Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

15 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
vindictiveness-not vindictive if he could have been indicted anyway and it was mentioned in plea negotiations
judge must say, "I find it to be knowing, intelligent and strong factual basis" a plea entered to avoid the death penalty is held to be valid even when the defendant has asserted his innocence as long as it can be shown that the defendant knowingly and intelligently concluded that his interests were best served by the plea, and the record strongly evidenced guilt.
The Bruton problem, at least in its classic form, arises when there are co-defendants and the introduction of a confession by one defendant would violate the confrontation rights of the other defendant but not those of the declarant.
Nix v. Whiteside
Nix- assistance of counsel does require lawyer to help you perjure, right to testify does not include right to lie
favorable to accused + material...good faith does not matter
- Zafiro- mutually antagonistic defenses are not per se prejudicial, you need to show ACTUAL prejudice... you need to show that there is a serious risk of a trial right would be compromised, or if the jury would be prevented from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence(Examples- strong spillover prejudice, Bruton problem)
interlocking inculpatory confessions still get Bruton analysis
1.Prima Facie Case- pattern of discrimination through the use of peremptory challenges.
2.Was there a neutral explanation?
Booker/Blakely- federal sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory
In IL- supervision is one of the main alternatives
impeachment CAN be material(not always)
1)the prosecutor is responsible for what every other prosecutor did, 2) the pros. has an obligation to do the research and see what anyone else has promised, 3) also now includes promises or deals made by other law enforcement officials
1) did the defendant receive a fair trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence(don't have to show he would have been acquitted otherwise)
2) the accused must show that the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict...NOT a sufficiency of evidence test
3) If a court finds const. error under Bagley, no harmless error review---->only reversal
4) to determine reasonable probability, you need to look to the net effect of ALL Brady evidence(i.e.-not piece by piece) ...reasonable probability-verdict unworthy of confidence...**reasonable probability DOES NOT MEAN more than 50%, it doesn't mean preponderance of the evidence, it can be less than that
-**second point, Brady error is CUMULATIVE---->you don't look at Brady evidence piece by piece, you look at it alltogether
Defines "material" as material=reasonable probability that had evidence been disclosed, result of the proceeding would have been different
In opening statement cases, it's cumulative. no willful needed
Privacy policy v. Rt. of confrontation....knowing what evidence is vs. fishing expedition
4 essential parts of confrontation- 1)physical presence, 2)oath, 3)cross-examination, and 4)observation of demeanor by the trier of fact....*Policy can override one of these
-**face-to-face confrontation is important, but its not absolute, not the sine qua non of the confrontation clause---->ex. dying declarations are admissible