Exam 3 Terms CJ

misdemeanor

A misdemeanor is considered a crime of low seriousness, and a felony one of high seriousness.[3] A principle of the rationale for the degree of punishment meted out is that the punishment should fit the crime.[4][5][6] One standard for measurement is the degree to which a crime affects others or society. Measurements of the degree of seriousness of a crime have been developed.[7] http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/misdemeanors.html

public defenders office

public defender definition. An attorney who is appointed and paid by a court to defend poor persons who cannot afford a lawyer. very overcrowded overworked not enough time 3 hours per case not good

jurisdiction

trial court of general jurisdiction: A trial court responsible for the major criminal and civil cases. appellate jurisdiction: the authority of a court to review decisions made by lower courts Original Jurisdiction The jurisdiction of courts that hear a case first, usually in a trial. These are the courts that determine the facts about a case. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jurisdiction

assigned counsel

used in smaller towns. Attorneys are placed on an appointment and are assigned to represent defendants as needed at reduced hourly rates.

indeterminate sentence

A period of confinement with specified minimum and maximum length, allowing a parole board to release the inmate when rehabilitation has been achieved (one to ten years) Indefinite imprisonment or indeterminate imprisonment is the imposition of a sentence by imprisonment with no definite period of time set during sentencing. Its length is instead determined during imprisonment based on the inmate's conduct. The inmate can be returned to society or be kept in prison for life.

determinate sentence

A sentence of incarceration for a fixed period of time but with possible reduction by parole (fixed 15 years in prison unless good time or good gain) A determinate sentence is a jail or prison sentence that has a defined length and can't be changed by a parole board or other agency.

preponderence of evidence

A standard of proof that must be met by a plaintiff if he or she is to win a civil action. In a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the facts and claims asserted in the complaint. If the respondent, or defendant, files a counterclaim, the respondent will have the burden of proving that claim. When a party has the Burden of Proof, the party must present, through testimony and exhibits, enough evidence to support the claim. The amount of evidence required varies from claim to claim. For most civil claims, there are two different evidentiary standards: preponderance of the evidence, and clear and convincing evidence. A third standard, proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, is used in criminal cases and very few civil cases. preponderance of the evidence n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended. Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective.

reasonable doubt

A standard of proof that must be surpassed to convict an accused in a criminal proceeding. Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. When a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. If the jury—or the judge in a bench trial—has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury or judge should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty. Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in court. In civil litigation the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that criminal trials can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or in the defendant's death, outcomes far more severe than occur in civil trials where money damages are the common remedy.

Venire

A writ issued by a judge to a sheriff directing the summons of prospective jurors. Also called venire facias. The panel of prospective jurors from which a jury is selected.

Gregg v Georgia

Facts of the case A jury found Gregg guilty of armed robbery and murder and sentenced him to death. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence except as to its imposition for the robbery conviction. Gregg challenged his remaining death sentence for murder, claiming that his capital sentence was a "cruel and unusual" punishment that violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Question Is the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel and unusual" punishment? No. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that a punishment of death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances. In extreme criminal cases, such as when a defendant has been convicted of deliberately killing another, the careful and judicious use of the death penalty may be appropriate if carefully employed. Georgia's death penalty statute assures the judicious and careful use of the death penalty by requiring a bifurcated proceeding where the trial and sentencing are conducted separately, specific jury findings as to the severity of the crime and the nature of the defendant, and a comparison of each capital sentence's circumstances with other similar cases. Moreover, the Court was not prepared to overrule the Georgia legislature's finding that capital punishment serves as a useful deterrent to future capital crimes and an appropriate means of social retribution against its most serious offenders.

