Crim Law
automobile exception
*Carroll Doctrine* (US v Carroll) should police have probable cause to believe that a vehicle (including boats and planes) contains contraband, fruits of a crime, evidence, and/or instrumentalities of crime, the vehicle and any containers w/in can be searched exception based on i) exigency ii) red reasonable expectation privacy 1) vehicle must be in public place 2) readily mobile/operational (exigency) 3) probable cause believe contraband or evidence crime located in vehicle search incident to arrest also applies inventory search for diff reasons balance car as extension curtilage and having windows can look in when in public and drives in public places
pretrial procedures
1) pleadings - doc that starts process, say are "suing" someone; aka indictment or information, filed by prosecution or plaintiff (public) 2) discovery - sides look into each other 3) negotiations (civil)/plea bargaining (criminal) 4) pretrial conferences and hearings 5) pretrial motions all docs file ahead of time w/ court
warrant exceptions
1) probable cause 2) plain view 3) consented to 4) exigency (emergency, hot pursuit) 5) other good reason as judged by *exigency, suspicion, intrusion/scope* ALL circumstances -search incident to arrest -auto exception -non-crim search -investigatory stops or detentions of property -protective sweeps -container searches -inventory searches -border searches -searches at sea -admin searches -special needs searches -abandoned property "sneak and peak" patriot act - search doesn't know it anticipatory warrants contingent on future triggering event telephonic search warrants warrantless search presumed *unreasonable* <> judgement why not have warrant >> searches done w/ warrant
searches for non-criminal prosecution purposes
1) *admin search* - ensure compliance w/ reg schemes, reasonable inspection program w/ specific crit (vs probable cause); pub interest (can be unannounced) and evidence existing violation basis 2) *workplace search* - gov workplaces reasonable search; reasonable expectation privacy email, texts; search work issued device permissible as long as not excessive and reasonable related to work purpose 3) *special needs doctrine* - warrantless search persons and property for special gov needs (pub school safety, border and airport security, prisoner/parolee/probationer supervision) all reasonable to ensure regulatory compliance that protects pub health and safety suspicionless - don't expect to find anything incriminating [criminal purposes = get evidence, fruits, instruments; have suspicion; need probable cause <> protection from gov action] [civil = protection from private actors]
SCOTUS cases
1) *appeals* from state supreme courts 2) *cases certified to it* by state courts 3) original jurisdiction - state or rep foreign nation is a party *all discretionary if tie opinion lower stands*
exceptions to the exclusionary rule
1) *good faith* - obtained by officers who reasonably rely on info in good faith ex. warrant turns out to be invalid, statute later invalidated, erred on maintaining records in warrant database believe in something that ends up being wrong but can only know what know and wouldn't have acted diff 2) *independent source* - evidence obtained later through valid search or seizure after initially obtained unlawfully; "expanded doctrine" partially tainted warrant upheld if after excluding tainted info that led to issuance remaining untainted est probable cause to justify issuance 3) *inevitable disc*- admit if would have been disc in same condition anyway by independent line investigation already pursued when unlawful occurred 4) *attenuation* - relationship b/w evidence challenged and unconstitutional conduct too remote and attenuated 1) temporal prox 2) presence intervening circumstances 3) purpose and flagrancy official misconduct 5) *use for impeachment* - doesn't prevent gov from intro illegally gathered evidence to attack credibility testimony at trial as truth-testing device prevent perjury (against witness not defendant)
valid search warrants
1) probable cause 2) supporting oath (religious) or affirmation (non-religious) 3) particular description of place to be searched and things to be seized 4) signature of magistrate applying officer (affiant) - must submit a *sworn affidavit* to a neutral and detached magistrate, describing place to be searched and person or things to be seized w/ *particularity*, detailing sufficient facts and info that will allow magistrate to make *independent determination* of *probable cause* and appropriateness search warrant *signed* attesting under oath or affirmation facts true and accurate i) one warrant one search rule ii) overly broad or open-ended searches not allowed (ex apt vs apt building) iii) return w/in specific time to prevent staleness (<10 days) iv) description things can be more general than place (speculative evidence) v) affiant must swear informant exists even if confidential ; provide proffered into and some facts corroborate informant's allegations only accessed w/in 4 corners doc unless affidavit an other exhibits *incorp by ref* - insufficient affidavit can't be made sufficient by oral testimony 95% warrants approve but b/c police work hard to get it right the first time to find *defective warrant* often challenge oath officer but generally very hard to challenge or exclude
Slaughterhouse Cases
series of Supreme Court cases starting in 1873 that challenged the 14th amendment; court ruled that the 14th amendment only protected federal rights and not STATE rights LA and New Orleans set up corp to reg slaughterhouse industry, Butcher's association challenged constitutionality corp arguing violated 14th - court rejected total incorp BoR privileges or immunities of 14th only protect legal rights associated w/ fed citizenship
arbitration
settling a dispute by agreeing to accept the decision of an impartial outsider formal mediation process
statue
written law promulgated (make known to many by open declaration) by legislative body composed of reps of citizenry by "policymakers"/attorneys legislative body rep "the people" implemented through regs by exec branch more specific than constitution easier change
Wooley v Maynard
"Live Free or Die" license plate NH can't constitutionally req citizens to display state motto on vehicle state interest req motto < free speech 1st of citizens SCOTUS > state legislature, exec, judicial branches
stare decisis
"to stand by things decided" precedent basis caselaw and English Common Law a published appellate court *holding* (major decision made in case vs dicta other things can persuade go against application holding to new case - flexibility of court) becomes binding precedent for other courts below it and at the same level w/in the same jurisdiction for similar fact patterns and legal issues promotes stability, predictability, consistency over time, uniformity across jurisdiction permits flexibility to adapt to changes, refinement for subtle nuance, legal doctrine to devo (in dicta) if no prior case law = "case of first impression"
open fields doctrine
1) unoccupied or underdeveloped area outside curtilage (zone habitation) 2) need neither be open or a field 3) gov intrusion upon open field is not a search in a constitutional sense - may be trespass under common law open fields don't provide setting for activities 4th intend to shelter from gov intrusion or surveillance
grand jury
15-24 jurors in closed setting w/o defense precedes formal charges and arrests in fed cases to ensure *probable cause* to indict accused mandated by 5th (fed cases) - not incorp by 14th - states that don't req have *prelim hearings* or probable cause hearings to commence crim prosecution done by magistrate (not closed) initially used to screen out incompetent or malicious prosecutors before pub prosecutors power to initiate investigation, call witnesses and compel attendance, grant immunity; true bill --> indictment --> writ of capias/summons arrest benefits private = if case is dumb accusation never reaches press does less harm; target never knows under investigation
Brady v Maryland
1963 The court ruled that the prosecution must share any evidence that is favorable to the defense loss or destruction exculpatory evidence can deny crim defendant due process such that state has duty to preserve exculpatory evidence w/ i) known exculpatory value ii) defendant unable obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means *if destroyed evidence material and exculpatory whether evidence destroyed in good or bad faith irrelevant* *material evidence* = directly relevant to issue in defendant's case *exculpatory evidence* = favorable to defendant, clears or tends to clear of guilt 14th and 4th duty disclose evidence used against defendant at trial and evidence favorable to defendant to protect rights due process defendant burden of proof prove materiality and bad faith results in suppression evidence, exclusion or limited testimony, dismiss case, overturn conviction, new trial on appeal
arraignment
1st official appearance in court (judge) that will try case defendant informed of charges, plead guilty or not to charge in information or indictment during *plea colloquy* b/w judge and defendant sworn advised of 1) nature of charge 2) potential penalties 3) right to plead not guilty and request jury trial - need to go through all to make intelligent, knowing, voluntary guilty plea
Boyd v US
4th and 5th together protect a "zone of privacy" - citizens should not be compelled to produce what gov could not search for and seize (unconstitutional search) if had not given over, would have req search to get same info articulated legal privacy perspective and 1st use exclusionary rule court ordered defendant to turn over invoice resulting in forefieture goods allegedly had not paid tariffs on
US v Verdugo-Urquidez
4th protects aliens w/in US that have devo a substantial connection w/ country
Ramos v Louisiana
6th as incorporated against states req jury find criminal defendant guilty by a unanimous verdict 2/12 jurors voted to acquit - in LA was ok to convict if 2 vote to acquit sentenced to life in prison
lesser included offense
A crime whose elements are contained within a more serious crime - carries max penalty less than that of charged offense ex. theft to robbery
negative defense
A defense in which the defendant denies committing the crime or claims that the prosecution lacks sufficient evidence of the defendant's guilt - denial factual allegation, est reasonable doubt, lack intent or mistake "didn't do it and didn't prove did it" ex. factual impossibility
mediation
A method of settling disputes outside of court by using the services of a neutral third party, communicating agent between the parties and suggests ways in which the parties can resolve their dispute. informal 3rd party settlement
discovery
A phase in the litigation process during which the opposing parties may obtain information from each other and from third parties prior to trial. reveal facts case, assist in formulating issues to be litigated, preserve evidence of witnesses who may not be available at trial replaced legal maneuvering, theater, surprise, ambush w/ fairness and substantive deliberation allows both sides to adequately prep for trial *liberal* favors broad inclusion vs exclusion of evidence proffered
affirmative defense
A response to a plaintiff's claim that does not deny the plaintiff's facts but attacks the plaintiff's legal right to bring an action - admit guilt but allege new facts defeat or mitigate legal consequences ex. self defense, insanity, entrapment, renunciation, necessity, statute limitations "did it but..." ex. ignorance, mistake, duress, necessity, infancy, entrapment, justification, excuse, consent, pub interest
Riley v California
A search after an arrest doesn't include a cell phone unless have separate warrant - contents phone qual and quant diff from other objects in person's pockets, there is time to get a warrant intrusiveness > exigency
Franks v Delaware
A search warrant must be voided and any evidence obtained by the warrant excluded from admission at trial when a defendant shows that an affidavit in support of the warrant contains an intentional or reckless false statement and when the affidavit does not support a finding of probable cause in the absence of the false statement. "Franks Hearing" to challenge factual accuracy of affidavit by showing of evidence (attacking oath officer) i) false statement made knowingly (perjury) or in reckless disregard truth ii) false statement necessary for finding probable cause *how appeal a warrant*
amicus brief
A submission to the court from an *amicus curiae*, or "friend of the court," an interested individual or organization who is not party in the case but have an opinion of it
federalism
A system in which power is divided between the national and state governments dual sovereignty/citizenship b/w fed gov and state/local gov - diff rules in each balance strong central gov (strong leadership in crisis) w/ states rights (closer to people) - together allow more public participation Constitution for fed gov and affect bounds in which state govs operate (states can't be less strict) 10th Amendment for State's rights (residual powers)
Apodaca v Oregon
Allowed convictions by less than unanimous verdict for states even though federal law required unanimous verdicts. right to "impartial jury" overturned by Ramos v Louisiana where 6th incorp by 14th
appeal of right
An appeal that a defendant is entitled to make as a matter of law prelimn direct appeal from trial court to lowest appellate as matter right - prosecution can't appeal "not guilty" verdict b/c double jeopardy (5th) move from trial court to court of appeals
Mistake of Fact Defense
Available as a defense if it negates requisite intent element (e.g., no "knowledge" bc mistaken) - honest belief: 1. Specific intent—ANY mistake of fact, even if UNREASONABLE (negates knowledge / purpose) 2. Malice and/or general intent—must be REASONABLE mistake of fact (negates reckless) 3. Strict liability—NEVER a defense
burglary
Breaking and entering a building with the intention of committing a felony or theft actus reus = trespass (includes enter w/o break) mens rea = w/ *intent* commit theft, etc. (doesn't need to be completed) [common law says building needs to be a house/dwelling at night]
5th Amendment
Due Process; Double Jeopardy; Protection from Self incrimination; grand jury; no taking private property w/o just compensation due process applies to *fed* gov - no person deprived of life, liberty, property w/o due process law
Medieval Juries
England land of small hamlets and villages age of ignorance and superstition community group functioning as witnesses, investigators, decision makers all at once determination of character and decision to banish irrational proofs trials by ordeal, battle, compurgation for convictions jurors as witnesses, no one to speak for accused 1166 Assize of Clarendon during reign Henry II extreme effort control rampant lawlessness est grand jury to inform king's itinerant judges of most serious crimes committed in each local district (statements about character > guilt) those accused subjected to ordeal and if convicted had foot cut off and worldly goods forfeited to King; acquitted exiled if ill repute; encouraged accusations leading to miscarriages of justice prompted movement to evidentiary model trial by jury based on evidence vs trial by ordeals; petit juries determined guilt in felony trials
Weeks v US
Established exclusionary rule (aka Week's Rule) evidence illegally obtained by *fed* officers could not be used in *federal* criminal prosecutions home is castle essence constitutional liberty and security - invasion indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty, private property
Griswold v. Connecticut
Established that there is an implied right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution marital privacy - activity in bedroom is a zone of privacy protected by 4th
Herring v US
Herring was arrested on the basis of a search conducted from a warrant that was obtained from a warrant database in a neighboring county. It was later found that the warrant was a mistake and that the evidence found should be excluded. His motion was denied and he appealed. Issue: was his 4th amendment right violated. the Exclusionary Rule the question that is posed is "does the benefits outway the costs. Decision: The court upheld the original decision because it found that the rule does apply. The officer did not have knowledge of the mistake and therefore did not violate the exclusionary rule.
right to counsel
Individual right found in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution that requires criminal defendants to have access to legal representation. entitled to counsel prior to interrogation while in *custody* (feeling not allowed to leave) included in Miranda warnings applies wherever interrogation can occur: subject deprived of freedom whether formally arrested or not
California v Ciraolo
It is not an unreasonable search for the police, without a warrant, to conduct surveillance of a fenced backyard from a private plane flying at 1,000 feet. treated eq to see over fence from double decker bus or 2nd story neighbor - if can be seen by public is public airway public therefore police can be there marijuana vis w/ naked eye
substantive due process
Judicial interpretation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' due process clauses that protects citizens from arbitrary or unjust state or federal laws. were property and liberty rights protected?
vicarious liability
Legal doctrine under which a party can be held liable for the wrongful actions of another party accomplice liability - act in concert w/ other criminal held equally responsible for results crime even if no intent cause harm - accessories after fact charged less ex. aid and abett, conspiracy Felony murder - while committing certain felonies cause death innocent guilty of murder even if no intent cause death liable for someone else's act
undue burden test
Legislature cannot make a particular law that is too burdensome or restrictive of one's fundamental rights
Brown v Mississippi
No corporal punishment to obtain confession - constitutional *due process* limits state when offends some principle justice so rooted in traditions and conscience people ranked as fundamental
Powell v Alabama
The Supreme Court ruled here that the right to counsel was required by law in death penalty trials. -fundamental fairness under 14th - first 14th incorp in relation crim cases/trial aka Scottsboro Boys case cited in Gideon v Wainwright as procedural guarantees based on constitution
Miranda v Arizona
The accused must be notified of their rights before being questioned by the police//warning before confession (rights before interrogation) Warren court - ex. legislating from the bench must be given warning or waive these rights in order to be asked Qs (entitled to counsel, can remain silent)
Statutory Law
The body of law enacted by legislative bodies (as opposed to constitutional law, administrative law, or case law).
