable causes.

Arraignment

Follows a grand jury indictment or the judge's finding of probable cause at a preliminary hearing. Accused people are advised of the formal charges against them as required by 6th amendment. Trial date is set. Asked whether they understand and counsel is appointed if they cannot afford it.

Rational basis test

If a challenged statue does not affect a fundamental constitutional right the law will be upheld if it is neither arbitrary not discriminatory and if it bears a rational relation to a legitimate legislative purpose- protecting the public health, welfare, safety or morals. Needs to show that there is some conceivable basis for finding it.

Illinois v. Roy I. Caballes

Illinois State Trooper Craig Graham's narcotics detection dog sniffed around Roy Caballe's car while he was being stopped for speeding by Trooper Daniel Gillette. Dog alerted and the officers discovered marijuana in the trunk. U.S supreme court granted certorari to determine whether the 4th amendment requires reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify using a drug-detection dog to sniff a vheicle during a legitmate traffic stop.

Racketter Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO)

In 1970 the federal government did this, this statue and its state counterparts have been very important weapons in combating organized criminal activity such as drug trafficking, theft and fencing of property. Focuses on patterns of racketerring activity, the use of money obtained from rackteering to acquire legitimate businesses and the collection of unlawful debt. Has to involve eight state crimes and 24 federal offenses called the predicate acts.

Felonies

In some states are crimes that are served in state prisons. Or sentence of incineration of over one year. Theft from $20 in South Carolina to $200 in Pennsylvaina.

Right to a speedy trial

Interpreted as meaning that the trial should take place as soon as possible without depriving the parties of a reasonable period of time for preparation. Accused has the burden of showing that the delay was the fault of the state and that is resulted in prejudice.

Crime of Conspiracy

Is committed when two or more people combine to commit a criminal act. The essential actus reus of conspiracy is the agreement to commit a criminal act, coupled with the commission of some overt act by one or more of the coconspirators that tends to implement the agreement. Protect society from group criminality because a group going to do something can hurt society more than one individual.

Grand jury

Is composed of people selected at random from the list of registered voters. Decides whether there is a reason to believe an accused has committed an offense not whether the person is guilty or innocent. Determines whether a person should be brought to trial.

Criminal Procedure

Is that area of law that deals with the administration of criminal justice from the initial investigation of a crime and the arrest of a suspect through trial, sentence, and release. The goal of this is to protect society from antisocial activity without sacrificing individual rights, justice and fair play.

Warrant

Is then issued if the court magistrate decides that the evidence supports the belief that probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed and that the suspect is the probable culprit.

The criminal trial

Is your constitutional right, the prosecution is the plaintiff and must initially present legally sufficient evidence of the defendant's criminal culpability with respect to each element of the crime or the judge will dismiss the charges and terminate the trial. A criminal defendant unlike a civil defendant, has a constitutional right not to testify at trial. Accused people have right of: notice of the charges, trial by jury, a speedy and public trial, and representation by counsel.

Justification Defenses

It is understood that exceptions will be made of a case-by-case basis where it becomes apparent that the defendant was justified in his/her actions. ex: reasonable force to protect yourself. Have to prove that it was the only way you could take care of yourself was to break the law.

Probable cause

Means that the arresting officer has a well grounded belief that the individual being arrested has committed or is committing an offense.

Nolo Contendre

Not guilty, same as guilty plea except that it cannot be used later against the accused as an admission.

Equal Protection Clause

Not state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Prevents legislatures from defining crimes in ways that target groups on the basis of race and gender. Example girls can have been at 18 but men need to wait until 21.

Rights of privacy

Nothing in federal constitution guarnetees this right but the U.S Supreme court has recognized a limited right to privacy because of the due process which is to life, liberty and property.

Arrest

Occurs when an officer takes someone into custody for the purpose of holding that person to answer a criminal charge. Must be made in a reasonable manner and the force employed.

Strict liability

Offenses there is no requirement that there be a concurrence between the criminal act and the criminal intent. The offender poses a generalized threat to society at large. Ex: Speeding driver. Prosecutor only needs to prove actus reus to convict the accused; there is not intent element.

Custodial Interrogation

Part of the criminal investigative procedure involves questioning suspects with the aim of obtaining confessions and disclosures of crimes. The privilege against self-incrimination applies to this questioning done outside the courtroom as well as the trial. In general, only statements that are voluntarily made by a suspect are admissible. FREE and REASONABLE choice. Police doe this.

Line-ups

Police conduct this before witnesses for the purpose of identifying a suspect. When formal charges are pending an accused may not be in a line-up before witnesses for identification unless the accused and accused's counsel have been notified in advance. Counsel must be present. No counsel if just pictures.