Roper v Simmons

Facts of the case Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death in 1993, when he was only 17. A series of appeals to state and federal courts lasted until 2002, but each appeal was rejected. Then, in 2002, the Missouri Supreme Court stayed Simmon's execution while the U.S. Supreme Court decided Atkins v. Virginia, a case that dealt with the execution of the mentally disabled. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that executing the mentally disabled (or "mentally retarded" in the vernacular of the day) violated the Eighth and 14th Amendment prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment because a majority of Americans found it cruel and unusual, the Missouri Supreme Court decided to reconsider Simmons' case. Using the reasoning from the Atkins case, the Missouri court decided, 6-to-3, that the U.S. Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Stanford v. Kentucky, which held that executing minors was not unconstitutional, was no longer valid. The opinion in Stanford v. Kentucky had relied on a finding that a majority of Americans did not consider the execution of minors to be cruel and unusual. The Missouri court, citing numerous laws passed since 1989 that limited the scope of the death penalty, held that national opinion had changed. Finding that a majority of Americans were now opposed to the execution of minors, the court held that such executions were now unconstitutional. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the government argued that allowing a state court to overturn a Supreme Court decision by looking at "evolving standards" would be dangerous, because state courts could just as easily decide that executions prohibited by the Supreme Court (such as the execution of the mentally ill in Atkins v. Virginia) were now permissible due to a change in the beliefs of the American people. Facts of the case Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death in 1993, when he was only 17. A series of appeals to state and federal courts lasted until 2002, but each appeal was rejected. Then, in 2002, the Missouri Supreme Court stayed Simmon's execution while the U.S. Supreme Court decided Atkins v. Virginia, a case that dealt with the execution of the mentally disabled. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that executing the mentally disabled (or "mentally retarded" in the vernacular of the day) violated the Eighth and 14th Amendment prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment because a majority of Americans found it cruel and unusual, the Missouri Supreme Court decided to reconsider Simmons' case. Using the reasoning from the Atkins case, the Missouri court decided, 6-to-3, that the U.S. Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Stanford v. Kentucky, which held that executing minors was not unconstitutional, was no longer valid. The opinion in Stanford v. Kentucky had relied on a finding that a majority of Americans did not consider the execution of minors to be cruel and unusual. The Missouri court, citing numerous laws passed since 1989 that limited the scope of the death penalty, held that national opinion had changed. Finding that a majority of Americans were now opposed to the execution of minors, the court held that such executions were now unconstitutional. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the government argued that allowing a state court to overturn a Supreme Court decision by looking at "evolving standards" would be dangerous, because state courts could just as easily decide that executions prohibited by the Supreme Court (such as the execution of the mentally ill in Atkins v. Virginia) were now permissible due to a change in the beliefs of the American people. Question Does the execution of minors violate the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" found in the Eighth Amendment and applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment? Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court ruled that standards of decency have evolved so that executing minors is "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The majority cited a consensus against the juvenile death penalty among state legislatures, and its own determination that the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for minors. Finally the Court pointed to "overwhelming" international opinion against the juvenile death penalty. Chief Justice William Rhenquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Clarence Thomas all dissented.

directed verdict

In a jury trial, a directed verdict is an order from the presiding judge to the jury to return a particular verdict. Typically, the judge orders a directed verdict after finding that no reasonable jury could reach a decision to the contrary.

jury nullification

Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding.

nolo contendere

Latin for "no contest." In a criminal proceeding, a defendant may enter a plea of nolo contendere, in which he does not accept or deny responsibility for the charges but agrees to accept punishment. The plea differs from a guilty plea because it cannot be used against the defendant in another cause of action.

court of limited jurisdiction

Limited jurisdiction, or special jurisdiction, is the court's jurisdiction only on certain types of cases such as bankruptcy, family matters, etc. Courts of limited jurisdiction, as opposed to general jurisdiction, derive power from an issuing authority, such as a Constitution or a statute.

bifurcated trial

One judicial proceeding that is divided into two stages in which different issues are addressed separately by the court. Bifurcation is a judge's ability in law to divide a trial into two parts so as to render a judgment on a set of legal issues without looking at all aspects. Frequently, civil cases are bifurcated into separate liability and damages proceedings.

