Asfaw - Crim Pro 2

Front 1

What are the 4 types of common plea deals?

Back 1

(1) GORT - guilty or trial
(2) Charging concession (agreement to bring fewer or lesser charges for a plea)
(3) Sentencing Recommendation (not binding)
(4) Sentencing Agreement (binding on court once accepted)

Front 2

What are the Pros and Cons of Plea Bargaining?

Back 2

Pros:
(1) Efficiency
Cons:
(1) Prosecutorial abuse (horizontal and vertical)
(2) Divergence of interests that has nothing to do with truth-seeking or justice
(3) Unfair to D who wants to exercise constituitonal right to go to trial.

Front 3

May the court participate in the bargaining process?

Back 3

Federal: Rule 11 says no
State: Far from universal.

Front 4

What is the "voluntary, knowing, and intelligent standard" and what case did it come from?

Back 4

Brady v. U.S. - just bc the statute (threat of death penalty, later unconstituional) caused the plea doesn't mean it was coerced or involuntary.

Plea of guilty entered into by D in a voluntary, intelligent and knowing manner must stand.

(1) voluntariness - any plea entered into by a D who's fully aware of the consequences of the plea, unless induced by:
-threats (harassment)
-misrepresentations
-improper promises having nothing to do with prosecutor's business.

Intelligent: (1) D was fully aware of the nature of the charge, (2) competent/counsel; (3) doesn't matter that he incorrectly assessed some relevant factor or penalty.

Front 5

What information does the Constitution and Federal Rule 11 require and not require be disclosed to D before his plea is accepted?

Back 5

C says a plea is invalid if:

(1) D's uncounseled plea was accepted even though his waiver of counsel didn't meet "voluntary" standard (otherwise accepting uncounseled pleas is no violation of the 6th) - IA v. Turner

(2) D was unaware of the constituional protections he was waiving - Boykin.

(3) D did not receive notice of the true nature of the charge (i.e. "critical elements"); which court may presume D counsel informed him unless proven otherwise - Henderson/Marshall v. Lonberger

Front 6

Must the D have collateral consequences explained to him before plea may be accepted?

Back 6

No. The C does not require that collateral consequences be explained - U.S. v. Russell.

But Padia says D may have an ineffective assistance of counsel claim (deportation).

Front 7

What's the rule on accepting pleas without a factual basis?

Back 7

It's totally constituional for a court to accept or reject a plea because there is no factual basis (i.e. D pleads guilty but maintains his innocence) - N.Carolina v. Alford. (there's no constitutional right to have one's plea accepted).

Federal Rule 11 gives the court the same green flag.

Front 8

What is the rule in regards to the prosecution withholding discovery evidence from D who's deciding whether to plead?

Back 8

U.S. v. Ruiz

Prosecution is not required to hand over impeachment evidence in order for D to decide whether to accept deal.

A D who enters a plea deal waives various constitutional rights.

Due Process is not violated bc:
(1) the nature of the private interest at stake.
(2) the value of the additional safeguards (truly exculpatory evidence must still be turned over before TRIAL - Brady);
(3) Adverse impact on the state (forcing premature disclosure of witness info).

Front 9

Describe the prosecutor's wide latitude to threaten with more serious charges to induce a plea deal.

Back 9

Bordenkircher

This is totally ok and will not be a "coerced" plea so long as:

(1) the prosecutor actually has sufficient evidence to back up more serious charge, and
(2) D is given chance to accept or reject the deal/consequences (warning - unlike Blackledge v. Perry).

Front 10

Describe what happens if the prosecution fails to keep up its end of the bargain.

Back 10

Santobello (new prosecutor came in 1/2 way through and requested max instead of probation!)

It is a violation of the C for a D to be imprisoned bc of a guilty plea which the prosecutor didn't live up to.
-if it in some substantial degree influence the D to take the deal it must be fulfilled.

Benchimol

There's no rule that prosecutor must enthusiastically live up to his end of the deal.

Front 11

What happens when D wants to withdraw or he violates the deal?

Back 11

Before sentencing: D may withdraw for "any fair and just reason"

Post sentencing: usually (especially under Rule 11) court will inform D if deal is rejected and give opportunity to withdraw and go to trial.

When D violates a deal (even a minor misstatement quickly corrected - Brechner) court or prosecution may void it and prosecution can bring the original charge(s), EVEN if conviction has already been entered on the guilty plea (Ricketts v. Adamson - D failed to re-testify at co-D's retrial).

Front 12

What's the procedural effect (D's ability or inability to appeal) after a guilty plea?