Herring. v. United States

Police officers honestly and reasonably believed that a warrant existed to arrest Herring and did not learn that no valid warrant actually existed until after they arrested Herring and seized incriminating evidence. Herring sought to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of arrest. Justices split 5 to 4 in favor of the government. 4 ammendment forbids unreasonable searches and seziures. Probable cause or a warrant. Dispute whether contraband found during a search incident to that arrest must be excluded in a later prosecution. Was isolated negligence and error. A search reviled methamphetaim in Herring's pocket and a pistol which as a felon he could not possess in his vehicle. Warrant had been recalled 5 months earlier. Held for illegally possessing the gun and drugs. The issues is whether the exclusionary rule should be applied. Did not do anything improper and found error very quickly. Could be letting guilty and possibly dangerous people go free. Good-faith rule because the police reasonably relied on mistaken information in the court's database. Silverthrone Lumber Co. vs. U.S was an outrage because they did it without a shadow of authority. Mapp v. Ohio did not let her lawyer enter it was not paying attention to her rights. Exclusionary rule all record keeping by police are not immune to this but in this case the criminal should not go free because of not getting the warrant by mistake. So ordered to affirm the case and criminal is still guilty.

Exclusionary Evidence

Prevented the use of evidence obtained from an illegal search and seizure in federal prosecutions.

Doug Dretke v. Michael W. Haley

Respondent in this case was convicted of stealing a calculator from a Wal-Mart store in 1997 an offense punishable by incarceration for a minimum of 6 months and up to 2 years in state prison. Habitul offender so could get enhanced sentence on the theft charge and was sentenced to prison term of 16 years and 180 days. Exceeded statutorily authorized he finds out while serving his term. Lost twice in direct appeal still had one last chance within the Texas judicial process to have his claims heard. Habeas corpus relief. Was denied so petitioned for the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The final judgment provided that the State of Texas had 90 days to resentence Mr. Haley without the improper enhancement and that if it failed to do so, his conviction would be reversed. Doug Dretke in charge of Texas's correctional institutions appealed the district court's decision to the U.S Court of Appeals for the 5th circuit. Court carried through on its threat and Haley's conviction was reversed and Haley after servings 6 years. 4 more than the minimum was released. Dretke wanted to overturn the "actual innocence exception" if court reverses than he wants to put him back in jail. A federal court will not entertain a procedural defaulted constitutional claim in a petition for habeas corpus absent a showing of cause and prejudice. When they exert "actual innocence" U.S Court of Appeals for the 5th circuit said that Haley was right he was not represented good he had ineffective assistance of counsel and that Dretke was wrong. So district court resolve Haleys claim and end this for good.

Inchoate Crime

Society needs to protect itself from people who plan on attempting a crime. Such as attempted robbery if some goes to a bank to rob it is dressed like, has the police scanner and the gun is already to go but finds out the bank is closed so goes back to his car. Then police find him he should be charged with attempted robbery.

Model Penal Code

Specifies that a defendant is not criminally responsible for his or her conduct due to either mental disease or defect and if the defendant lacked substantial capacity to understand its criminality or comply with legal requirements.

White collar crime

Tax evasion, insider trading, kickbacks, defrauding government agencies,

Status Crimes

The Supreme Court has emphasize the importance of the wrongful act requirement in its decisions relating to status crimes, ruling that legislatures cannot make the status of "being without visible means of support" or "being ill as a result of narcotic addiction" into crimes.

Preliminary Hearing

The court examines the facts superficially to determine whether there is a strong enough case to hold the arrestee for further proceedings. Is there a probable cause?

Excuse Defenses

The defendant admits to having acted unlawfully, but argues that no criminal responsibility should be imposed given the particular circumstances accompanying the act. Ex: duress, insanity and involuntary intoxication. Most states do not allow this for murder cases.

People v. Shaughnessy

The defendant in the company of her boyfriend and two other youngsters proceed by automobile to the vicinity of the St. Ignatius Retreat Home. Sign was not illuminated and it was night time. Is charge with violating section 1 of the ordinance prohibiting entry upon private property of the incorporated village of north hills. "No person shall enter upon any privately owned piece, paracel or lot of real property in the village of north hills without the permission of the owner, lesse or occupant. Moves to dismiss on grounds that the statue is unconsitional since it is Malum Prohibtum it is constitutional but did she do anything wrong? Elements required from criminal accountability and responsibility. Physical= actus reus and mental= mens rea. Do not want to punish in voluntary acts. She merely was a passenger in the vehicle. Hold the driver responsible for his act even thought he was under the mistaken belief that he was on his way to Christopher Morely Park. Fact of lack of knowledge is not the courts problem. In this case the very first and essential element in criminal responsibility is missing so defendant is not guilty.