Bill of Rights
The first ten amendments to the Constitution list specific prohibitions on gov power response to calls for greater constitutional protections for individual liberties
booking
The formal process of making a police record of an arrest records entry, photo, fingerprint, DNA sample, search for outstanding arrest warrants no reasonable expectation of privacy so not a search to get fors evidence from person at this time b/c under control police (detention NOT under control)
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. includes "police powers" = create *criminal laws* health, ed, welfare, morals (health, safety, wellbeing)
selective incorporation
The process by which provisions of the Bill of Rights are brought within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment and so applied to state and local governments. incorp when justiciable violations arose
stop and frisk
The right of the police to detain an individual for a brief period of time and to search the outside of the person's clothing if the police have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed or is about to commit a crime 1) Terry stop = investigative detention for only as long as takes confirm or dispel suspicion for as long as asking Qs assumed not free to go aiming to find probable cause to arrest 2) frisk = pat down outer clothing for officer protection check for weapons - may have plain feel immediately apparent contraband waive 4th rights if voluntarily consented to search
US v Edwards
The search of an arrestee may take place at the time of the arrest or later at the place of detention. searches and seizures that could be made on the spot at the time of arrest may legally be conducted later when the accused arrives at the place of detention. paint chips at scene matched against chips on clothing - found in search property after detention accused lawfully arrested and in custody all property/possessions at place detention subject to search at time and place arrest may be searched and seized w/o warrant result is same where property not phys taken from defendant until sometime after incarceration
robbery
The taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear. violent = crime against property AND person; theft + intimidation
statute of limitations
The time within which a case must be prosecuted often suspended when individual flees state/is in hiding w/o statutes = murder, sex offenses w/ minors, violent crimes, kidnap, arson, forgery
legislating from the bench
To make specific holdings in order to change law; when courts impose their own opinions and beliefs into the law rather than directly interpreting it. judges are not elected reps *political Q doctrine* - some issues political in nature should be left to legislatures *lochnerizing* - judges sub own opinion for legislature
Aguilar-Spinelli Test
Two prong test that test the reliability of the informant and reliability of the information (1) Was the informant reliable—was it likely that he or she was telling the truth? (veracity) (2) What is the basis of the informant's knowledge
DeShaney v Winnebago
Winnebago county gave custody of infant to father; 4 years of social services visits no suspicion abuse child ends up in coma from persistent traumatic brain injuries mother sues county arguing social services deprives child of 14th court rules state failure protect individual against private violence not violation due process clause BoR "no state shall" is a neg not positive for civil liberty protection
Florida v Riley
Ct. ruled that the surveillance of the interior of a partially covered greenhouse in a residential backyard from a helicopter at 400 feet does not constitute a search from which a warrant is required under the 4th amendment. --- Ciraolo controls in this case: While Riley may have had a subjective expectation of privacy, any member of the public, as well as the police could legally have been flying over Riley's property at 400 feet and have observed the Greenhouse. - airspace public anyone can access and therefore see greenhouse
Raynor v Maryland
DNA collection after interview constitutional genetic material collected and tested w/o consent or knowledge after agreed to interview no probable cause but refused provide DNA sample held DNA targeted analysis like fingerprint no infringement on reasonable expectation privacy no violation 4th <> CA v Greenwood abandoned property
US v White
No reasonable expectation of privacy when sharing info with 3rd party that could share with police friend defendant fitted w/ wire w/o warrant elec surveillance not search b/c lost reasonable expectation privacy when confided in friend who might disclose secret to police; recorded convo merely doc what informant would report if tell a secret it's not a secret so no longer w/in zone privacy not a search dissent = reasonableness should be judged from normative vs empiric perspective
Oliver v US
No reasonable expectation privacy in an open field under federal law - hikers or airplanes can clearly see "open fields doctrine" police w/o warrant drive onto Oliver's property past house, walking past no trespassing sign before finding marijuana plants
Smith v Maryland
No search for the police to use a "pen register" device that records all phone numbers dialed form a particular phone. The Ct. concluded that D could claim no legitimate expectation of privacy because when he used his phone he "voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and exposed that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business" and thereby assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the number he dialed. [tap and trace = what receive and from whom pen register = who sent and what sent]
Brigham City v Stuart
Officers have the right to enter a home with no warrant when they reasonably believe that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with a serious injury loud party minors drinking one getting into fight w/ adults officers announce presence but people didn't hear so entered home and arrested men for contributing to delinquency minor seizure evidence permitted based on need emergency aid - 1st time evidence obtained from home admissible w/o warrant, probable cause, reasonable suspicion.
Utah v Strieff
Police may use evidence found after an illegal stop - *attenuation doctrine* police surveilled house stopped Strieff w/o reasonable suspicion when left; had outstanding traffic warrant search incident arrest revealed drugs and paraphernalia; evidence admissible b/w arrest warrant was sufficient break b/w unlawful stop and disc drugs - taint of illegal stop *attenuated*
Palko v Connecticut
Provided test for determining which parts of Bill of Rights should be federalized - those which are implicitly or explicitly necessary for liberty to exist. The Fifth Amendment right to protection against double jeopardy is not a fundamental right incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the individual states. *selective incorp doctrine*
Hobbs Act
Punishes anyone who " in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects interstate commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion. (violence or bribery) federal crime
Planned Parenthood v Casey
Reaffirmed Roe v. Wade but upheld certain limits on its use (stare decisis)
counter-majoritarian dilemma
SCOTUS and constitution (and courts) operate by imposing limits on what majority can do to protect rights minority majority doesn't need same protections b/c can get what want through political process dilemma = courts can't enforce decisions except through political branches gov voted in by majority
hearsay SCOTUS cases
Scalia = primary purpose test - won Melendez-Diaz and Bullcoming Kennedy = accusatory test - won Williams Thomas = formality/solemnity test (deciding vote all cases)
Maryland v King
DNA collection during booking and database search constitutional - like fingerprint phys character database search w/ buccal taken at time arrest hit on unsolved case --> warrant for 2nd buccal used in conviction held when make arrest supported by *probable cause* bring to station to be detained taking DNA like fingerprint and photo legit procedure reasonable under 4th balance legit state interests against individual bodily integrity and info privacy - negligible phys intrusion limited profiling arrestees diminished rights and expectations privacy booking routine and admin still a search w/o individualized suspicion court concerned w/ constitutionality not policy, don't want to remove DNA testing as option dissent = swabs like general warrants, potential reveal health info, potential abuse, suspisionless search, unlimited in scope, too revealing (like cellphone)
US v Davis
DNA collection from clothing and database search unconstitutional search clothes seized from hospital and DNA yielded hit claim violation 4th i) seizure clothes from hospital room ii) extraction and testing DNA ii) retention DNA for database court held seizure permissible but DNA extraction and testing from free man's clothing and creation profile unlawful search let good faith apply here no exclusion rule applied
Oliver Wendell Holmes
1932 last great common law justice
per curiam opinion
A brief, unsigned (no specific author) opinion issued by the Supreme Court to explain its ruling - usually short noncontroversial
partial defense
a defense that reduces a crime to a lesser included offense
Complete defense
a defense that, if proven, relieves the defendant of all criminal responsibility - acquittal
standing
a legal rule stating who is authorized to start a lawsuit - does defendant have right to complain - burden of proof on defendant were rights/ constitutional protections violated - cannot be vicariously asserted - aggrieved party not merely one against whom seized evidence is to be used not enough - be on premise searched (overnight guest exception) - be in possession stolen property - have property interest in the property seized
summons
a notice directing someone to appear in court to answer a complaint or a charge not a seizure of the person no stigma like arrest can be done at time convenience under control and supervision of court
Rochin v California
a search cannot be exploratory, it cannot be unreasonable, and it cannot shock the conscience - due process 4th stomach pumping unconstitutional search - too invasive swallowed drug capsules to dispose of evidence; pummeled, jumped on to make throw up then took to hospital for stomach pump - means extraction shocks conscience violate due process 14th; also 5th
witness rehabilitation
after credibility attacked via impeachment intro evidence of good character, truthfulness, honesty, prior consistent statement elaborating on y/n Qs if not initially attacked considered bolstering not allowed
ex post facto
after the fact
search incident to arrest warrant exception
arrest based on probable cause of a crime also applied to resulting search justified based on i) danger to officer ii) potential destruction evidence search person w/in wingspan and contemporaneous or immediately after search no individualized suspicion necessary understanding that when arrested not free to leave if person in vehicle, officer can search area including containers w/in reach person arrested for weapons or contraband
hypothetical questions
assuming certain material facts in evidence witness asked assuming true if can arrive at opinion expert may testify about ultimate facts in issue w/o on direct being posed w/ hypothetical based on perception of issue or evidence seen or heard and analyzed through knowledge, skill, experience, training use facts, theory, application to reach opinion facts need to be proven before ask hypothetical
assault
attempt or threat to inflict injury battery - unconsented touch simple - unlawful phys attack or attempted or threatened attack i) intentionally or recklessly causing bodily injury ii) threatening imminent bodily injury and victim under apprehension of imminent harm iii) offensive or provocative phys contact aggravated - phys attack + add aggravating factor i) intend *cause or causes serious bodily injury* manifesting extreme indifference to human life ii) during attempt commit rape or other serious crime iii) use dangerous weapon intimidation - unlawfully place another person in reasonable fear of bodily harm through use of threatening words and/or other conduct but w/o displaying weapon or subjecting victim to actual phys attack; threat mayhem - intentional infliction of permanent injury which may disable or disfigure someone
Collins v Virginia
automobile exception 4th doesn't permit police officer entering home or curtilage (a search a vehicle parked in the driveway) uninvited and without a warrant to search vehicle therein police learned motorcycle likely stolen, photos on suspect FB show motorcycle parked in driveway, officer drove to house w/o warrant, removed tarp covering to see license plate, officer waited for Collins to return for arrest violation 4th trespass on curtilage --> suppression evidence driveway is curtilage even though open to pub roadway; took of tarp w/in curtilage = search in constitutionally protected zone
pretrial motions
avoid trial through summary judgment or motion to dismiss, narrow scope issues to be tried, evidentiary positioning (motion suppress or request bill of particulars) in prep for trial
murder
based on depravity and moral culpability - 1st degree: willful killing of another w/ *premeditation* or malice aforethought --> life or death sentence - 2nd degree: w/ malice or disregard for serous bodily harm from depraved heart or abandoned and malignant heart but *NO premeditation* --> 20+ years - felony = during rape, arson, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, (1st) other crime (2nd) malice = evil of cold-blood NOT anger or ill-will premeditation = rational decision kill not necessarily planned
manslaughter
based on depravity and moral culpability - voluntary: w/o malice in heat of passion w/o cooling off after provocation cause reasonable person to have extreme emotional disturbance to point lose control ex. mutual combat, spousal adultery --> 10-20 years [often defense for 2nd degree murder] - involuntary: accidental through gross recklessness or crim negligence act or omission ex. parent negligence --> 1-10 years negligent/misdemeanor: accidental not justified or lawful occurring from ordinary negligence --> <1 year vehicular = unintentional killing from reckless use motor vehicle, includes DUI [if intentionally use vehicle as weapon NOT same]
courtroom setup
bench = where judge sits, witness box attached, court reporter other side, baliff stands behind, clerk table in front of - elevated commands respect jury box = on side defense bar = separate court players from gallery/spectators; those who can/can't speak to judge outside main courtroom = judge's chamber, jury room, defendant's holding area, anterooms for witnesses
Missouri v McNeely
blood alcohol test *unconstitutional* no auto exigency based on nat metabolism that would justify blood draw w/o consent in age breathalyzers (exigency + special facts might have permitted, could have gotten expedited warrant) stopped for speeding and weaving showed signs inebriation failed field sobriety tests and refused blow into breathalyzer; driven to med center refused blood draw even after told license revoked drew blood anyway breathalyzers readily available
Mitchell v Wisconsin
blood alcohol test when inebriated constitutional so inebriated breath test not possible and couldn't give consent for blood test; passed out in hospital; implied consent law did blood test - gave permission for operating vehicle on state road search incident to arrest and general reasonableness also applicable SCOTUS exigency when so inebriated for breath test can do blood test
Schmerber v California
blood alcohol testing constitutional in *exigent* circumstance blood taken w/o consent in hospital emergency room after involved in MVA --> conviction based on BAC 5th applied only to *testimonial* evidence not phys evidence (cite not violation for fingerprints, photo, measures, speak or write ID, appear in court, make gesture) bodily intrusion is search under 4th, but not unreasonable seizure to to *exigency* evidence destroyed if delay for warrant majority held 4th function = protect personal privacy and dignity against unwarranted intrusion by state dissent: 1) involuntary blood samples violate right to privacy in Griswold v Connecticut 2) involuntary blood samples violate substantive due process 3) officers violated Schmerber's right against self-incrim 4) involuntary taking was act violence violated due process - states must not resort to acts violence when prosecute crimes may have prompted proliferation breathalyzers vs BAC - at time case no breathalyzers
Breithaupt v Abram
blood alcohol testing constitutional search and seizure not deprived due process in violation 14th b/c even if unreasonable search state prosecution for state crime and *4th not yet incorp* taking blood by skilled tech not conduct that shocks conscience or offends sense of justice bodily intrusion< value deterrent effect blood taken for alcohol testing when asked for by patrolman while unconscious in hospital emergency room after in vehicle accident killed 3 people --> conviction involuntary manslaughter
caselaw