due process model

Packer's due process model is a counterproposal to the crime control model. It consists of these arguments: The most important function of criminal justice should be to provide due process, or fundamental fairness under the law. Criminal justice should concentrate on defendants' rights, not victims' rights, because the Bill of Rights expressly provides for the protection of defendants' rights. Police powers should be limited to prevent official oppression of the individual. Constitutional rights aren't mere technicalities; criminal justice authorities should be held accountable to rules, procedures, and guidelines to ensure fairness and consistency in the justice process. The criminal justice process should look like an obstacle course, consisting of a series of impediments that take the form of procedural safeguards that serve as much to protect the factually innocent as to convict the factually guilty. The government shouldn't hold a person guilty solely on the basis of the facts; a person should be found guilty only if the government follows legal procedures in its fact‐finding.

court cases summary

http://www.flashcardmachine.com/court-cases3.html

6th amendment

A Guide to the Sixth Amendment The Sixth Amendment, or Amendment VI of the United States Constitution is the section of the Bill of Rights that guarantees a citizen a speedy trial, a fair jury, an attorney if the accused person wants one, and the chance to confront the witnesses who is accusing the defendant of a crime, meaning he or she can see who is making accusations. The Sixth Amendment was introduced as a part of the Bill of Rights into the United States Constitution on September 5, 1789 and was voted for by 9 out of 12 states on December 15, 1791.

consecutive sentence

A consecutive sentence (also called a "cumulative" sentence) is when a defendant has been convicted of more than one crime, usually at the same trial, and the sentences for each crime are "tacked" together, so that sentences are served one after the other. Consecutive sentences. When sentences run consecutively, defendants have to finish serving the sentence for one offense before they start serving the sentence for any other offense.

rickets v adamson

A defendant is required to keep his or her side of the bargain to receive the promised offer of leniency, since plea bargaining rest on an agreement between the parties

Boykin form

A form that must be completed by a defendant who pleads guilty to indicate that the plea was entered voluntarily

bench trial

Bench Trials. A bench trial takes place in front of a judge only; there is no jury involved. The judge is both the finder of fact and ruler on matters of law and procedure.

challenge for cause

Challenge for Cause. A challenge that aims to disqualify a potential juror for some stated reason. Typical reasons include bias, prejudice, or prior knowledge that would prevent impartial evaluation of the evidence presented in court.

circumstantial evidence

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

crime control model

Crime control model refers to a theory of criminal justice which places emphasis on reducing the crime in society through increased police and prosecutorial powers and. In contrast, The "due process model" focuses on individual liberties and rights and is concerned with limiting the powers of government.

discretion

Discretion in Criminal Justice Systems. Discretion is defined as the power or right to decide or act according to one's own judgment. ... Although discretion is a key component to law enforcement, most discretionary decisions are based on misdemeanor or traffic enforcement. the power of a judge, public official or a private party (under authority given by contract, trust or will) to make decisions on various matters based on his/her opinion within general legal guidelines. Examples: 1) a judge may have discretion as to the amount of a fine or whether to grant a continuance of a trial; 2) a trustee or executor of an estate may have discretion to divide assets among the beneficiaries so long as the value to each is approximately equal; 3) a district attorney may have discretion to charge a crime as a misdemeanor (maximum term of one year) or felony; 4) a Governor may have discretion to grant a pardon; or 5) a planning commission may use its discretion to grant or not to grant a variance to a zoning ordinance.

Gideon v Wainright

Facts of the case Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with a felony: having broken into and entered a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor offense. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him. According to Florida state law, however, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself in trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court and argued that the trial court's decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. The Florida Supreme Court denied habeas corpus relief. Question Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts? Yes. Justice Hugo L. Black delivered the opinion of the 9-0 majority. The Supreme Court held that the framers of the Constitution placed a high value on the right of the accused to have the means to put up a proper defense, and the state as well as federal courts must respect that right. The Court held that it was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own.