Back 12

McMann v. Richardson

D who pleads guilty instead of going to trial waives the rights he could've asserted had he gone to trial. Even where those rights aren't recognized until after the plea deal (D misjudged the admissibility of his coerced confession).

You didn't even go through the trial at which this unconstitutional procedure would've occurred.

But Rule 11 allows D to enter conditional pleas to reserve certain pretrial motions for appeal.

Exceptions:

if (1) there is no need to produce a further record bc the issue can easily be resolved on its face - Menna (double jeopardy, was clearly "same offense" from the record)

and (2) it deals with state's power to hale you into court at all (Blackledge).

Front 13

When is a guilty plea invalid bc of ineffective assistance of counsel?

Back 13

Strickland + McMann

(1) whether the advice was w/in the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.

(2) Prejudice: reasonable probability (objective test) that D would've refused to plead guilty and insist on going to trial.

Front 14

What is the nature/purpose behind of the 6th Amendment right to Trial by Impartial Jury?

Back 14

(1) accurate convictions
(2) opportunity for ordinary citizens to participate in democracy/justice system
(3) prevention of arbitrary judicial system.

Front 15

What type of D is entitled to jury trial?

Back 15

Duncan v. Louisiana

D charged with a serious offense and not a petty one.

Federal: petty < 6 months and $500.

State: petty < 2 years at least and whatever objective criteria helps demonstrate National norm at the time.

Dissent: untrained jurors are less adept to reach an accurate conclusion and the cost to states for jury trials is high.

Front 16

What is the 6 month presumption rule regarding petty v. serious offenses?

Back 16

Baldwin v. NY:

< 6 months is presumed petty unless coupled with other statutory fines and penalties it reflects legislature's attitude to treat it as "serious."

Court won't allow you to aggregate multiple petties.

Front 17

What are the 2 rules regarding a D's ability to waive his right to jury trial?

Back 17

Rule 23 & U.S. v. Singer

(1) waiver must be voluntary, knowing and intelligent; and

(2) must be agreed to by the government and the court (there's no constitutional right to demand a bench trial).

Front 18

What is the rule regarding jury size? (2 cases)

Back 18

Williams v. FL:

(1) 6 person juries in non-capital case is ok.
(2) reliability is not a function of size
(3) must be big enough to promote deliberation, free from outside intimidation, to provide possibility of a representation of the community.

Ballew v. GA:

(1) 5 person juries are NOT ok.
(2) At some point the accuracy diminishes and it's not representative of the "community."

Front 19

What is the Federal Rule and State Rules regarding unanimous jury verdicts?

Back 19

Federal: Rule 31 demands unanimous jury verdicts in fed court.

State: all but 2 states demand unanimous jury verdicts.

Oregon: jury trial right isn't violated by 11:1 or 10:2 jury verdicts.
-Concurrence: the unanimous verdicts rule wasn't incorporated to the states.

Louisiana: the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is not violated by 9:3 ("substantial majority") verdict.
-Dissent: huge diff b/ 3 jurors not present and 3 jurors entertaining serious "doubt" after hearing the evidence. Cuts back on reliability bc they stop debating once they reach "substantial majority."

Front 20

What is the "fair cross section" requirement and where does it come from?

Back 20

It says that courts may come up with whatever jury qualifications they want so long as they don't systematically exclude distinct groups from the jury venire - Taylor v. Louisiana.

It is fundamental to the carrying out of the 6th amendment impartial jury right but isn't actually in the 6th.

Front 21

What's the fair cross section prima facie case?

Back 21

Duren

(1) there's a distinct group missing from the community;

(2) They are underrepresented compared to their population in the community;

(3) Underrepresentation is due to their systematic exclusion, inherent in the selection system.

Burden Shifts: Employer must justify the infringement by showing attainment of a fair cross section was incompatible with a significant state interest.

Front 22

When is a D entitled to have the judge inquire into race on voire dire?

Back 22

Ristaino

There's no general constitutional right to this just bc D is black and V is white, there must be a constitutionally significant likelihood that race will permeate the case.

Ham

When race is inextricably bound up in the trial (i.e. Ham was well-known black activist).

Turner v. Murray

Interracial capital crime, upon D's request.

Rosales-Lopez

Reversible error only where the circs of the case indicate reasonable possibility that racial or ethnic prejudice might've influenced jury (i.e. interracial violent crime).

Front 23

What are the 2 major reasons for a "For Cause" challenge to jury members?

Back 23

(1) statutorily unqualified
-age
-English
-residence
-hearing/seeing
-pending charges

(2) Bias
-Implied (relation)
-Actual

Front 24

How does a juror demonstrate actual bias? Generally and in the death penalty context.