body of law est by judicial decisions of higher (appellate) courts which have interpreted the statues and precedents in the cases brought before them published opinion holding w/ binding precedent can be overcome by new statute
civil law (vs criminal)
body of law ref to civil wrongs - citizens, businesses, etc. as plaintiffs sue for damages or other remedies torts, contracts, family, labor
administrative law
body of law that deals w/ gov agencies and the regulations they promulgate hearings vs trials (don't have evidence protections) not always w/ lawyers
criminal law
body of law that relates to crime gov prosecutors prosecute defendants for breaking the laws and seek punishment by fines, incarceration, probation, death - deprivation life or liberty
corpus delicti
body of the crime material substance of a crime = foundation of crime, corroborating evidence crime occurred ex. arson remains house
Birchfield v North Dakota
breath test constitutional blood test unconstitutional compared invasiveness - can do search incident to arrest <> warrantless breath test but not blood test on suspect drunk drivers refused breath and blood tests implied consent to blood draw b/c driving on public roads
civil vs criminal law diffs
burden of proof, right to counsel, habeas corpus, auto right of appeal, speedy trial
Brogan v US
can't lie in court (making false statements)
divisions of crimes
capital offense - homicide punishable by death felony - major crime punishable by death or imprisonment 1+ years misdemeanor - minor crime punishable by jail time <1 year infraction - petty offenses punishable by fine but no jail time crimes against persons - victims are individuals ex. murder, rape, assault crimes against property - to obtain money, property, or other benefit ex. robbery, bribery, burglary, arson crimes against society - society prohibition against engaging in certain types activity ex. animal cruelty, drug violation, gambling, prostitution [property crimes 6x more common than violent crimes]
Carpenter v US
case asking whether or not the police need a warrant to obtain a suspect's past GPS locations from cell phone company records FBI approval on reasonable ground but not probable cause to obtain transaction records phone numbers from wireless carriers (FBI asked for subpoena not search warrant) 3rd party doctrine that applied in Smith could not be applied to cellphone tech *need warrant to access hist cellphone records* - Smith limited types personal info addressed vs today's phones application of the stored communication's act
Federal Rules of Evidence
codified evidence law for fed courts, gave more power to judges to admit and exclude evidence, liberalized stds to favor admission and permit jurors to weight evidence, elimn hypothetical Qs, elimn ambushes and surprises evidence must be *relevant* and *probative* outweight prejudicial impact 104a) est court as gatekeeper, determines quals witnesses and admissibility evidence (voir dire) - weight harm error in admission vs exclusion 1) Q of law - trustworthy, reliable, and relevant to give to jury 2) Q of fact - jury assesses weight evidence 402) allow judge to admit all rel evidence 403) allow judge to exclude evidence prejudicial, confusing, waste of time, other reasons 702) allow judge to permit expert witness to testify - witness qual by knowledge, skill, experience, training, ed; can testify in form opinion if i) knowledge help trier of fact understand evidence or determine fact in issue ii) testimony based on sufficient facts or data ii) testimony product of reliable principles and methods iv) expert has reliably applied principles and methods to facts case (opinion relevant, based on facts/data, reliable methods, appropriately applied) 703) *bases of an expert* - can base opinion on facts or data in case made aware of or personally obs; if experts in field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming opinion need not be admissible for opinion to be admitted; if inadmissible can disclose probative value helping jury outweighs prejudicial effect 704) *opinion on an ultimate issue* - generally not auto objectionable just b/c embraces ultimate issue; exception = state opinion on mental state or condition that constitutes element crime (matter for trier of fact) 612) *writing used to refresh witness' memory*: can even use stuff not admissible, once say memory refreshed doc removed nex Q asked, opposing can examine and cross exam doc intro rel parts - ok say don't know; process initiated by attorney 803(5)) *recollection recorded*: can't testify fully and accurately to matter once knew about even if see something from a time did remember; made at or about time matter fresh in mind; accurately reflect knowledge; may be read into record; only adverse party may intro - if can't refresh memory can't say what once knew b/c can't confront past self following trend "liberal thrust" from rigid general acceptance - relaxing traditional barriers to opinion testimony; also undermines gatekeeping
Johnson v US
comment by justice Jackson that 4th does not deny law enforcement support of usual inferences reasonable men draw from evidence rather req inferences be drawn by neutral and detached *magistrate* vs officer w/ competitive interest
matter of the search of a residence in oakland CA
compulsion to unlock cellphones w/ fingerprint unconstitutional based on 5th (self-incrimn vs 4th unreasonable search) a fingerprint is a physical characteristic exposed to the public so not testimonial, but passcode is like a confession goes against 5th self incrimn Fairfax County - judge ruled state could compel fingerprint but not passcode
Hernandez v Mesa
deciding if officer violated 4th and 5th rights for which no alt legal remedy if fed courts can and should recognize claim of damages limited civil damages, hard prove harm caused
self defense
defendant honest and reasonable belief facing unlawful threat imminent death or serious bodily injury by aggressor w/o provocation and force reasonable under circumstances (proportional not excessive) can defend self, others, property can be deadly against death, serous injury, kidnap, rape *retreat laws* - NE and Mid-W req person retreat before use force if can do so safely *Castle Doctrine* - exception retreat threat in home *stand-your-ground*/true man - S and W no retreat needed Castle expanded to anywhere have right to be (pub space) police - duty not to retreat can't use deadly force on fleeing felon unless sig risk death or serious injury to self or others
jury deliberation and verdict
deliberate to reach verdict on guilt or innocence defendant or liability civil - discussion in private verdict announced in open court by foreperson, clerk, or judge fed and most states req jury in crim case be unanimous in finding guilty or not if not are "hung" and mistrial declared --> case dismissed or retried criminal: not guilty --> acquittal can't be tried again b/c 5th double jeopardy guilty --> conviction civil can include amt compensation/penalty in b/w full liability and not liable
Arizona v Youngblood
destruction/spoilation of potentially exculpatory evidence not denial due process suspect abduction case had blood and semen swabs failed to be refrigerated resulting DNA test inconclusive can't prove bad faith failure preserve potentially useful evidence not denial due process - just negligent, no info concealed about preservation, could have done a retest not violation due process do newer/any test on samples - law motivated by convictions but can't tell how get a conviction *Youngblood std* = defendant must show bad faith on part police for court to find destruction evidence as denial due process - only if evidence "potentially useful" otherwise Brady applies rejected too broad (impose sanctions even though defendant no demo prejudice) and too narrow (applies only to cases where can demo bad faith despite proof negligence or disregard) near impossible prove *bad faith*; may give police incentive destroy evidence to bolster state case 1) *proving materiality* - officers had reason to believe evidence exculpatory before destroyed and can't be replaced ex. state normally preserves but didn't; gov test or use or intended use <> recognized importance 2) *proving bad faith* - willful, deceitful, malicious intent NOT carelessness or negligence ex. fail follow SOPs
Illinois v Fisher
destruction/spoilation of potentially exculpatory evidence not denial due process suspect failed to appear in court after 10 years per procedure destroyed drug powder evidence just as turn up again Youngblood vs Brady std applies (need demo bad faith) b/c only potentially useful evidence not materially exculpatory
civil discovery
ensures level playing field for all parties prevent surprise - promote reciprocity and equal access to evidence auto disc = witness list, rel docs/data/tangible info, all damages claimed non-auto disc (time limit to respond) = interrogatories (FRCP 33 - series Qs limited), admissions (agree to facts so don't battle in court) (FRCP 36), requests for production (FRCP 34), depositions (sworn testimony w/o jury, transcripts read into court, can be basis for impeachment if deviate at trial) (FRCP 30) non-disc material (may be discussed in camera) = attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, proprietary process and patents privileges, med risk management (Drs talk amongst selves what happened what can do better), marriage privilege FRCP 26 = expert witnesses who must provide a written report along w/ disclosure including i) complete statement all opinions will express and basis and reasons for them ii) facts or data considered by witness in forming them iii) exhibits used to summarize or support them iv) witness quals including publications last 10 years v) list of all other cases testified as expert at trial or deposition last 4 years vi) statement of compensation
state government powers
est local gov, reg intrastate commerce, pub ed +schools, conduct elections, provide for common good (health, safety, morals), regs for marriage, pro licensure, all powers not denied or delegated to national per constitution
US v Wade
establishes the notion of a "critical" proceeding where the right to counsel attaches suspects cannot be put into a lineup without notification and presence of an attorney. obtaining evidence generally occurs prior to commencement formal crim proceeding then accused has opportunity for confrontation through cross exam
US v Patane
evidence found w/o Miranda warning constitutional search Patane told officers knew rights during reading so officers stopped, then told police had gun which officers found - Patane argued found as result un-Mirandized confession plurality opinion confession could be excluded but phys evidence admissible unless confession was involuntary (phys or psych coercion)
malum in se
evil in itself includes what considered morally wrong (lie, steal, cheat)
search
exploration or examination by gov of individual's home, premises, person to disc evidence for crim prosecution - only w/in a constitutionally protected zone -- person's reasonable expectation privacy invaded by state action -- when state trespasses on person's property if don't unconstitutionally is a violation of privacy
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act
fed and state acts providing for crim and civil actions for acts performed as part ongoing crim org activities - hold leaders responsible for crimes ordered or assisted others to do crime to belong to, profit from, operate org that engages in pattern racketeering and has committed 2 specific crimes w/in last 10 years: bribery, loan-sharking, union embezzlement, drugs, obscenity, racketeering (obtain illegal goals by threats) enhanced penalties and forfeiture fed crime
Davis v Mississippi
fingerprints obtained during detention unconstitutional search search of person not same as seizure person or seizure evidence detention NOT under control/custody police NOT diminished rights like booking/under arrest rape dragnet operation no warrants or probable cause arrest several for Qs and prints --> print match objection print product unlawful detention court held detention violation 4th so print evidence inadmissible dicta = print less serious intrusion upon personal security than other types searches and detentions and is more reliable crime solving tool --> can detain on less than probable cause for ID procedures w/ phys characters
PCAST 2016 report
found feature comparison methods not yet attained foundational validity - complex DNA mixtures, bitemark analysis, firearms, footwear, microscopic hair, fingerprints, toolmarks, tires, handwriting *foundational validity*: sci has empirically shown error rates (how often right vs wrong) *valid as applied*: examiner has properly performed sci test - proficiency test, disclose limits and factors influence conclusion (biases), examiner qualifications *black box studies* used to measure how often many examiners reach accurate conclusions - obtaining foundational validity for subjective methods (pattern matching) b/c get measure overall error rate across many examiners proposed FRE 707) testimony by fors expert witness to determine if evidentiary sample similar or identical to source must prove i) method repeatable, reproducible, accurate as shown by empirical studies conducted under conditions appropriate to that use ii) witness capable of applying method reliably as shown by adequate empirical demo proficiency and actually did so iii) witness accurately states on basis adequate empirical evidence probative value of any similarity or match - fors sci diff from other evidence
criminal discovery
goal = protection defendant's constitutional right to fair trail; more restricted and asymmetric than civil - prosecution may be ignorant of defense case while defense fully informed of prosecution evidence follows from rights self incrim and confrontation (supplement to Ogden Memo -->) prosecutor should routinely provide defense with 1) fors expert lab report 2) sumary intended expert testimony 3) lab or expert case file 4) expert quals FRCP 16 = at defendant request gov must give to defendant written summary any testimony gov intends use during case in chief at trial describing witness opinions, bases and reasons for those opinions, witness quals
US v Leon
good faith exception to the exclusionary rule where some info proves incorrect
Posse Comitatus
group in medieval England called out to pursue fleeing felons common law before police or prosecutors
US v Mara
handwriting exemplars constitutional search handwriting not seizure (4th) or testimonial (5th) don't need to show reasonableness - phys character constantly exposed to public no more expectation privacy in scrip than voice
Gilbert v California
handwriting samples are not protected by 5th amendment - simply IDs a phys characteristic
exculsionary rule
holds that tangible and testimonial evidence obtained from unlawful search and seizure inadmissible for crim prosecution - violation 4th search and seizure or 5th self incrim and 6th right to counsel formulated as deterrent results in suppression evidence which benefits criminals often seen as getting off on technicality but useful in mod police behavior and is only tool courts have to trigger police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it and sufficiently culpable that deterrence is worth price paid by justice system deters deliberate, reckless, systemic negligence
why sanction an unconstitutional search
i) does violation justify suppression evidence ii) does suppression have salutary effect on future police behavior
Hot Pursuit Exception
in the chase of a fleeing suspect that moves from public to private space no warrant is req enter property in order continue pursuit even if suspect in no way connected w/ property owner no time get warrant if pursuit immediate and continuous even if suspect not under personal obs entire time usually limited to felony offenses/serious crimes
container search
incident to arrest opaque container w/in person's reasonable expectation of privacy can secure container from loss or destruction based on reasonable suspicion, but can't open and search inside w/o warrant (auto exception)
Malloy v Hogan
incorporation 5th self incrimination protection through 14th (fundamental fairness)
confidential informants
inherently suspect 1) criminals talk in exchange for leniency or money (trying to get around law or will say anything to get rewards) - jailhouse snitch - little fish to big fish investigation (defendant can't be convicted on uncorroborated testimony accomplice police need add evidence secure conviction) 2) unable to be cross-examined to test quality info b/c don't know real name
presentment
inital judicial appearance of defendant before magistrate informed of charges against, advised of constitutional rights (right counsel, privilege against self incrim, right to trial, right to jury) mandated by 4th for warrantless arrests pleas entered for misdemeanors if charge not disposed *magistrate* *sets bail* or rel on own recognizance
general warrants
issued by British Crown allowed bearer to search wherever or seize whomever or whatever wished during reign of King merely b/c vague claim disloyalty used to suffocate political and religious dissent - esp colonial and rev US <> colonists view as instruments tyranny states outlawed in their constitutions before 4th prohibited federally (right to be let alone and any search must be justified and limited)
psychological factors jury deliberation