Atkins v Virginia

Facts of the case Daryl Renard Atkins was convicted of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder. In the penalty phase of Atkins' trial, the defense relied on one witness, a forensic psychologist, who testified that Atkins was mildly mentally disabled (or "mentally retarded" in the vernacular of the day). The jury sentenced Atkins to death, but the Virginia Supreme Court ordered a second sentencing hearing because the trial court had used a misleading verdict form. During resentencing the same forensic psychologist testified, but this time the State rebutted Atkins' intelligence. The jury again sentenced Atkins to death. In affirming, the Virginia Supreme Court relied on Penry v. Lynaugh, in rejecting Atkins' contention that he could not be sentenced to death because he is mentally retarded. Question Is the execution of mentally retarded persons "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment? Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

Furman v Georgia

Facts of the case Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him. He attempted to flee, and in doing so tripped and fell. The gun that he was carrying went off and killed a resident of the home. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death (Two other death penalty cases were decided along with Furman: Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas. These cases concern the constitutionality of the death sentence for rape and murder convictions, respectively). Question Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments? Yes. The Court's one-page per curiam opinion held that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution. In over two hundred pages of concurrence and dissents, the justices articulated their views on this controversial subject. Only Justices Brennan and Marshall believed the death penalty to be unconstitutional in all instances. Other concurrences focused on the arbitrary nature with which death sentences have been imposed, often indicating a racial bias against black defendants. The Court's decision forced states and the national legislature to rethink their statutes for capital offenses to assure that the death penalty would not be administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner.

santobello v new york

Facts of the case In 1969, the State of New York indicted Rudolph Santobello on two felony counts. After Santobello pled not guilty to both counts, the prosecutor offered him a plea deal. In order to receive a lighter sentence, Santobello could plead guilty to a lesser offense. The prosecutor further agreed not to recommend a sentence to the judge. Santobello accepted the deal and entered a plea of guilty to the lesser offense. After several months, Santobello still had not been sentenced. By the time the court considered his sentencing, both Santobello's defense counsel and the original prosecutor had been replaced. The new prosecutor, unaware of the previous prosecutor's plea offer, recommended the maximum one-year sentence for Santobello's crime. Despite Santobello's objections, the court issued the maximum sentence. Santobello appealed, but the appellate court affirmed his conviction." Question Can a defendant seek a new trial when a new prosecutor fails to abide by the terms of his predecessor's plea agreement? Yes. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, writing for a 4-3 majority, vacated the judgment and remanded. The opinion emphasized that the plea bargaining process is a crucial part of the criminal justice system. In the interests of justice, agreements between prosecutors and defendants must be upheld. Even though the trial judge claimed that the prosecutor's recommendation did not influence his sentencing decision, the prosecutor had a duty to uphold the original agreement. The Court remanded the case so that the lower court could determine the appropriate relief for Santobello. Justice Thurgood Marshall concurred in part and dissented in part. He argued that the Court must allow Santobello to withdraw his guilty plea entirely, instead of leaving the decision to the trial court. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. and Justice Potter Stewart joined in his opinion.

Boykin v Alabama

Facts of the case In the spring of 1966, a series of armed robberies were committed in Mobile, Alabama. In two instances a gun was fired, and one person was injured when the bullet ricocheted off the floor. The petitioner, 27-year-old Edward Boykin, Jr., was arrested on five counts of robbery. He was provided with court-appointed counsel and pled guilty on all five counts. The judge did not ask Boykin whether he entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily, nor does the record show that Boykin was aware of his rights to trial by jury and to confront his accusers. Pursuant to Alabama law, a jury trial determined Boykin's punishment. Boykin did not testify and offered no evidence regarding his character. There was no evidence of a prior criminal record. The jury sentenced the petitioner to death on all five counts. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the death sentence, but three justices dissented on the grounds that the record did not show the petitioner entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily. Question Did the trial court commit a reversible error when it failed to confirm that the petitioner's plea was voluntary and that he was aware of his rights? Yes. Justice William O. Douglas delivered the opinion of the 6-2 majority. The Court held that a guilty plea is a confession, and the admissibility of a confession is contingent on the confirmation that it was made voluntarily. The waiver of several constitutional rights is involved in a guilty plea. A defendant's silence is insufficient to show that he understood these rights and chose to waive them.