Back 24

Salamone (NRA exclusions bc D was charged w/ gun possession) - his beliefs or opinion have a substantially likelihood of preventing or substantially limiting his ability to follow his instructions and oath.

Death Penalty
(1) Witherspoon: death penalty may not stand where jurors were excluded merely bc they had a moral or ethical scruple against the death penalty unless it's unmistakably clear that:
-They would vote against death w/o regard to the evidence;
-Their attitude would prevent them from deciding the issue of guilt impartially.

Witt: (1) doesn't have to be unmistakeably clear; (2) improper exclusion is cause for automatic reversal of death sentence (but not verdict).

Bonus: witherspoon/witt excludables aren't violation of fair cross section bc they relate to actual jury and aren't "distinctive group"

Front 25

How must peremptory challenges be exercised? What's the prima facie case for if it's been done properly? What's the remedy? And Marshall's dissent?

Back 25

No constitutional right to P-challenges but they can't be exercised in a way that perverts EP.

(1) atty's been excluding people who share D's cognizable race;

(2) may rely on fact that P-challenges lend themselves to those of a mind to discriminate;

(3) Any other evidence showing inference the exclusions are based on race.

Burden Shifts -> state must show neutral justification.
-Need not rise to level of "cause" challenge;
-More than denying discrim or swearing good faith.
-Miller-El's race neutral excuses were pretext.

Remedy: up to trial court to discharge venire or put them back.

Dissent: we should just eliminate P-challenges if want to eliminate race discrim in this process.

Front 26

What is the history behind jury nullification?

Back 26

Since the gov can find SOME basis to bring charges against any citizen he wishes, we entrust the jury to prevent this type of abuse by refusing to convict.
-usually when they sympathize with D.

Front 27

What is the jury's right v. the jury's power? And what is the rule?

Back 27

The jury has the power but not the right to nullify.

U.S. v. Thomas (Juror #5) - if a juror has allegedly refused to follow the law there is a strong presumption in favor of keeping him on the panel. If there's ANY possibility his vote is based on concern of the evidence you must leave him on.

Front 28

What is the 6th Amendment Right to Be Confronted With Witnesses? And what are the 3 major things it guarantees?

Back 28

Confrontation Clause says that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. It ensures accuracy and reliability of truth-seeking system.

(1) Seeing/Observation
(2) Swearing (oath)
(3) Cross examining

Front 29

What's the rule with regard to the right to "face to face" observation of a Witness?

Back 29

Maryland v. Craig

The Confrontation Clause has a preference for face to face observation of Ws but it must occassionally yield to important state interests/public policy concerns.

i.e. where necessary to protect a child witness from trauma; but only based on proving that particular child would be traumatized not a general assumption on "children."

But see Olden v. Kentucky
State statute preventing D from asking certain questions on cross that went to his defense and credibility of W (who was lying to cover up her affair w/ black man) could not supersede the Confrontation Clause.

Front 30

What are the 4 situations in which the Confrontation Clause does not bar the admittance of a declarant's statement without her presence?

Back 30

(1) trial transcript is allowed if W is dead and D had a chance to cross her in previous proceeding;

(2) The declarant is present at trial.

(3) Declarant's statements are non-testimonial (were for ER purposes not investigatory);

(4) D is guilty of forfeiture by wrongdoing or some other exception that applied back when the Confrontation Clause was written (Giles v. CA).

NOTE: even if the CC doesn't bar the statement, state hearsay rules might!!!

Front 31

What was the "sufficient indicia of reliability" standard of OH v. Roberts?

Back 31

The Confrontation Clause is not violated if the statements have a sufficient indicia of reliability:

(1) in a firmly rooted hearsay exception; or

(2) supported by particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.

Front 32

What is the modern Confrontation Clause rule?

Back 32

Crawford

We don't care about your state's hearsay rules or the Robert's test, the ONLY acceptable guarantee of trustworthiness is this:

A declarant's TESTIMONIAL statements will not be admitted unless (1) the W is unavailable and (2) the D had an opportunity to cross the declarant on the issue at the time the statement was made.

Front 33

What's the Testimonial v. Nontestimonial distinction and what are the 5 major areas of testimonial statements?

Back 33

Testimonial - part of an investigation, information gathering for the government's prosecution.
(1) grand jury
(2) prior trial
(3) preliminary hearing
(4) policy interrogation
(5) law enforcement reports

Nontestimonial - info given for emergency purposes only.

Front 34

What is the general rule as to a D's right to have his co-defendants's inculpatory confessions excluded? And what are the 3 major solutions?

Back 34

Generally the Confrontation Clause is violated when his co-defendant's confession is admitted at their joint trial and normally limiting instructions won't solve the problem - Bruton.