judge and jury agree in 3/4 cases if disagree jury 7x more lenient jury difficulties understanding technicalities experts likely make judgments based on emotional appeals lawyers and witnesses, simply adopt expert opinion abdicating fact-finding obligation jurors are active info processors eval conflicting claims construct narrative for interp evidence (story model help process unfamiliar); analyze evidence rationally and methodically; spend time discussing nature expert testimony; good collective memory trial related info focus on rel in deliberation sanction interjections of personal or legally irrelevant; can be verdict or evidence driven in deliberation story model <> everyday reasoning skills to unfamiliar domains; all inputs fit into story vs view in isolation; use central processing (careful scrutiny message and quality args made), peripheral processing (heuristic short cuts assess info) cog dissonance (world view), resistance persuasion (push back on what not in worldview), heuristics (mental shortcuts w/o full app logic), thin slicing (snap judgement on few cues), embodied cognition (unconscious link component to thought), anchoring (initial or primed expectation), learning styles, expectations/CSI effect Aristotle's rhetoric modes of persuasion ethos (character speaker), pathos (emotional), logos (logic apparent truth) <> people more likely believe person of good morals, good will, good sense effective experts to *attorneys* credentials > expertise/experience > communication style; reverse for *jurors*
Kumho Tire Co , Ltd v Carmichael
judge gatekeeping function IDed in Daubert applies to all expert testimony including those w/ technical and other non-sci specialized knowledge including experience relationship b/w tire failure and manufacturing or design defect emphasized Daubert factors not definiitve check list - inquiry rule 702 flexible
jury instruction
judge tells jury set legal stds need to decide if defendant guilty or not describe key concepts, def crimes jury can consider counsel from each side have input prior to delivery by judge
Renaissance Juries
juries no longer communal w/ society growing more complex and mobility increased jurors picked for status not prox juries not self-informing rather passive viewers of fact could talk to witnesses out of court witnesses commonly employed judges called witnesses determination of guilt compelled attendance of witnesses; perjury is a crime; distinguish legal and credible witnesses; devo graduated scale probability rational belief/moral certainty at one end; verdicts based on belief or satisfied conscience
Enlightenment Juries
jurors limited to facts presented in court, but could consider personal knowledge judges dom proceedings and exam witnesses accused rep selves picked based on statues and passive viewers fact separate witnesses called by judges determine guilt law of evidence started to appear; distinguishing b/w knowledge/sci and probability; knowledge considered to be physical, mathematical, and moral while probability uncertain, seemingly true, and likely; concept "reasonable doubt"; satisfied conscience, moral certainty, beyond reasonable doubt linked devo profession "men of science" summoned to court give opinions on matters not common knowledge based on empirical obs and training; w/ time need more to prove expertise than simple claim to be expert
notice and demand statute
lab reports admitted w/o testimonial support ex. certificates of analysis Melendez-Diaz prosecution tells when won't use a witness so defense can object
evidence foundation
laid before evidence intro witnesses - qualified as competent give testimony checking *competence* able speak about, voire dire exam background assess quals or fitness give testimony on subject - not what experts say but what basis have for saying it <> trustworthiness - consider if research done for purpose litigation tangible things - authenticated by live testimony true and accurate not tampered w/
Industrial revolution juries
lawyers dom proceedings judges red to umpires lawyers exam witnesses laws of evidence devo trials became adversarial matches - can argue pts law devo techniques cross exam
merger doctrine
lesser included offenses merge into greater offense ex. larceny into robbery ex. solicitation or attempt NOT conspiracy jury instructed to find defendant guilty of most serious crime or of lesser offense
protective sweep
limited search allowed upon arrest allow officers to ensure own safety and that of those on scene by search vicinity arrest for people who may pose threat search limited by time and place but broader if reasonable suspicion danger or threat arrest warrant gives police authority to enter a house exception 4th req warrant before search home if disc evidence in plain view during sweep can use evidence at trial
investigation
look into tip, report of crime, filing formal complaint or apprehend person in act committing crime determine if crime has been committed, produce evidence, name known suspects, police report gen - may clear suspect police in municipalities, sheriffs in counties, state troopers in state agencies, federal agents in national agencies
court opinions
majority - opinion of majority concurring - separate opinion agrees w/ majority plurality - several opinions no majority (concurring joined by greatest number) dissent - disagree w/ majority
biological evidence handling
most states have laws specifically req preservation bio evidence (not just extract as suggested by Anderson) for as long as crime unsolved or person convicted remains in custody anticipate sci devo so no req hand over evidence until in court
Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.
new std for admission sci evidence into court judge as gatekeeper sci evidence must be *relevant* and *reliable* factors of *sci validity* (not exclusive guide to determine admissibility) 1) testable/falsifiable 2) peer review lit 3) error rate 4) controlling stds 5) generally accepted - if witness appropriately qualified i) determine testimony reflects "sci knowledge" work product amts to "good sci" (evidentiary *reliability* - based on sci validity, good methods) ii) testimony *relevant* to task at hand, fits case claims Bendectin morning sickness drug caused birth defect Phocomelia; FDA approved, no studies found it to be human teratogen, animal studies and similar chems showed defects (reanalysis - Dr who did later struck from med register) - came back to market 30 years later b/c people still suffering plaintiff evidence not "generally accepted" --> FRE stds supersede concerns abandoning general acceptance --> free for all; making judges amateur scientists in order to judge admissibility/gatekeep broadens std for authentic sci breakthroughs, narrows std by excluding junk sci tendency focus on expert quals vs underlying sci hearings could be held for every case - flexibility led to erratic and contradictory holdings place responsibility on judge ensure jury properly influenced by reliable and rel testimony not impressive credentials or persuasive but unfounded args - focus on principles and method not conclusions can have multiple hearings as factors change even if type evidence admitted before
US v Dunn
no specific cause nor a search warrant is needed to search either open fields or non-habitable buildings (see also Oliver v U.S.) Court case that established the four factors of curtilage 1) prox to home 2) whether area w/in enclosure around house 3) nature and uses to which area put 4) steps taken by resident to protect area from obs by people passing by
hearsay remedies
notice and demand statues stipulations vidoconferences retesting independent expert opinion generally when witness unavailable get testimony from surrogate forming independent opinion of own and testifying as independent expert based on same underlying facts of OG report when courts issue subpoenas should accommodate work schedule constraints expert, consider as expert not just fact witness, compensate for prep/travel/wait times (Hawaii detain VA ME in order to testify) TBD who is an analyst, who unavailable, surrogates allowed, bases expert allowed, if bases exprt req separate hearing, autopsy reports testimonial
Johnston v Commonwealth
officer chasing for possession marijuana fell to death off bridge possessor charged w/ manslaughter act of running away considered to be cause officer's death
Hibbel v 6th Judicial District Court of Nevada
officer may walk up to anyone and ask Qs may req person to ID self by name and arrest if refuse
evidentiary search and seizure
often don't need warrant based on exigency (emergency aid, threat mitigation), consent, pub space collection items by ME/C (coroners closer to law enforcement) generally not for purpose crim prosecution (determine cause and manner death, ID decedent - public service vs legal reasons) i) personal property = on or near body belongs to decedent returned to NOK ii) evidence = material contributes to cause or manner death, important supporting facts case [manner death distinguishes evidence from personal property] dead body quasi-property - NOK custodial Sepulchral right (bury); organ/tissue donation req NOK consent, autopsy don't? - intrusion body = search (probable cause or exigency needed) no one can call body as property alive or dead evidence and seized goods kept, personal property returned, abandoned property may be kept or destroyed
reasonable suspicion
other persons in same circumstances would also think person being stopped is or is about to be engaged in crim activity based on specific and *articulable* facts + rational inferences from those fact associated w/ a specific *individual* 1) articulable suspicion - able say why sus 2) individualized suspicion - applies to specific < probable cause; easier test meet >inchoate unparticularized suspicion or hunch (permit brief stop and detention not full search)
chain of custody
paper trail demo changes custody/control of evidence proof i) provenance (not planted, is what say it is) ii) integrity (no opportunity tampering) coord b/w law enforcement, evidence tech, police investigator, evidence room, DA's office, court, lab, defense lab initial collection, investigation, preservation --> secondary evidence investigation, preservation
Ohio v Roberts
particularized guarantee of trustworthiness as hearsay exception - out of court statements could be admitted in crim case where declarant unavailable and "indicia of reliability" found two pronged test: 1. Government must show hearsay declarant is unavailable (at least for certain forms of hearsay) 2. Government must show hearsay has *indicia of reliability* But hearsay fitting firmly rooted exception will be presumed to be reliable check forgery and theft stolen credit cards given to Roberts by daughter victim; daughter didn't show up to testify despite 5 subpoenas; state offered transcript testimony from prelimn hearing defense objected held daughter's statement didn't violate confrontation clause out of court statements can e admissible if bear adequate "indicia of reliability" even if declarant not available for testimony and cross exam
courtroom players
parties i) plaintiff (civil) - brings lawsuit against defendant ii) prosecutor (criminal) - fed = US attorney or assistant USA, state = district or states attorney iii) defendant rep by public defender or private crim defense lawyer or can rep self (pro se) judge = preside over proceedings, rules on issues law, render verdict in bench trials, sentences defendant jury = weigh evidence and render verdict sometimes punishment (death), foreperson speaks for entire courtroom clerk = admin, ensures order, keep docket, in charge all docs and evidence, swears in people, takes care of jurors court reporter = stenographer gen the record that is basis for appeals bailiff = police officer maintains order in court/US Marshall for fed courts
rape
penetration no matter how slight w/ any body part or object w/o consent victim statutory - intercourse w/ person not reached age consent whether or not act against person's will date - force intercourse or sodomy w/in social situation outside of marriage; lack consent may be due to mental impairment (drugs)
inventory search
permissible warrantless search of a vehicle that has been "impounded" - meaning that it is in police custody - so that police can make a record of the items contained in the vehicle admin function so no probable cause or reasonable suspicion necessary can open closed containers if find contraband or weapons may be seized - assumed get all property back unless contraband impound if driver arrested or care in unsafe condition
probable cause
permits a search when facts and circumstances w/in the officers knowledge and of which had reasonable trustworthy info sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in belief offense has been or is being committed > bare suspicion facts available warrant person of reasonable caution in belief contraband or evidence crime present rely on for facts/info in determination - officer obs (plain/open view) - ordinary witness - confidential or anonymous sources (more sus) obj std based on what 3rd party thinks is reasonable
police powers
powers of the states to protect the public health, safety, morals, and welfare of the public states can create criminal law
tips for expert witnessing
practice, study, be prepared, be professional, be organized, tell story, show emotion, educate, create vivid visualizations, eye contact (don't be creepy but face jury when answer Qs <> believability, credibility) mistakes: disheveled/credibility, talking up/down to jury (likability), haughty, wimpy/confidence, freaked out, partisan or zealous (trustworthy), waffle vs forthright and specific (trustworthy), don't make stuff up/stay w/ limits (knowing), robotic (human credibility) be forthcoming about compensation confidence <> persuasion ideal witness has good character, logical, empathetic
rule of law
principle that the law applies to everyone, even those who govern applied in the US as "gov of the people by and for the people", rep democracy, trial by jury of peers (all about us and what we want society to be), the people est the law, *no one above the law*, w/ liberty and justice for all
Woolverton v Multicounty Grand Jury
probable cause for blood samples but reasonable individualized suspicion for fingerprints
Procedural Due Process
procedural laws that protect the rights of individuals who must deal with the legal system was the process fair? defendant supposed to get rights 1) Miranda at arrest 2) right counsel at presentment 3) right jury trial at arraignment
sentencing
proceeds immediately after receipt of presentence report or after separate sentencing (bifurcated trial) hearing or penalty phase capital case probation dept prep report for judge summarizing mitigating and aggravating factors commission crime and defendants personal and crim background - considered along w/ additional evidence from parties, victim judge discretion limited by statutory guidelines/mins fines, incarceration, probation, community service, restitution to victims, house arrest, supervised rel, treatment, counseling, ed training
opening statements
prosecution burden of proof goes 1st give overview to jury what intend to prove defense response or wait until end prosecution case in chief no arguments only preview facts to be presented set tone trial
Barefoot v Estelle
psychiatrist testimony admissible b/c experts reg testify to their opinion - testified to future dangerousness convicted of murder of police officer and sentenced to death in part based on testimony 2 psychiatrist said would likely commit future violence; appealed for stay of execution on basis constitutionality use psych testimony during penalty phase amicus brief by APA declared no sci basis for such testimony
US v Katz
reasonable expectation of privacy using public pay phone booth to transmit illegal gambling wagers, FBI recorded convos attached to exterior booth argued not search b/c no intrusion (trespass) unreasonable search - 4th protects people not places; privacy not the same as property 1) individual has exhibited actual subjective expectation privacy 2) society prepared to recognize expectation is objectively reasonable --> right to privacy in given circumstance [concept breaking down in internet age]
US v Fowlkes
rectal search unconstitutional search forcible removal drugs from arrestee body cavity w/ attendant emotional and phys trauma req warrant b/w under arrest (already in jail) not exigent invasive therefore unconstitutional strip search, handcuff, taze violation jail policy lack med training conduct body search failed use sanitary conditions
battered wife problem
repeatedly beaten can't defend self shoots husband in sleep b/c fear for life self defense doesn't apply nor heat of passion guilty of 1st degree murder unless state extreme emotional disturbance or special law
Rabata v Dohner
req hypothetical Q must be used as bases for expert opinion abandoned
exigency warrant exception
req immediate attention to protect and preserve life or property w/ no time get warrant reasonable belief person in need aid or emergency exists or imminent destruction evidence (flushing toilet) exigency and pub safety > individual privacy rights exigent circumstances not police created search may not exceed scope emergency/exigency
New Hampshire v Langill