McCleskey v Kemp

Facts of the case McCleskey, a black man, was convicted of murdering a police officer in Georgia and sentenced to death. In a writ of habeas corpus, McCleskey argued that a statistical study proved that the imposition of the death penalty in Georgia depended to some extent on the race of the victim and the accused. The study found that black defendants who kill white victims are the most likely to receive death sentences in the state. Question Did the statistical study prove that McCleskey's sentence violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments? The Court held that since McCleskey could not prove that purposeful discrimination which had a discriminatory effect on him existed in this particular trial, there was no constitutional violation. Justice Powell refused to apply the statistical study in this case given the unique circumstances and nature of decisions that face all juries in capital cases. He argued that the data McCleskey produced is best presented to legislative bodies and not to the courts.

Carolina v Elford

Facts of the case North Carolina charged Henry Alford with first-degree murder. That charge carried a possible sentence of life imprisonment or the death penalty. Alford agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a second-degree murder conviction. When Alford took the stand, he testified that he was innocent and pled guilty to avoid the death penalty. The judge ensured that Alford made his decision freely after consulting counsel. Alford maintained his guilty plea, and after receiving evidence of Alford's extensive criminal history, the judge sentenced Alford to the maximum 30-year sentence. After unsuccessfully attempting to obtain post-conviction relief, Alford petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denied relief on the grounds that Alford's guilty plea was entirely voluntary. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that the plea was involuntary because its primary motivation was the fear of death. Question Is a guilty plea invalid where the defendant maintains his innocence and testifies that the plea is only to avoid the death penalty? No. In a 6-3 decision, Justice Byron R. White wrote the majority opinion reversing the court of appeals. The Supreme Court held that there was no constitutional violation where the defendant concluded based on competent counsel that it was in his best interest to plead guilty. The court saw no difference between a defendant who maintains his innocence with a plea bargain and one who admits to the crime.

Bordenkircher v Hayes

Facts of the case Paul Lewis Hayes was charged with forgery, an offense which carried a two-to-ten-year prison sentence. During plea negotiations, the prosecutor offered to pursue a five year sentence if Hayes would plead guilty. However, the prosecutor also stated that he would seek an indictment under the Kentucky Habitual Crime Act if the defendant did not register this plea. (Hayes had two prior felony convictions on his record.) If found guilty under this law, Hayes would be imprisoned for life. Hayes did not plead guilty and the prosecutor followed through on his promise. Question Does the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause prohibit state prosecutors from carrying out a threat made during plea negotiations to re-indict the accused on more serious charges if he does not plead guilty to the offense with which he was originally charged? No. The Court held that the defendant's due process rights were not violated in this case. Justice Stewart spent some time describing the important role that plea bargaining plays in the nation's legal system, a role that has been accepted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Blackledge v. Allison (1977) and Brady v. United States (1970). This acceptance, in turn, implies that the prosecutor has a legitimate interest in persuading a defendant to relinquish his or her right to plead not guilty.

fifth amendment

Fifth Amendment: An Overview The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

discovery

Formal investigation by each side prior to trial Discovery, in the law of the United States and other countries, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as a request for answers to interrogatories, request for production of documents, request for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.

court of general jurisdiction

General Jurisdiction refers to a court that holds the authority to hear all types of cases except those prohibited by the laws in that state. Case types include civil, criminal, family, probate, and others.