Solutions:

(1) the Co-defendant waives his 5th Amendment right in order for D to be able to cross him.

(2) Sever the D's

(3) Redact the D from the statements, but they must completely eliminate identification, "blanks", "deleteds", or symbols won't do.

Dissent: we have always believed the jury knows how to follow instructions.

Front 35

What is the D's right to compulsory process? And what's the special compulsory process where the witness must bring papers with them?

Back 35

Right to subpoena (favorable) W's and secure their presence; it's equivelent tot he prosecution's power and can't be overcome by rules of evidence.

-But court can penalize a lawyer who fails to abide by discovery rules by excluding this right (W's testimony) UNLESS D can prove ineffective assistance of counsel.
-Dissent: gov should have to prove D's personal involvement before inflicting such a harsh penalty.

Subpoena duces tecum - U.S. v. Burr (President can be subpoenaed and he must bring the papers unless their irrelative to the case, or state secrets).

Front 36

What was the common law rule on D's right to testify in his own defense? What's the modern rule?

Back 36

Common Law: The C does not give a D a right to testify in his own defense, and he use to be barred from it since he has such a stake in the matter.

Modern Law: D has a right to testify in his own defense, there's no rational reason to exclude his testimony since he has the most info on what happened.

Front 37

What are the 4 main rules regarding D's 5th Amendment right to remain silent and the prosecution's ability to comment on that silence?

Back 37

(1) Prosecution is not allowed to comment on or encourage jury to infer that D's silence = guilt;

(2) D is entitled to an instruction that jury is not to infer guilt from silence (and judge can give one against D's wishes);

(3) Judge may not infer guilt from D's silence in a sentencing hearing;

(4) Prosecution MAY comment on the fact that a D who DOES testify gets to do so after prosecution's case in chief (bc it goes to credibility not guilt).

Dissent: commenting on his silence doesn't COMPEL shit.

Front 38

What are 4 reasons a D would NOT want to testify?

Back 38

(1) Uhhh...he's guilty

(2) Criminal Ds make bad witnesses;

(3) opens the door to a lot of adverse evidence;

(4) relaxes a lot of constitutional protections (miranda violations, 4th Am.).

Front 39

What can the court do when jury is deadlocked?

Back 39

Dynamite/Allen charge: if the majority were for conviction, the dissenting juror should ask whether his doubt was a reasonable one. If majority are for acquittal, the dissenting juror should ask whether he should doubt the correctness of a conviction which wasn't concurred in by the majority.

Front 40

What are the 3 types of misconduct that can cause jury deliberations to fail?

Back 40

(1) Jury tampering - in a criminal case any private conduct with a juror about the matter pending is presumptively prejudicial to the opposing party. High burden on offending party to prove that the contact was harmless.

(2) Other external influences - sources of info outside of the evidence (newspaper, etc.)

(3) Prejudging or reaching verdict based on something other than the facts - Juror #5; Jury that flipped a coin.

Front 41

Once a jury verdict has been reached what info may a juror come forth to testify about?

Back 41

Only whether outside prejudicial info or improper influence occurred, NOT because juror claims he was pressured into his vote.

Front 42

Are inconsistent verdicts unconstitutional?

Back 42

No, jury may decide that D didn't "commit wire fraud" but he committed "fraud." Or he's guilty of 1st degree murder but on 2 different theories.

Front 43

Why do we want to protect the secrecy of jury deliberations? (3 reasons)

Back 43

(1) don't want to second guess their fact-finding;
(2) finality of verdicts;
(3) promote candid deliberation free from review or blame

Front 44

What are the 2 major theories of punishment and the 2 sub-theories under each?

Back 44

(1) Utilitarianism: laws maximize happiness in society; forward looking.
(a) Deterrence
(b) Rehabilitation

(2) Retributivism - punishment is justified when it's deserved, backward looking.
(a) Retribution
(b) Incapacitation

Front 45

What's the difference b/ indeterminate and determinate sentencing schemes?

Back 45

Indeterminate - where the parole board had more influence on when D got out of jail/when he was "rehab'd".
-sentencing disparities
-truth in sentencing issues

Determinate - the judge/legislature have more of a say with what sentence D gets (more retributive).
-unfortunately puts more power in the prosecution's hands.

Front 46

What are the 5 Adjustment chapters in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines?

Back 46

(1) Victim-related
(2) D's role in the offense (min. part.)
(3) Obstruction
(4) Multiple Counts
(5) Acceptance and responsibility

Front 47

What's the "heartland" rule regarding departures from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines?

Back 47

Koon

You must stay within the heartland unless there's a mitigating/aggravating factor found by a preponderance that deserves departure which the Commission didn't adequately address.