robbery with prints; examiner didn't take contemporaneous notes as called for by lab SOP such that at trial found app ACE-V method unreliable b/c incomplete doc didn't record adherence to SOP; non-blinded verification subject to confirmation bias; on appeal NH Supreme Court held trial judge exceeded gatekeeping role should have left assessment app ACE-V method to jury and inappropriately imposed blind verification in terms hearsay, asked about verification NH Supreme court ruled testimony on verification was prejudicial inadmissible hearsay - can't testify to someone else verifying
hearsay
rumor, gossip out of court statements proffered for truth of matter asserted unreliable and untrustworthy NOT admissible can't have someone say "heard X say Y did it" for proof of matter asserted - can use to prove X can speak, is excited, hallucinates FRE 803) statement other than one made by declarant testifying at trial or hearing offered to prove matter asserted
scientists vs lawyers
scientists: like sci, talk math, look for empiric data, low power distance, low uncertainty avoidance, rule breakers; communal (less about who said but what said - even successful can be wrong) lawyers: don't like sci, talk english, look for reason and experience, high power distance, high uncertainty avoidance, rule minders; rank people by importance <> truthfulness both are truth seekers and recognize diffs b/w disciplines/players court needs to resolve a dispute NOW but sci doesn't have an answer NOW - how do courts decide what is valid, reliable, relevant now (hired gun for every legal problem - junk sci in court: Sonja Farak, Annie Dookhan, Brandon Mayfield, FBI hair analysis - 1/4 wrongful convictions; offered to incompetent juries don't know diff) - part consequence poor funding
Mincey v Arizona
search warrants must be obtained if there is reasonable time to obtain them raid of apt --> undercover cop killed Mincey wounded quick search for others injured homicide detective arrive 10 min later conduct 4 day search AZ Supreme Court concluded search valid based on "murder scene exception" need for warrant for determining circumstances death SCOTUS found 4 day search exceeded scope emergency and reject murder scene exception b/c pub interest in prompt investigation serious crime comparable other serious crimes
pretrial screening and charging
senior police or assistant prosecutor decides press charges against accused suspect, drop charges (declination), or make placement w/ diversion program if charges pressed prosecutor draws up charging doc (complaint, information, or accusation) initiates crim procedures and arrest warrant or summons issued from a court makes accused a defendant
United Medical Supply Co v US
spoilation evidence messes up whole case; threat integrity judicial process evidence integrity starts at the crime scene; integrity is the evidence's value
burden of proof
std sufficiency party seeking to prove fact must satisfy to have that fact legally est reasonable suspicion (investigation), prima facie (on it's face), substantial evidence, probable cause (where evidence reaches most time), preponderance (civil), clear and convincing, beyond reasonable doubt (crim)
epistemology
study of knowledge branch of philosophy concerned w/ how we know things *truths* and beliefs overlap find poorly *justified true beliefs* and *knowledge* all w/in propositions strive for truths found embedded in knowledge tend to have poorly justified true beliefs b/c hard to know what is truth
Winston v Lee
surgical removal bullet unconstitutional search - too invasive gun fight during attempted robbery robber ran away from store police found suffering from chest wound taken to hospital got court order for surgical removal bullet court held compelled surgical intrusion into body for evidence implicates expectations privacy and security such that intrusion unreasonable under 4th
seizure
taking - meaningful interference w/ individual's possessory interest by state action - exercise of dominion or control by gov over person or thing b/c of violation law warrants issued to recover - are search warrants that then permit the taking 1) contraband (drugs, counterfeit) 2) fruits of crime 3) instrumentalities of crime (robbery tools, weapons) 4) evidence of crime (blood stained clothing) [5) person to be arrested]
Davis v Washington and Hammon v Indiana
testimonial = primary purpose of the statement for use in court or not Davis - certain statements inadmissible despite hearsay exception (business records)
Skinner v Railway Labor Executives Association and National Treasury Employees Union v Von Raab
testing in workplace constitutional mandatory blood and urine tests fed regs major accident and safety rules searches w/in 4th but permissible w/o warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion b/c discharge duties fraught w/ risks of injuries to others can cause great human loss before signs impairment noticeable obs phys intrusion infringes expectation privacy; urine can also reveal private med facts (manner of collection private)
Herrera v Collins
the court ruled that new evidence of innocence is no reason for a federal court to order a new state trial if constitutional grounds are lacking officer shot, brother of convicted ended up being actual perp question *"shocking conscience"* as legal test
mens rea
the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused. 1) general intent - intent commit act 2) specific intent - intent to commit act *to cause specific harm result* did act for purpose of purposely - *conscious objective* cause particular result or engage in particular conduct knowingly - aware conduct is such and circumstances exist *likely particular result will occur* reckless - aware of and *consciously disregards substantial risk* but no specific target criminally negligent - *fails perceive substantial and unjustifiable risk*
trier of fact
the jury in a jury trial; the judge when there is not a jury trial
homicide
the killing of one person by another criminal = unlawful; depravity and moral culpability justifiable = self-defense, war, execution excusable = accident w/o crim intent or negligence year-and-a-day rule = not responsible if death after this point
en banc
the term used when the full panel of judges (entire judicial bench) on the appellate court hears a case
codification of the law
to write down the law state criminal/penal codes uniform commercial code b/w states statutory law - political process (slowly replacing common law)
larceny-theft
unlawful appropriation of property w/ *intent* depriving owner of property actus reus = trespassory taking something of value and carrying away (asportation) mens rea = *intent* steal/permanently deprive owner - presumed in act of taking wrongful taking, trick, embezzlement, false pretenses, acquiring lost property, issue bad check, false promise, extortion, constructive possession (control over object) unauthorized use if don't intent permanent deprive specific intent crime (both terms mean same thing)
electronic communications privacy act (stored communications act)
updates fed wiretap act to extend 4th protections to new tech privacy protection for email and digital communication stored on internet limit ability gov to compel ISP to turn over content info and noncontent info (logs, envelope info) , reveal content info to nongov agencies for online info/metadata need a search warrant and w/in 6 months a subpoena to get records
Burrage v US
victim died of combined overdose charges brought against heroin dealer "but for" test failed b/c can't say for sure was drug that killed
US v Dionisio
voice exemplars constitutional search The Fourth Amendment provides no protection of something that a person knowingly and regularly exposes to the public, like one's voice. voice not seizure person is also phys character knowingly expose to public compulsion exhibit phys character not protected; not testimonial or communicative in nature
diversion
voluntary b/w arrest and sentencing taking offender out of traditional system for rehab - counseling, treatment, classes, vocational training, group therapy, community service, restitution to victims completion --> charges dismissed or records expunged; fail complete return to court face crim charges created by states, defendants typically pay for programs may req admit guilt cases = substance abuse, mentally ill, veterans, domestic abuse takes out of criminal justice system now part civil system
arrest
w/ probable cause, and exercise of dominion or control (actual seizure) or reasonable belief not free to leave (constructive seizure) fall into police custody when apprehended caught in act, warrant, turn self in - need probable cause given Miranda warnings, Q, booked, held in jail until further proceedings just court summons for minor crimes 1) seizure and detention 2) intention to arrest 3) arrest authority 4) understanding by person arrested
motion
way lawyer asks judge to make decision opposing may object = motion suggesting fault w/ Q being asked of witness judge responds w/ - overruled: disregard objection and continue - sustained: accept objection strike Q and A from record telling counsel quit line Q
NAS 2009 report
what improvements need to be made to fors sci improve reliability methods (capacity accurately analyze evidence and report findings) and understand limits human interp (error, bias, absence sound SOPs, performance stds) 1) independent NIFS (national institute fors sci not part of law enforcement) 2) std terms and reporting 3) research on accuracy, reliability, validity 4) independence 5) cog bias 6) std testing 7) lab accreditation and personnel cert 8) QA/QC 9) national code of ethics 10) funding of grad ed programs 11) ME replacement of coroners 12) fingerprint interoperability 13) homeland security preparedness
autopsy reports
why NOT testimonial - not written for court, near contemporaneous, independent of law enforcement, obj account of obs facts (Williams and state courts basis) why TESTIMONIAL - eye to use in court particularly for homicides, fors therefore application to court, proves element crime, formal doc (Melendez-Diaz and Bullcoming stds)
pretrial hearings
work out legal or evidentiary issue ex. Daubert Hearing eval admissibility expert testimony (triggered by complexity sci evidence, uniqueness sci evidence, extent individualization, sig evidence to case, need for disc, consumption evidence)
malum prohibitum
wrong because prohibited rather than inherently evil - wrong b/c say so
curtilage
zone of habitation land immediately surrounding and associated w/ home and harbors the intimate activities associated w/ the sanctity of home and privacies life
constitutional provisions of criminal law
Art. 1 Sec. 9 - habeas corpus, no bills attainer, no ex post facto laws Art. 3 Sec. 2 - juries for crim trials from place where crime occurred Art. 3 Sec 3. - treason BoR - 4, 5, 6, 8
Illinois v Gates
U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the flexible *totality of circumstances* test for evaluating the reliability of confidential informants for probable cause alt to Aguilar-Spinelli deemed too rigid by some search warrant issued based on anonymous letter detailed later obs actions husband and wife defendants --> search where drugs seized but evidence suppressed b/c Aguilar-Spinelli informant reliability "probable cause req only probability or substantial chance crim activity not actual showing activity - fluid concept assessment probs in factual contexts vs legal rules"
fingerprint evidence
US v Hook Williams v Schario Doe v US not protected by 5h - like blood, voice, handwriting
8th Amendment
No cruel or unusual punishment or excessive bail/fines
actus resus
Voluntary act, omission, or possession can be accident or verbalized speech, fail act when legal duty to, conscious possession (actual or constructive), or vicarious liability NOT status or thoughts - behavior is a crime not thinking
Cupp v Murphy
Skin under his fingernails; cops can search if destruction is imminent Officers may seize evidence if taking the time to secure a warrant creates a risk of the evidence's destruction limited search brief but severe intrusion even if not under arrest due to belief likely destroy highly evanescent evidence ex-husband reported death wife, voluntarily presented self to police for Qs, police asked to take scrapings under nails b/c looked dark refused; started rubbing hands and using key to scrape off --> forceful taking of scrapings which incriminated (summons or subpoena NOT same as arrest or custody - however ought to know leave evidence behind no expectation privacy)
Kyllo v US
Thermal imaging is a search and a warrant is required. device not commonly available to public
trial
adjudication judge and petit jury (6-12 random from court jurisdiction screened by voir dire, preemptory, and for cause challenges) determine guilt sometimes sentence prosecution burden proof beyond any reasonable doubt post-trial motions if found guilty available to defendant on improper procedure or motion nov --> not guilty in spite jury 1) prosecution case in chief 2) defense rebuttal alt presentation evidence upon which jury render verdict - witness sworn in, witness foundation, witness found competent before give testimony - direct exam - cross exam - redirect/cross - rest case
ensuring reliable and valid science
admin/managerial oversight personal quals (cert, competency assess, proficiency test) lab exam/analysis (accreditation, OSAC approved procedure, method validation in literature and internal, QA, QC, transparent doc) ethics/pro responsibility (training, attestation) *quality assurance*: planned and systematic actions necessary to provide sufficient confidence lab's product or service will satisfy given reqs for quality; broad systematic plan *quality control*: internal activities or activities conducted according to externally est stds used to monitor quality of analytical data and to ensure satisfies specified crit; specific implementation *test controls*: material of est origin used to eval performance of test or comparison; routine *ref std*: material of known properties acquired or prep to i) calibrate equipment ii) external QC; NIST for tracing *lab accreditation* processes def in ISO 17025, investigations in ISO 17020; look at technical reviews, case files, quality manager and manual, testing protocols, proficiency testing *OSACs* org w/ central fors sci stds board (FSSB) then sci area committees (SACs) w/ subcommittees - sends proposals to std devo org, later endorces stds but doesn't make the stds awareness of cognitive bias (context and confirmation bias) error rates automation supposed to make things more objective, quantitative, statistical vs categorical, measured vs descriptive
Giglio v US
any material tending to impeach the character or testimony of a prosecution witness must be turned over to the defense ex. failed proficiency test
contracts
binding legal agreements
forms of law
civil, common, bijuridical, muslim
pleadings
criminal: prosecutors file charges as an indictment or information civil: plaintiff files petition (complaint) states cause action and defendant files counterclaims charging documents = information, complaint, accusation - diff by jurisdiction
California v Trombetta
destruction/spoilation of potentially exculpatory evidence not denial due process technically feasible preserve breath samples ordinary practice not to - movement to suppress testing based on failure preserve samples (integrity likely wouldn't be the same) 14th doesn't req preservation breath samples to intro results breath test not calculated effort circumvent due process - good faith normal practice chances samples exculpatory low breath samples limited purpose raw data evidence not breath itself rather results could have submitted blood or urine test for better preservation or raised issues w/ faulty instruments
reasons for punishment
deterrence, rehabilitation (involve victims), incapacitation (take off the st), retribution (since 1970 don't consider prison to be rehab)
ultimate questions
did defendant commit crime
witness impeachment
discredit in cross exam about facts that reflect poorly on credibility or by intro extrinsic evidence that reflects neg on witness truthfulness or knowledge
City of West Covina v Perkins
due process clause doesn't req police to provide owner of any seized property w/ info on state law or procedures for return of property
exceptions rationality
emotions, drugs, mental illness, stupidity irrationality impacted by beliefs, thoughts, actions
ordinance
enacted rule or decree by country, municipal, other local authority
Chimel v California
Incident to arrest an officer may search the person and the "area within the immediate control" (wingspan) police had arrest warrant but no search warrant admitted to home by wife, when suspect arrived home denied officer request to look around conducted search whole house *arrest* warrant only allows search in area immediate control to disc weapons, seize evidence prevent concealment or destruction - search home not justified as incident to arrest > protective sweep
Brinegar v US
est *probable cause* req While the police need not always be factually correct in conducting a warrantless search, such a search must always be reasonable
stored communications act (SCA)
est certain rights to privacy of stored elec communications and transactional records help by ISPs limit access by gov an non gov entities to records lacked 4th protections