Hearsay

Hearsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein". In certain courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible (the "Hearsay Evidence Rule") unless an exception to the Hearsay Rule applies. For example, to prove Tom was in town, the attorney asks a witness, "What did Susan tell you about Tom being in town?" Since the witness's answer will rely on an out-of-court statement that Susan made, Susan is not available for cross-examination, and it is to prove the truth that Tom was in town, it is hearsay. A justification for the objection is that the person who made the statement is not in court and thus is insulated from cross-examination. Note, however, that if the attorney asking the same question is not trying to prove the truth of the assertion about Tom being in town but the fact that Susan said the specific words, it may be acceptable. For example, it would be acceptable to ask a witness what Susan told them about Tom in a defamation case against Susan because now the witness is asked about the opposing party's statement that constitutes a verbal act.[1][2] The hearsay rule does not exclude the evidence if it is an operative fact[clarification needed]. Language of commercial offer and acceptance is also admissible over a hearsay exception because the statements have independent legal significance. A statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

US courts of appeal

How many regional intermediate appellate courts are there in the United States Court of Appeals? = 12 There are 13 appellate courts that sit below the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are called the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The 94 federal judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a court of appeals. The appellate court's task is to determine whether or not the law was applied correctly in the trial court. Appeals courts consist of three judges and do not use a jury. A court of appeals hears challenges to district court decisions from courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies. In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws, and cases decided by the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure

courtroom workgroup

In The United States criminal justice system, a Courtroom Workgroup is an informal arrangement between a criminal prosecutor, criminal defense attorney, and the judicial officer.

Preemptory Challenge

Peremptory Challenge The right to challenge a juror without assigning, or being required to assign, a reason for the challenge.During the selection of a jury, both parties to the proceeding may challenge prospective jurors for a lack of impartiality, known as a challenge for cause. A party may challenge an unlimited number of prospective jurors for cause. Parties also may exercise a limited number of peremptory challenges. These challenges permit a party to remove a prospective juror without giving a reason for the removal. Peremptory challenges provide a more impartial and better qualified jury. Peremptory challenges allow an attorney to reject a potential juror for real or imagined partiality that would be difficult to demonstrate under the challenge for cause category. These challenges, however, have become more difficult to exercise because the U.S. Supreme Court has forbidden peremptory strikes based on race or gender.

preliminary hearing

Peremptory Challenge The right to challenge a juror without assigning, or being required to assign, a reason for the challenge.During the selection of a jury, both parties to the proceeding may challenge prospective jurors for a lack of impartiality, known as a challenge for cause. A party may challenge an unlimited number of prospective jurors for cause. Parties also may exercise a limited number of peremptory challenges. These challenges permit a party to remove a prospective juror without giving a reason for the removal. Peremptory challenges provide a more impartial and better qualified jury. Peremptory challenges allow an attorney to reject a potential juror for real or imagined partiality that would be difficult to demonstrate under the challenge for cause category. These challenges, however, have become more difficult to exercise because the U.S. Supreme Court has forbidden peremptory strikes based on race or gender. The "probable cause" standard is different from the standard for conviction, which is typically guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." Probable cause refers to the existence of a logical basis for the prosecution, as opposed to strong evidence of guilt suggested by the conviction standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." This means that winning at a preliminary hearing can be more difficult than winning at trail. Difficulty doesn't mean impossibility though, and a success at this stage can result in charges being dropped. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/preliminary-hearing.html

rehabilitation

Rehabilitation is the re-integration into society of a convicted person and the main objective of modern penal policy, to counter habitual offending, also known as criminal recidivism.