U.S v. Gonzalez Lopez

The defendant in this case Cuauhtemoc Gonzalez lopez was accused in federal district court of conspiracy to distribute more than 100 kg of marijuana. Rejected lawyer hired by his parents Fahle and named Low a Cali lawyer who was not licensed in Missouri. District Court said Low can represent for this case only but then eventually took that away. Low is going to be represented by an attorney Dickhaus. Jury convicted the defendant. Appeals to district court because of refusal to let him have his counsel of choice. Federal court reversed and ruled in favor of defendant. Then went to supreme court where the Government says yes you should have been allowed but it was a harmless error. Question is whether a trial courts' erroneous deprivation of a criminal defendants choice of counsel entitles him to reversal of his conviction. Goes to review for harmlessness. Use Arizona v. Fulminante. Harmless effect they affect the framework within which the trial procceds and are not simply an error in the trial process itself.

The Criminal State of Mind

The second requirement of a criminal offense is that an alleged criminal offender must possess a criminal state of mind (mens rea- has to be proven indirectly and circumstantially) at the time of the commission of the wrongful act. Concurrence of a wrongful act. Some people who commit wrongful acts do not have a wrongful mind.

Miranda v. Arizona

The supreme court required that people being interrogated while in police custody must first be informed in clear and unequivocal language that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can and will be used against them in court, they they have the right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer with them during interrogation and that they have the right to an appointed lawyer to represent them if they are indigent. Defendant can knowingly waive these rights and that is okay.

Terry v. Ohio

The supreme court ruled that it was reasonable under the 4th amendment for police officers to make brief seizures of individuals based on reasonable suspicion. Must be able to articulate the facts and circumstance that suggest that the stopped individual is armed have a right to make a frisk.

Causation

There are some criminal offenses that require proof that the defendant's conduct caused a given result. In a homicide case for example the prosecution must prove that the defendants conduct caused death.

Law are un constitutional if...

They alter the definition of a penal offense or its consequence to the disadvantage of people who have committed that offense.

Common law approach to mens rea

Three categories of intent: General intent, specific intent and criminal negligence. General intent crimes include serious offenses such as rape and arson and less serious offenses such as trespass and simple batter. For convicition of a general intent crime the prosecution has to prove that the accused intended to commit the actus reus. Specific intent requries rpoof of the commission of an actus reus plus a specified level of knowledge or an additional intent such as an intent to commit a felony. Can also be negligent like baby crying so take hands off the wheel.

Model Penal Code to mens ra

To be criminally culpable a person must act purposely, knowingly, recklessly and negligently. Purposely when he or she has a conscious desire to produce a prohibited result or harm. Knowingly when he or she is aware that a prohibited result or harm is very likely to occur. Recklessly when he or she consciously disregards the welfare of others and creates a significant and unjustifiable risk. Negligence involves unconscious risk.

Model Penal Code

To call for the abolishment of common law crimes.

Bail

U.S Constitution does not guarantee this but bail is authorized for all criminally accused persons except those charged with capital offenses. There is debate whether the legislatures can classify others as not being able to do this. Is set to assure the defendant's attendance in court and obedience to the court's orders and judgment. has to be reasonably calculated do not want to discriminate against low income people.

Bail Reform Act of 1984

Under these laws people thought to be dangerous who were accused of serious crimes, could be denied bail. Targeted crimes included violent crimes, offenses punishable by life imprisonment, and drug-related crimes punishable by a term of incarceration exceeding ten years.

United States v. Scott

Was found guilty by a jury and convicted of one count of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and one count of manufacturing methamphetamine. Appeals his conviction contending that he was denied a fair trial when the district court refused to instruct the jury on the defense of coercion. They disagree and affirm the decision of the district court. Took trip to buy supplies for Morrow for methaphetamine laboratories. Stopped and seized off all of it. Did it because of well established fear that Morrow would kill him or members of his family if he did not act as Morrow had directed. Goes to Scott's daughters house and calls him and says if you do not get those chemicals you do not want something to happen to your daughter do you? Morrow pulls out a machine gun and says you would not want that to hurt you daughter would you?Morrow knew his family and Scott feared for their lives with him. In testimony he does say that he knows they were verbal and guesses he could have got someone in law enforcement to help. District court says he does not make any of the 3 needed for coercion test. Disagree with Scott and say that he could have got help. So affirm the orde r of the district court.

Special Rules

When the law recognizes the existence of a legal duty, the failure to act is equivalent to a criminal act. The duty to act can be imposed by statue (filing income tax returns, making child support payments, registering with selective service, registering fire arms)

Appeal

You are guaranteed a fair trial but not an error free trial. Have to go state and raise a federal question before U.S supreme court. Cannot be the verdict has to be how it happened like suppressing evidence, refusal to enter judgment on the jury's guilty verdict, inadequate sentence or clarify the law.

Habeas Corpus

You have the body. Is used to test the legality of a person's detention by government. It is frequently used by prisoners who have been unsuccessful in directly appealing their convictions and who are serving sentences of imprisonment.

Bill of information

a formal charging document prepared by the prosecutor and filled with the court

Indictment

an accusation in writing from a grand jury

Bills of attainder

prohibited by the constitution, are acts of legislature that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to impose punishments on them without a trial. Ex: States vs. Brown.