computer fraud and abuse act (CFAA)
est comp crimes extend civil tort law to intangible property separate legislation vs mail and wire fraud prohibit access comp w/o authorization or in excess of authorization (trespass) w/ intent obtain info for financial gain, damage, threat damage, espionage, fraud, traffic passwords, ID theft, pirating software, trafficking of goods, copyright violation, counterfeit interstate nature internet communication - fed crime wide protections
pretrial conferences
when both sides have good understanding their case involve both parties and judge aimed at disposing of case - settlement civil, plea bargain or diversion criminal - judge there for judicial approval of already worked out negotiation
pretrial conference
where plea bargains are negotiated b/w lawyers and magistrate largely private unless victims rights advocate other pretrial proceedings = attorneys file motions for disc and admission/suppression evidence at trial, constitutional issues (confession, search, ID) - *set ground rules before trial*
California v Greenwood
garbage containers outside of the curtilage of the home are considered abandoned and may be searched without a warrant and without cause - don't count as search under 4th
Florida v Jardines
police use of a trained detection dog to sniff for narcotics on the front porch of a private home is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and therefore, without consent, requires both probable cause and a search warrant. sniff under door is an invasion of the home therefore a trespass into constitutionally protected zone under 4th *curtilage part of home for 4th purposes* in 3 prior cases dog sniff NOT search 1) luggage at airport 2) against vehicles in drug interdiction checkpoint 3) against vehicles during routine traffic stops dog not a device or adv tech, but b/c of training can reasonably expect alerts to mean something doorbell or knocker is treated as invitation or license to public to approach front door home to deliver mail, sell goods, knock and talk police invitation to gather evidence w/o warrant
Hayes v Florida
ruled that a suspect has the right to refuse police fingerprinting if probable cause does not exist for arrest
Strict Liability
statutory crimes def by behavior w/o regard intent - traffic, DUI, statutory rape holding a defendant liable without a showing of negligence
closing arguments
summarize for jury and draw attention to facts support respective sides not evidence prosecution then defense
res judicata
the thing has been decided - civil case can't be retried by another court; claim preclusion
Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts
*certificates of analysis* are *testimonial* evidence b/c prep for purpose crim trial analyst is witness for purpose confrontation clause which prohibits prosecution from intro out of court testimonial statements w/o putting declarant on stand certificate says what found but not how found - can't cross examine prosecution intro 3 "certificates of analysis" = affidavits sworn before notary public in accordance w/ MA law reporting drug and weight - defense obj b/c toxicologist not available for cross exam; existed to save trouble and time go to court *testimonial*: i) formality/solemnity - solem declaration made for purpose est or prove fact ii) primary purpose - existed to provide evidence for trial concurrence = certificate is a formal/solemn doc dissent = 1) fors sci non-accusatory (defendant not known, analysts not conventional witnesses) --> evidence that prove an essential element of a crime is accusatory for purposes of the confrontation clause (if helpful to prosecution/against defense can't be immune from confrontation) --> evidence not neutral; still at risk manipulation, confrontation ensures accurate analysis - sci not really neutral b/c hired by a side; also not immune to error 2) who is analyst is unclear --> up to prosecution to decide who in CoC gives rel testimony 3) impractical to call all analysts *business records* would be inadmissible when calculated for use essentially in court not in business - most records escape 6th b/c non-testimonial (not primarily for court) vs hearsay exception
process crimes
*failure to appear*: defendant or respondent don't appear at stated time before tribunal as directed in summons *making false statements*: knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements or concealing info in any matter w/in jurisdiction fed gov even by merely denying guilt when asked by fed agent (if done in court = perjury) *obstruction of justice*: fed proceedings obstruct prosecutors or gov officials; common law perverting course justice; coercion of court or gov officials via means threats or actual phys harm; deliberate sedition against court official to undermine appearance legit authority *contempt of court*: being disobedient to or disrespectful toward court of law, officers in form behavior that opposes or defies authority, justice, dignity court *perjury*: intentional act swearing false oath or falsifying affirmation tell truth concerning matters material to official proceeding
Bullcoming v New Mexico
*surrogate witness* can't testify about testimonial statements in fors report of analyst who authored under confrontation clause supervisory toxicologist testified to report of non-testifying lab analyst; supervisor didn't sign certification or perform or obs testing; defense obj on grounds 6th right cross exam analyst on unpaid leave removed from workstation supervisor had access to GC-MS raw data *testimonial* = *primary purpose* est or prove past events potentially rel to later crim prosecutions concurrence: i) report only prep for court ii) supervisor no personal knowledge test iii) witness not asked for independent expert opinion iv) no instrument data in report w/o statement of interp dissent: 1) fors sci non-accusatory (defendant not known, analysts not conventional witnesses) 2) who is analyst unclear 3) impractical call all analysts 4) cert analysis + testimony from lab ok
types of evidence
*testimonial*: oral responses of ordinary or expert witness intro into record in deposition or trial (majority evidence at trial b/c also needed to back up phys things) *documentary*: written or elec docs admitted into evidence *physical/real*: objects played actual or direct role in incident or transaction gave rise to case *demonstrative*: item or device used to aid trier of fact in understanding issues at trial *ordinary/lay witness*: have direct knowledge of fact in case provide factual statements of what saw, heard, smelled; may NOT give opinion testimony *expert witness*: have knowledge, skills, experience beyond that of ordinary citizens rel to case; may give opinions
objections
*to questions*: leading Q (ok if witness hostile), compound Q, Q calls for narrative/narrative answer, argumentative Q, asked and answered Q, vague and ambiguous Q/A, non-responsive answer *to testimony*: relevance answer or Q, Q lack foundation, lack personal knowledge/speculation, creation material fact, improper character evidence, lay witness opinion hearsay
jury selection
*venire* = jury pool = selec randomly from lists citizens (voter registration, motor vehicle licenses, tax docs) *voir dire* = selection process i) written questionnaire ii) further Q in person by judge and/or counsel *peremptory challenges* = limited number, can't be used in purely discriminatory fashion - just b/c want to no questions asked *for cause challenges* = unlimited sufficient shwoing of bias rendering that person incapable of reaching a fair and impartial verdict - judge rules if allowed exclude if cause substantial and sufficient at least 1 alt juror selected hear case along w/ others in case one excused during trial civic duty enforced through contempt of court sworn to try case may sequester in high profile case prevent tampering, undue persuasion, bribes, threats
science
1) a body of knowledge 2) a process (sci method) - hypothesis driven (experimentation) - discovery (obs then figure out w/o ex) i) falsifiability (Popper) ii) confirmation iii) positivism iv) prediction is dynamic and evolves; w/ time tend get right but perhaps not at first; best sci always rises to top; sci self-correcting; best cure for bad sci is more sci may be claim of something new then bandwagon effect and finally truth will come to be known; no such thing as a definitive study meta-analyses (multiple randomized controlled trials) and systematic reviews > randomized controlled trials > cohort studies > case-control studies > cross sectional studies > animal trials and in vitro studies > case reports, opinion papers, letters > youtube, personal anecdote, gut feeling, parental instincts, some guy know, sketchy websites bad = sensationalized headlines, misinterp results, conflict interest, correlation and causation, speculative lang, sample size too small, unrep samples, no control group used, no blind testing used, cherry picked results, unreplicable results, journals and citations blurry line sci and si-fi (CRISPR and frankenstein) junk sci = fors fraud/dry labbing, junk sci (arson myths), weak sci and overreach (bitemark ID) weak/bad sci = improper app, bad sci, improper test, wrong interp, misleading testimony
post-conviction remedies
1) appeal 2) collateral attack vis writ of habeas corpus (illegal detention)
remedies for police excesses warrant requirement
1) civil action - obsolete b/c of qualified immunity (unless excessive use force) 2) criminal action - police statutory powers w/ exemptions that protect them 3) admin actions - police and civilian boards not proven adequate guard against police excess 4) legislative actions - politicians don't want to be seen as soft on crime; constitution protects us from gov 5) *exclusionary rule* (courts don't have own force for enforcement only word) - deter deliberate, reckless, systemic negligence
when collect forensic evidence from a person
1) detention w/o probable cause 2) incident arrest 3) booking 4) pursuant to subpoena or summons search and seizure person separate from search and seizure evidence if arrest valid search and seizure valid phys characteristics not searches intrusiveness blood and urine specimens generally unreasonable searches (intrusion into body) - major surgery where life endangered unreasonable - minor surgery where life not endangered possibly reasonable exigency may overcome need for warrant (consider if delay --> corrosion or diminished value evidence)
evidence procedure
1) foundation - evidentiary reliability (how stable, dependable, trustworthy, consistent test is in measuring same thing each time - precision/reproducibility/robustness) based on sci validity (degree to which tests accomplishes purposes for which being used - accuracy) 2) relevance - evidence i) has tendency make fact more or less probable than would be w/o ii) fact of consequence in determining action; admissible unless prohibited by law or rules (fit w/ facts case) 3) materiality - sig of facts to matter at hand, bear on decision of case; along w/ probative value make item evidence relevant depends on elements cause action plaintiff seeks to prove 4) competence 5) admissibility - matter law decided by judge evidence should be allowed to be weighed by jury 6) weight - matter fact decided by jury 7) burden of proof witness qual 1) direct exam foundation 2) cross exam 3) tender/proffer witness for judge to accept as competent expert witness exam 1) direct (no leading Qs) 2) cross (can ask leading Qs) 3) redirect (rehab witness) 4) recross intro exhibit 1) mark exhibit by clerk 2) show opposing counsel and judge 3) approach witness 4) show witness ask if recognize 5) authentication/foundation accurate rep 6) move for admission 7) objection 8) admission
trial procedures
1) jury selection 2) opening statements 3) plaintiff's/prosecution's case 4) defense 5) closing arguments 6) jury instructions 7) jury deliberation and verdict
constitutionally protected zone
1) liberty/privacy 2) property protected w/in searches and seizures must be reasonable and will generally req a warrant = personal liberty, private matters, home/castle/private property (major personal effects) outside of gov can do anything wants, anywhere wants, to anyone, for any reason, as often as want, for as long as want = public property/where invited
plea bargain
Agreement between a prosecutor and a defendant that the defendant will plead guilty to a lesser offense or dropping charges to avoid having to stand trial for a more serious offense - still in interest justice can also offer diversion program adv = avoid costs trial, risk harsher punishment, avoid pub trial, min caseload
elements of a crime
Actus reus - the guilty act, omission, possession Mens rea - the guilty mind/crim intent concurrence - act and intent must occur simultaneously causation of harm (homicide - prohibition of a result vs conduct) *cause in fact* (but for), *proximate cause* (foreseeable <> judgement how long chain/how direct for legal culpability)
hearsay exceptions
FRE 803) - presence sense impression - excited utterance - then-existing mental, emotional, physical condition - statement made for med diagnosis or treatment - recorded recollection - records of reg conducted activity - pub records - pub records of vital stats - absence of pub record or entry FRE 804) unavailable as witness, declarant... - privileged - persists in refusing to testify (forgot, ill, dead) - testifies to lack memory of subject - due to phys or mental illness or infirmity - unable procure declarant's attendance -- don't exclude former testimony, deathbed statements, statements against interest, state of personal or family hist, where unavailability wrongfully caused FRCP 32) unavailable witness = dead, >100 miles from place hearing/trial or outside US (unless absence procured by party offering deposition), witness can't attend or testify b/c of age/illness/infirmity/imprisonment, can't procure witness by subpoena, on motion and notice exceptional circumstances make desirable in interest justice and w/ due regard to importance of live testimony in open court permit deposition to be used FRE 807) residual exception - not excluded by rule if statement not specifically covered by rule 803 or 804 i) eq circumstantial guarantees trustworthiness ii) offered as evidence of material fact iii) more probative on pt than any other evidence iv) will best serve interests justice - statement admissible only if before trial or hearing proponent gives adverse party reasonable *notice* of intent offer statement and particulars (including declarant name and address) so party fair opportunity meet it - particularized guarantee trustworthiness
Silverthorne Lumber Co v US
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine was established extends exclusionary rule to evidence indirectly derived if evidence that falls w/in scope exclusionary rule subsequently led law enforcement to other exclusionary evidence would not otherwise have located exclusionary rule applies if primary evidence illegally obtained under good faith exception fruits may be admissible
US v Jones
GPS tracker is a search. Need warrant put on suspect vehicle w/ invalid warrant track for 28 days 1) trespass violation - car is effect to be protected, placement device is a phys trespass; phys trespass + info gathering = search 2) prolonged surveillance = privacy violation 3) detailed tracking of modern surveillance = privacy violation; fact is modern tech seeing places go (personal info) more serious than amt time tracked previous ruling GPS attached to outside car not search b merely tech assistance record vehicle movements in plain view
negotiation
Mutual discussion and arrangement of the terms of a transaction or agreement. settlement b/w parties
Frye v US
The "general acceptance" principle, which serves as a criterion for the judicial admissibility of scientific evidence early polygraph test measuring BP and heart rate - how know newly devo sci good sci allow admittance as evidence for jury to consider confession to shooting during robbery, later caught and Qed for unrelated robbery but after arrest retracted confession claiming innocence falsely confessed to share reward money w/ detective; lie detector test showed telling truth about innocence; test results excluded by judge appealed arguing exclusion exculpatory evidence; wouldn't allow test developer (later created Wonder Woman w/ lasso of truth) testimony b/c too experimental for court - would only allow once "matter common knowledge" also argued jury should be responsible for determining if witness telling truth general acceptance test adopted by virtually all courts, opened door for use sci evidence and expert witness testimony, est *sci field* a validator of legal admissibility (court defers to sci community), if evidence admitted in Frye hearing need not be reconsidered in future cases, thought to keep out junk sci criticized as popularity contest, rigid, austere, slow for intolerance of emerging/novel sci, static while sci constantly changing
General Electric Co v Joiner
abuse of discretion std of review is the proper std for appellate courts to use in reviewing a trial court's decision of whether expert testimony should be admitted relationship b/w small cell lung cancer and PCBs
search warrant execution