release of recognizance

Rehabilitation is the re-integration into society of a convicted person and the main objective of modern penal policy, to counter habitual offending, also known as criminal recidivism. When a criminal suspect is arrested, booked and granted release on their "own recognizance," or "O.R.," no bail money is paid to the court and no bond is posted. The suspect is merely released after promising, in writing, to appear in court for all upcoming proceedings. Factors and Conditions of O.R. Release Most stat criminal courts impose certain conditions on O.R. release, prohibiting the suspect from leaving the area while charges remain outstanding, or requiring that the suspect contact the court periodically until their case is resolved. As with setting bail, when deciding whether to grant O.R. release to a suspect, a criminal court judge considers: The severity of the crime charged; The suspect's criminal record; The danger posed to the public if the suspect is released; and The suspect's ties to family, community and employment If a suspect who has been released on their own recognizance fails to appear in criminal court as scheduled, they are subject to immediate arrest, and any chance for having reasonable bail set is all but eliminated.

8th Amendment

The Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

4th amendment

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people's right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary governmental intrusions. Private intrusions not acting in the color of governmental authority are exempted from the Fourth Amendment.

US supreme court

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. Article III of the U.S. Constitution created the Supreme Court and authorized Congress to pass laws establishing a system of lower courts. In the federal court system's present form, 94 district level trial courts and 13 courts of appeals sit below the Supreme Court. Learn more about the Supreme Court.

dual court system

The U.S. court system is divided into two administratively separate systems, the federal and the state, each of which is independent of the executive and legislative branches of government. Such a dual court system is a heritage of the colonial period. Of the two systems, the federal is by far the less complicated. According to Article III of the Constitution, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." In accordance with this directive, the federal judiciary is divided into three main levels. State Court Systems The system of state courts is quite diverse; virtually no two states have identical judiciaries. In general, however, the states, like the federal government, have a hierarchically organized system of general courts along with a group of special courts. federal court systems: district courts, appelate courts, supreme court state courts: inferior courts (magistrate court, municipal court, justice of the peace court, police court, traffic court, and county court. Such tribunals, often quite informal, handle only minor civil and criminal cases.), More serious offenses are heard in superior court, also known as state district court, circuit court, and by a variety of other names (The superior courts, usually organized by counties, hear appeals from the inferior courts and have original jurisdiction over major civil suits and serious crimes such as grand larceny. It is here that most of the nation's jury trials occur. ) , The highest state court, usually called the appellate court, state court of appeals, or state supreme court, generally hears appeals from the state superior courts and, in some instances, has original jurisdiction over particularly important cases. http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/court-system-united-states-the-federal-court-system.html

direct examination

The examination of a witness by the attorney who calls the witness to the stand to testify.

US district courts

The nation's 94 district or trial courts are called U.S. District Courts. District courts resolve disputes by determining the facts and applying legal principles to decide who is right. Trial courts include the district judge who tries the case and a jury that decides the case. Magistrate judges assist district judges in preparing cases for trial. They may also conduct trials in misdemeanor cases. There is at least one district court in each state, and the District of Columbia. Each district includes a U.S. bankruptcy court as a unit of the district court. Four territories of the United States have U.S. district courts that hear federal cases, including bankruptcy cases: Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. There are also two special trial courts. The Court of International Trade addresses cases involving international trade and customs laws. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims deals with most claims for money damages against the U.S. government.

change of venue

The transfer of a case from a court in one location to a court in another, or from one court to another in the same judicial district, for reasons of fairness or for the convenience of the parties or the witnesses.

mandatory sentencing

They are instituted to expedite the sentencing process and limit the possibility of irregularity of outcomes due to judicial discretion. Mandatory sentences are typically given to people convicted of certain serious and/or violent crimes, and require a prison sentence. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws require binding prison terms of a particular length for people convicted of certain federal and state crimes. These inflexible, "one-size-fits-all" sentencing laws may seem like a quick-fix solution for crime, but they undermine justice by preventing judges from fitting the punishment to the individual and the circumstances of their offenses. Mandatory sentencing laws cause federal and state prison populations to soar, leading to overcrowding, exorbitant costs to taxpayers, and diversion of funds from law enforcement.