affiant must execute search warrant (arrest by anyone) (place specified so can't change jurisdiction) w/in 10 days issuance b/w 6am-9pm (unless night time warrant issued) must "knock and announce" (unless dangerous, futile, risk destruction evidence - no knock warrant) need warrant in hand during execution warrant left at place searched may use phys but not deadly force if felony search and seizure w/in scope warrant search can last as long and be as thorough as reasonably necessary to fully execute warrant
insanity defense
affirmative defense - negate intent M'Naghten Rule - right from wrong cog test i) don't know nature and quality act committed ii) didn't know act wrong irresistible impulse test - state of mind can't control actions even if know act wrong (reaction M'Naghten) Durham rule (product rule) - unlawful act product mental disease or mental defect substantial capacity test - at time conduct as result mental defect lack substantial capacity appreciate criminality conduct or to conform conduct to reqs law guilty but mentally ill - lack capacity appreciate wrongness conduct or conform conduct to reqs law diminished capacity (partial responsibility) - mentally ill but not insane lack capacity intent red crime to lower offense
Folkes v Chadd
aka Wells Harbor case est expert opinion/admissibility matter opinion - experts that can testify to things no personal experience w/ but have special knowledge helpful to court harbor silted up couldn't be used as port suit brought to enjoin commissioners from cutting embankment built for farm in hopes restore harbor 1st trial civil engineer testified w/o objection nat forces at play embankment little effect jury finds for plaintiff appeal surprised by expert witness needed opportunity counter 2nd trial diff expert objected to original as having no personal knowledge testimony could be no foundation for verdict of jury, jury found for defense; bench states case matter opinion based on facts remain same but opinions diff but only experts can give opinions 3rd trial witnesses heard in open court and cross exam jury couldn't decide if removal embankment would restore harbor bench rejected another appeal moved case to diff court declared verdict in line w/ pub sentiment against "sci opinions" changed view experts as helpers court to like other witnesses testifying directly to jury recognition class people can act as experts giving opinion on matters though personally knew nothing about circumstances case pitting men of sci against each other in their branches of applicable knowledge lawyers control over production and presentation of evidence in court all kinds sci be heard in court
preliminary hearing
alt to grand jury determine if sufficient credible evidence to justify proceeding w/ trial or not (probable cause) - state cases not closed - public in front of magistrate defendant right to counsel, Q witnesses, present evidence at hearing but burden of proof less than at trial so prosecution limits witnesses can be limited to serious crimes or voluntarily waived to avoid revealing defense strategy official accusation against defendant = information, written after prelimn hearing can also be waived (don't want to give away defense)
sexual assault
any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by fed, tribal, state law including when victim lacks capacity consent rape, attempted rape, grope, fondle, unwanted sex touch, sex indecency w/ child, sex harass, sex extortion, sodomy (anal, oral, animal)
Crawford v Washington
confrontation clause applies to witnesses against accused = those who "bear testimony" *testimonial statements* of witnesses not allowed where declarant doesn't appear at trial *unless unavailable testify and defendant prior opportunity cross exam* overruled Ohio v Roberts - dispensing w/ confrontation b/c testimony obs reliable akin to dispensing w/ jury trial b/c defendant obs guilty Roberts inconsistent confrontation clause directed at keeping "ex parte" exams out of evidentiary record avoid trials by writs, affidavits, statements under oath; ability cross exam key Crawford confronted Lee over allegation attempted rape of wife then stabbed Lee claiming self-defense believed Lee picked up weapon; wife said Lee didn't pick up weapon but didn't testify due to marital privilege; attempted intro tape recorded statement on ground "indicia of reliability" but defense objected on 6th *testimonial evidence* (affidavits, depositions, prior testimony (prelimn hearing, grand jury, formal trial), custodial exam, police interrogation, statements made believe would be available for use at trial; extrajudicial statements offered for truth) --> if unavailable need prior opportunity cross exam as guaranteed by 6th *non-testimonial* = court discretion determine reliability statements testimonial = i) formal/solemn statement ii) primary purpose to be used prosecutorially *Crawford Revolution* for actual confrontation those who bear testimony against; curtail evidence based prosecution (prosecution w/o participation accusers relying on admission ex parte statements under hearsay exceptions)
consent warrant exception
consent acts as waiver req search limited to scope consent 1) voluntary - product free will (can be w/drawn) 2) actual or apparent authority - actual authority = anyone w/ reasonable expectation privacy in place; common or joint - apparent authority = good faith and reasonable 3) confine search to place authorized conflicts of consent can't waive another's right, but only one person of appropriate group can allow as rep of group ideal get in writing to avoid Qs later of proof and scope consent
US v Anderson
consumption evidence during testing constitutionally permissible DNA on firearm States Attorney intended to authorize consumption all swabs notified defense who filed motion to preserve gov willing provide any remaining extract but no guarantee any left over gov opposed request split swab in 1/2 b/c didn't support what sci advisable court held no due process violation b/c evidence untested no apparent exculpatory value FRE16 no duty preserve portions evidence but lab must preserve unused extract
Stuart v Alabama
convicted of DUI but analyst didn't testify, lab chief used results blood alcohol test to calc BAC level hrs earlier while driving state argued report not offered for the truth but as basis for expert's estimate certiorari denied dissent = confrontation rights denied
Enterprise Liability
corps not allowed argue no culpable intent and not responsible for agents
Ex Parte Robbins
court denied request for new trial b/c recantation of expert didn't amount to affirmative showing of innocence -> passage article which allows relief where sci evidence relied on by state at trial has been contradicted by rel sci evidence unavailable at trial that would have resulted in acquittal --> new trial ordered murder conviction based on testimony pathologist that child died of homicidal asphyxia from compression chest and abdomen; 10 years later pathologist changed opinion saying injuries from resuscitation
continuing criminal enterprise act (CCE)
crime to belong to org of 5+ for purpose commit or conspiring to commit continuing series of felony drug violations fed crime
inchoate crimes
crimes that are committed before or in preparation for committing another crime; uncompleted, anticipatory, incipient attempt - target crime failed to be completed but substantial step taken and defendant had specific intent complete it solicitation - offer money w/ intent induce person to commit crime conspiracy - agreement 2+ w/ intent commit illegal act and one does overt act in furtherance conspiracy attempt and solicitation can merge w/ target crime but conspiracy charged separate
Williams v Illinois
plurality = prosecution *may intro testimonial statements performed by non-testifying analysts through expert testimony w/o violation of confrontation clause* b/c not accusatory not admitted for truth of matter asserted rather as basis for expert opinion safeguards to prevent abuse of allowance i) judicial gatekeeping ii) rule against disclosure iii) judicial instructions iv) corroborative evidence DNA analyst state lab testified to DNA report of private lab of CODIS match; defense obj that should have opportunity cross exam analyst who performed test at private lab private lab did work relieve backlog - provenance proven by CoC separate state test of suspect matches private profile from case specimen private lab report not offered into evidence, gen at time accused not under suspicion was gen for database search *testimonial* = 1) plurality: accusatory test - statement made w/ primary purpose of producing evidence as well as being directed against a previously identified suspect 2) concurrence: formality/solemnity 3) dissent: primary purpose concurrence: believe witness ref to report for purpose prove contents; no meaningful distinction b/w disclosing out of court statement so that fact finder may eval expert opinion and disclosing statement for truth dissent: expert not sufficient sub for cross exam - already decided amicus briefs: 1) obj to all technicians must testify rule (impractical) 2) obj to rule preclude testifying experts from reasonably relying on info provided by others (principle)
US v Houston
pole cameras not a search police mounted camera on utility pole on *pub property* next to residence w/ part of image being open field; used for 10 weeks w/o warrant then obtained warrant; used convict Houston of firearms possession
discretion in the criminal justice system
police - enforce specific laws to investigate specific crimes, search people and places, detain and arrest prosecutors - file charges, seek indictments, drop cases, red charges, make plea bargains judges - to set bail and conditions for rel, accept pleas, determine delinquency, dismiss charges, impose sentences, revoke probation, able decide one way or other prison officials - make facility assignments, award privileges, punish for disciplinary actions paroling authorities - determine date and conditions of parole, revoke parole humanity in the system
Florida v Harris
police may search car on public road when police dog has alerted police to smell of drugs dog certified, tested reliability in controlled setting, done training w/ proficiency eval <> presume dog's alert provides probable cause to search (totality of circumstances) stopped Harris for expired tag, Harris shaking and agitated noticed open beer container refused consent to search truck dog used sniff and alert --> search car found drugs stoped 2nd time for tail light dog alerted again not drugs found Harris moved suppress for lack probable cause --> dog certified therefore reliable had probable cause induce search
plain view warrant exception
police may seize an object in plain view, feel, hearing, smell w/o warrant - no reasonable expectation privacy police must have a legal right to be there (public place, consent, warrant, admin, exigency) officers must have probable cause to believe that items in plain view are contraband before search and seize - incriminating nature of evidence readily apparent req no further investigation *doesn't authorize exploratory/broader search* rather inadvertent disc generally also applies to telephoto lenses, radio transmitters and dogs
criminal procedure
police: (crime) --> investigation (only when crime disc in some way/made aware of is it part of system; *report* not anonymous, *tip* anonymous)--> arrest --> booking (or volunteer come in - when considered a suspect) --> out of system cleared/rel w/o prosecution prosecution: (entry) --> presentment --> (deteintion, bail, rel on own recognizance) --> prelimn hearing --> arraignment --> (pretrial proceedings) --> (adjudication - can plea out) --> trial --> (disposition) --> sentencing magistrate handles presentment --> arraignment out of system charges dropped or dismissed or diversion judge handles arraignment --> sentencing out of system acquittal corrections: misdemeanor --> fine, jail, probation felony --> prison, probation 1) investigation 2) grand jury 3) charging 4) arrest and booking 5) presentment 6) prelimn hearing 7) arraignment 8) pretrial conference 9) pretrial proceedings 10) trial 11) sentencing 12) post-conviction remedies criminal justice system = presentment --> sentence
Barron v Baltimore
Bill of Rights cannot be applied to the states (1833) Barron's Wharf silted by pub works project sued for damages arguing deprivation property w/o due process against 5th
Entick v Carrington
Actions of the state must have legal authority lord Halifax ordered search for seditious papers broke into home of John Entick ransacked house before leaving with charts and pamphlets Entick sues for trespass raiders claimed immunity b/c under Halifax's warrant Lord Camden (judge) found Halifax didn't have authority order trespass gov can only act as authorized but citizens may act so long as not forbidden
Mapp v Ohio
Established the exclusionary rule was applicable to the states (evidence seized illegally cannot be used in court) overrule Wolf v CO incorp 4th search and seizure protections Warren court
evolution of jurisprudence
*increasingly trying to protect people from gov* *civil law* code of hammurabi (eye for eye) --> athenian code of draco (harsh) --> athenian code of solon --> roman 12 tables (less harsh) --> roman justinian code --> napoleonic code (increase rights individuals, gov can't do whatever wants onto people) *common law* anglo-saxon tribal leaders settle disputes --> norman conquest england (French rule) --> magna carta agreed to by king john (give peopel rights, protections, liberties) --> blackstone's commentaries on laws of england citizens responsible for hue and cry, posse comitatus, prosecution of crimes --> duties to gov police and prosecutors *US* am rev response oppressive gov intrusion (reject autocratic monarchy, suspect of strong central gov) --> declaration of independence (unalienable rights - nat law) --> articles of confederation (freed states like own countries agreement unite as one) --> constitutional convention (correct issues w/ articles) --> mass compromise (BoR to be written) --> BoR (not deprived w/o due process) (increase protections for people from *fed* gov) --> civil war/reconstruction --> 13,*14*,15th (limit how states can act to harm citizens) --> incorp BoR under 14th (protection from *state* gov) (due process as fundamental fairness) --> New Deal fed gov assume greater powers over states increase invoke commerce clause --> Warren court defendants rights rev --> Brown v Board --> Civil Rights Act early 1700s pub prosecution Justice of Peace court (dutch system) magistrates as prosecutor --> sheriffs and local public prosecutors as officers of court or rep AG --> 1830s-50s first pub police responsible for investigating crimes and Q suspects vs police --> early 1900s reform to codify crime law = crimes def by statutes/penal codes, legislators vs judges make law *4th* BoR only apply to fed gov which is weak, no police, limits who can vote; BoR only enforceable through civil lawsuits brought by private citizens; searches involved trespassing on your land; 4th and 5th run into each other
requirements to sue
*ripe* - actual case in controversy ready for litigation, not theoretical or based on future contingency *standing* - proper party to case must be direct participant in issue *jurisdiction* - case brought to court w/ power to decide case - based both on location and subject matter (vs venue = phys courthouse) applies to *civil* cases
law
1) enforceable rules of society promulgated by a competent authority that has ability to enforce 2) form of social control 3) gov - balance b/w gov control/collective rights and liberty & freedom/individual rights to maintain social welfare
Louis Brandeis
1916 first great statutory law justice
yet to be incorp
3rd - quarter soldiers 5th - grand jury 6th - jury from where crime occurred 7th - jury trial in civil cases
Wolf v Colorado
4th freedom from unnecessary search and seizure incorp under 14th but exclusionary rule/Weeks doctrine not included - illegally obtained evidence did not necessarily have to be excluded from trials in all cases
court case stats
95% in state courts 50% traffic violations 1% appellate 25% criminal 90% criminal --> plea
strict scrutiny
A Supreme Court test to see if a law denies equal protection because it does not serve a compelling state interest and is not narrowly tailored to achieve that goal when fundamental constitutional right infringed or involves suspect class law struck down unless gov shows necessary to a compelling state interest, narrowly tailored to achieve, least restrictive means achieve law NOT against pub policy, arbitrary or capricious, unrelated to purpose, unenforceable by courts, vague, overbroad, ex post facto
treaty
A formal agreement between two or more sovereign states signed by president ratified by 2/3 senate agreement w/o full force of law
trial de novo
A new trial that takes place as if the first trial had not occurred. - review entire record rare alt to appeals case
Gideon v Wainwright
A person who cannot afford an attorney may have one appointed by the government - states req provide in felony cases as matter right (informa pauperis = person w/o money placing appeal) Warren court Q if feds imposed cost defense attorneys on states = judicial legislating
rational basis test
A standard developed by the courts to test the constitutionality of a law; when applied, a law is constitutional as long as it meets a reasonable government interest.