double jeopardy

To twice place at risk [jeopardize] a person's life or liberty. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits a second prosecution in the same court for the same criminal offense. Double Jeopardy Protection Basics The Double Jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution provides that "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Most states have the same guarantee for defendants appearing in state court. Even in states that do not expressly guarantee this right in their state constitutions, the doctrine of incorporation ensures that the Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments, therefore the protection against double jeopardy must still be afforded to criminal defendants. protected by 5th amendment

concurrent sentence

When a criminal defendant is convicted of two or more crimes, a judge sentences the defendant to a certain period of time for each crime. Sentences that may all be served at the same time, with the longest period controlling, are concurrent sentences. Concurrent sentences. When sentences run concurrently, defendants serve all the sentences at the same time.

felony

a crime, typically one involving violence, regarded as more serious than a misdemeanor, and usually punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or by death.

Grand Jury

a jury, normally of twenty-three jurors, selected to examine the validity of an accusation before trial. The grand jury plays an important role in the criminal process, but not one that involves a finding of guilt or punishment of a party. Instead, a prosecutor will work with a grand jury to decide whether to bring criminal charges or an indictment against a potential defendant -- usually reserved for serious felonies. Grand jury members may be called for jury duty for months at a time, but need only appear in court for a few days out of every month. Regular court trial juries are usually 6 or 12 people, but in the federal system, a grand jury can be 16 to 23 people.

exclusionary rule

a law that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial.

Voir dire

a preliminary examination of a witness or a juror by a judge or counsel.

14th amendment

an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, defining national citizenship and forbidding the states to restrict the basic rights of citizens or other persons. An amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1868. It was primarily concerned with details of reintegrating the southern states after the Civil War and defining some of the rights of recently freed slaves. The first section of the amendment, however, was to revolutionize federalism. It stated that no state could "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Gradually, the Supreme Court interpreted the amendment to mean that the guarantees of the Bill of Rights apply to the states as well as to the national government.

writ of certiorari

certiorari n. (sersh-oh-rare-ee) a writ (order) of a higher court to a lower court to send all the documents in a case to it so the higher court can review the lower court's decision. Certiorari is most commonly used by the U.S. Supreme Court, which is selective about which cases it will hear on appeal. To appeal to the Supreme Court one applies to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which it grants at its discretion and only when at least three members believe that the case involves a sufficiently significant federal question in the public interest. By denying such a writ the Supreme Court says it will let the lower court decision stand, particularly if it conforms to accepted precedents (previously decided cases).

deterrence

specific deterrence: A goal of criminal sentencing that seeks to prevent a particular offender from engaging in repeat criminality. (punishment is bad enough to keep them from repeating the crime) general deterrence: A goal of criminal sentencing that seeks to prevent others from committing crimes similar to the one for which a particular offender is being sentenced by making an example of the person sentenced. (for fear of the punishment of the crime) Deterrence Definition: A principle or objective of sentencing a person guilty of a crime which ensures that the punishment is sufficient to deter the guilty person, and others, from committing the same crime.

3 strikes law

strike qualifies as conviction for a serious or violent felony. second strike = regular sentence doubled, third = 25 years to life without parole til 25 years The three-strikes law significantly increases the prison sentences of persons convicted of a felony who have been previously convicted of two or more violent crimes or serious felonies, and limits the ability of these offenders to receive a punishment other than a life sentence.

retribution

the act of taking revenge (harming someone in retaliation for something harmful that they have done) revenge an eye for an eye the "golden rule"

preventive detention

the holding of someone in jail or in an institution because he or she is regarded as a danger to the community.

incapacitation

the policy of keeping dangerous criminals in confinement to eliminate the risk of their repeating their offense in society Incapacitation [Sentencing] Law & Legal Definition. The term "incapacitation" when used in the context of sentencing philosophy refers to the effect of a sentence in terms of positively preventing the sentenced person from committing future offenses.

arraignment

the process by which defendants are brought before the judge to hear the charges against them