writ of certiorari
An order by a higher court directing a lower court to send up a case for review movant petitions superior court for in order for case to be reviewed - prerogative of court to accept or deny petition move from court of last resort to SCOTUS for fed cases
supremacy clause
Article VI of the Constitution, which makes the Constitution, national laws, and treaties supreme over state laws when the national government is acting within its constitutional limits. states can make stricter laws but can't go against fed preemption
14th Amendment
Declares that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens and are guaranteed equal protection of the laws privileges or immunities clause = no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the US due process applies to *states* - states can't deprive person of life, liberty, property w/o due process law - includes right to counsel, fundamental fairness/shocks conscience placed oversight state jurisprudence on SCOTUS - fed judicial reviw of infringement of individual rights
Wickard v Filburn
Farmer growing too much wheat is taxed because it affects interstate commerce (fed preemption)
Skilling v US
Facts: Skilling was the CEO at Enron and was tried and convicted of breaking several laws, in particularly the honest services statute. He appealed this decision to US Supreme Court. Issue: Whether he violated the honest service statute. Law was written to convict people giving and receiving kickbacks and bribes when a fiduciary responsibility is in place. Decision: US Supreme court ruled that he had not violated the honest services statute because, while his actions were deceitful, he never received kick backs or bribes for his services. The court remanded the case back for further proceedings to decide how this affects the rest of the courts decisions. *"honest services" too broad to enforce*
4th Amendment
Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures 1) *reasonableness clause* - right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated <> *probable cause* (determined by magistrate) needed get a *warrant* 2) *warrant clause* 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 <> arrest and search warrants protects the people (everyone not just citizens so long as sig connection to US), their 1) security, liberty (privacy), and 2) property (*constitutionally protected zone*), from the gov (now fed and state) and gov agents/law enforcement (act on behalf gov) but NOT private actors so not worried about being constantly spied or or live in police state was there a search or seizure --> does defendant/complainant have standing --> was search constitutionally reasonable --> should sanctions be imposed for violation presumed right to privacy
Sharp v Murphy
Indian reservation independence crime prosecution - like own nation
Terry v Ohio
Police can detain someone if they have an individualized, reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot - stop and frisk allow officer to probe into whether probable cause exists in situation - may only detain for as long as takes to confirm or dispel suspicion est as pre-arrest mech to prevent crime "Terry stop" = investigative detention Warren court 4th not violated to stop and frisk w/o probable cause and arrest if reasonable suspicion
Gitlow v New York
The 1925 Supreme Court decision holding that freedoms of press and speech are "fundamental personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states" as well as by the federal government. - 14th incorp 1st
6th Amendment
The right to a Speedy Trial by jury in jurisdiction where crime occurred, notice of accusations, *right confront witnesses*, right to subpoena (call on witness to testify), representation by an attorney for an accused person (counsel) confrontation clause = right look accuser in eye and probe accusations w/ Qs i) right to face to face confrontation ii) right to cross exam - applies to states through 14th - doesn't apply to civil, military tribunals, other proceedings - consequence Roman law applied to English Common Law (Blackstone and Raleigh) avoid problem "trials by writs and affidavits (formal/solemn statements) where someone swear wronged by someone else and person prosecuted on that basis w/o opportunity cross exam <> hearsay
Katz v US
This 1967 Supreme Court case prohibited illegal eavesdropping and extending the zone of privacy to include the home, office, person, and immediate public arena. - reasonable expectation of privacy Warren court
Marbury v Madison
This case establishes the Supreme Court's power of *Judicial Review* - court power to say what law is, prohibit congress from going beyond what allowed to do as dictated in the constitution Marshall - court has power to say what law is <> can strike down law passed by congress if deemed unconstitutional "most important case in Am jurisprudence "
magistrate
a civil officer charged with the administration of the law lesser judges may issue warrants and review arrests (neutral party) successor of justices of the peace issues warrants by eval probable cause of *scope* and *execution* that est reasonableness - neutral referee and limit on gov power
trier of law
a description often applied to a *judge* that means he or she is generally tasked with resolving any legal matter that comes before the court
compact
a treaty b/w states agreement
Habeas Corpus
a writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, especially to secure the person's release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention. writ can move b/w state supreme to fed district court civil ex parte proceeding for unlawful detention or imprisonment - did State court have jurisdiction to render judgment impose sentence
regulation
rule issued by executive authority or regulatory agency w/ "rule-making authority" having the force of law - not necessarily rep of people fed, state, and local levels easiest change less force than statute but supposed to support
common law
accusatorial, adversarial (2 sides against each other), court-based, British and commonwealth countries (originally under France), attorneys direct proceedings judge-made law based on previous decisions back to early English courts (if no law on subject applies) permits citizenry to know est law - judge make pronouncement, other judges look back on past decisions maintain stability US LA is exception (French)
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
alt to court negotiation, mediation, arbitration less protection than judicial trial
discretionary appeal
an appeal that an appellate court may review or decline to review at its discretion move from court of appeals to court of last resort
interlocutory appeal
an appeal that occurs before the lower/trial court's ruling on the entire case - in middle trial
judicial interpretation of legislation
approach, perspective, emphasis varies how interp what founders meant language, hist, tradition, precedent, purpose, consequence laws generally presumed to be constitutional need to pass rational basis test, undue burden test, strict scrutiny test checks and balances <> once statute passes up to courts decide what legislation meant
concurrent government powers
collect taxes, reg banks, est and admin judiciary, borrow money, provide for common good, make and enforce laws
sources of law
constitution > treaties > compacts > statutes > regulations > ordinances > caselaw > more conceptual and difficult to amend < more substantive, greater detail, easier amend supremacy clause puts constitution and treaties at top
federal criminal law creation
create only w/in scope: 1) fed power enumerated in constitution 2) involving gov of fed place (DC) 3) protect gov itself, institutions, employees jurisdiction = 1) fed Q - constitution, statute 2) diversity jurisdiction - b/w states, foreign citizens fed Qs can move from state supreme to SCOTUS
branches of law
criminal, civil, admin, constitutional, international, appellate, regulatory, etc. courts = trial, family, traffic, bankruptcy, drug, appellate fed = SCOTUS > 12 region + 1 fed circuit court appeals > 94 district courts each w/ bankruptcy court + US court international trade + US court fed claims (patents) + magistrate's court state = supreme > intermed appellate > trial (district, superior, or circuit) > magistrate
due process of law
fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement. procedures owed or entitled to - your legal rights, rule of law right to notice of charges against you, know rules by which judged, opportunity to be heard, right to counsel, fair process, impartial judge/panel, ability appeal unfair judgement evo in US = procedure as def by state, fundamental fairness, shock conscience, root in hist principles Magna Carta or DoI, BoR *not def in constitution* can sue for violation b/c law says can
federal crimes
financial fraud, bank robbery, counterfeiting, kidnapping, threat president or other fed official or building, commit crime on fed property, commit crime w/ interstate commerce, commit crime w/ conspiracy, use firearm commit crime, manufacture and distribute controlled substances investigated by FBI, DEA, ATF, ICE, USSS, IRS 1) fed Q (constitution or fed statute) 2) diversity issue (beyond bounds single state - includes international)
constitution
founding framework for the fundamental organization of a gov/state; how it should operate
natural law
god-given, unwritten, universal, constant sense equality
Styles of Cases
how cases are named civil = names parties criminal = gov entity vs defendant name (fed = SCOTUS, circuit courts, district courts) (states, commonwealths, people, US) appeal = appellant name 1st habeas corpus = name custodian court reporters by private publishers primarily appellate vs trial cases of official holdings
due process ratios
how many guilty can go free such that no innocent punished Blackstone - 1:10 Franklin - 1:100
civil law (vs common)
inquisatorial, codes-based, Roman/Napoleonic code and European continental countries, judge directs proceedings monarchical and magisterial judge as fact finder/accountant codified laws irrational proofs replaced on continent by Romano-canon inquisition process decisionmaking calculus based on full proofs (2 good witnesses or confession --> auto convict), half proofs, presumptions can torture get confessions
ignorance and the law
law must provide fair warning, impossible to know all the law, law constant change, laws in conflict, laws subject interp (consult attorney/member bar in your jurisdiction)
torts
legal wrongs committed against a person - personal injury suits
appeals case
limited to only those issues raised by appellant - based on record, no new evidence *Qs of law* heard by panel judges w/o jury (3 judges at lower appellate courts, 9 justices SCOTUS) trial made up of oral argument by lawyers, written record (all talking in court), briefs submitted by parties, Q and A b/w judges and lawyers court can *affirm* (uphold proceeding outcome), *reverse and remand* (rule against send back for further consideration), *reverse and dismiss* (w/ or w/o prejudice - rule against and no further considerations case over), *reverse in part and affirm in part* [exceptions if fors evidence says innocent but lots hoops to get new evidence into appeals case]
federal government powers
make treaties, est and reg postal system, reg foreign and interstate commerce, tax imports/exports, declare war, maintain military, coin money, protect copyrights/patents, make all laws necessary and proper to meet responsibilities per the US
positive law
man-made, written, changing varies in interpretation
appeals basis
mistakes of fact - clearly erroneous (std allow new trial) or prejudicial (if not for error would have had diff verdict therefore harmful), may do trial de novo mistakes of law - abuse of discretion, trial judge applied wrong law ineffective assistance of counsel new evidence (statutory exceptions made b/c of fors sci - no other process existed before so needed statutes) actual innocence (statutory exceptions - DNA) majority based on trial process unfair
District Attorney's Office v Osborne
no constitutional right obtain postconviction DNA testing (STR vs RFLP) - not violation due process *trial was fair* - can only appeal based on matters law not new evidence Q substantive due process
level of suspicion and consequences
reasonable suspicion --> investigation, detention probable cause --> search and seizure, arrest, indictment beyond reasonable doubt --> conviction unkown < hunch < reasonable suspicion < probable cause < preponderance evidence < beyond reasonable doubt < know [do investigation then in court try prove beyond reasonable doubt] increasing burden system has to meet to move onto next stage prosecution
Bolling v Sharpe
rev incorp 14th equal protection applied to fed gov throught 5th *Issue*: Did the segregation of the public schools of Washington D.C. violate the due process clause of the *5th Amendment*? (*Discrimination*) *Date*: 1954 (Warren Court, 9-0 Decision for Bolling) *Case Summary*: On account of their race, black children in Washington D.C. were denied admission to the same public schools which white children attended. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: Racial segregation violates *5th Amendment* Due Process. The District of Columbia is governed by federal law rather than state law. Thus, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, which was used in Brown v. Board of Education, is not applicable. *Reverse Incorporation*, federal government has to respect equal protection clause and separate but equal is still inherently unequal as ruled in Brown.
federal preemption
right of federal government to regulate matters within its power to the exclusion of regulation by the states ex. interstate commerce clause, exception = assimilative crimes act (state law app on fed lands if no fed law on crime) exception = Indian Reservations - if break fed law case heard in fed court