(1) Forbidden factors must not be used (race, sex, national origin, religion, econ status)

(2) Encouraged Factors should be used as long as they weren't already taken into account in the range;

(3) Discouraged Factors should not be used unless they're present to some exceptional degree;

(4) Unmentioned Factors may be used after considering guidelines as a whole and determining that factor is worth a departure from heartland.

Front 48

What is the general Apprendi/Blakely/Booker rule regarding sentences that go above or below the standard sentencing range?

Back 48

Whenever the legislature says a certain factor (if found by the judge) allows for the judge to go above or below the standard range, then that factor must actually be (1) admitted by the D or (2) found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt

Easiest to just submit an interrogatory to the jury for them to check off.

Ex: if legislature says "robbery" is 5-10 but "robbery with a gun allows judge to go up to 20" then "with a gun" must be found by the jury.

Exception!! Prior criminal record may be used as an aggravating factor w/o jury's finding (Almendarez-Torres).
(1) it's always been used by judges
(2) it's not a disputed fact

Front 49

What was the dissent's concern in Apprendi/Blakely/Booker?

Back 49

They worried that legislatures would become more indeterminate, making the range extreme (i.e. LWOP) and then inserting all the possible mitigating and aggravating factors into the "offense" so the judge will always be "within" the range.
-the tail waggng the dog and due process problems.

Front 50

How does the court calculate sentences now after Apprendi/Blakely / Booker? (1) which "factors" are still reserved for judicial discretion? (2) factors, (3) presumption, (4) appellate review

Back 50

(1) the jury must find any factors dealing with the nature of the offense but judge can still use discretion on factors like remorse and acceptance of responsibility.

(2) Factors include: the purpose of the sentence; the Commission's policies; likely sentences; victim's restitution; avoiding sentencing disparities.

(3) judge shouldn't presume he's "reasonable" bc he's w/in the range, must be an individualized inquiry.

(4) court reviews for abuse of discretion. May (but aren't required to) presume w/in range is reasonable but may NOT presume outside range is unreasonable.

Front 51

What's the rule regarding Apprendi's application to consecutive (stacked) sentences?

Back 51

As long as D is sentenced w/in the range on each individual conviction, Apprendi doesn't apply to the fact that they've been handed down consecutively and therefore pass the max as a whole.

Front 52

What's the rule regarding "JUDICIAL" (not prosecutorial) vindictiveness?

Back 52

Whenever a D receives a higher sentence on a subsequent trial there is a presumption of vindictiveness which can be rebutted by the state/judge showing objective information that justifies an increased sentence.

i.e. he's worse than we thought the first time around.
i.e. he committed new offenses since then.

Exception: where there's different sentencers or first was based on trial and second on guilty plea.

Front 53

When does double jeopardy attach?
-Jury Trial
-Bench Trial
-Guilty Plea

Back 53

Jury Trial: when the jury is sworn
Bench Trial: when first W is sworn
Guilty Plea: when the plea's accepted.

Front 54

What is the rule regarding double jeopardy and "punishments"?

Back 54

Even where "same" offenses are brought in 1 trial or "different" offenses are brought in separate trials, they still stem from 1 act their punishments must merge (unless pursuant to clear statutory intent - Missouri v. Hunter).

Front 55

What's the Blockberger "same crime" test? And what are 3 examples of "same" crimes and 1 example of "different" crimes?

Back 55

If each statute requires a different element the offenses are NOT the same and they may be tried in separate trials.

Same:
(1) Lesser/greater included offenses
(2) Joy riding &amp; auto theft
(3) DUI and DUI per se (lower BAC)

Different:
(1) Blockberger: sale + didn't pay taxes & sale + improper packaging.
(2) stolen property statute &amp; stolen vehicle statute (where both have at least one element the other does not).

Front 56

When is it ok to bring a retrial? 2 major times with exceptions.

Back 56

(1) Conviction was set aside on appeal
(a) unless overturned bc of insufficient evidence, or
(b) acquittal of one crime logically implies the acquittal of another (D was charged with 1st degree but jury's verdict of 2nd implies an acquittal on 1st; gov can't retry on 1st - like Ashe v. Swenson issue preclusion).

(2) Mistrial - unless prosecution goaded D into moving for mistrial.

Front 57

When is the double jeopardy bar operated to bar subsequent trial?

Back 57

(1) Same offense (generally lesser/greater included offenses)
(2) that prosecution attempts to bring in separate trials
(3) after double jeopardy has attached, or
(4) there has been a final disposition (the entry of a final ruling or judgment that represents a resolution correct or not, of some or all of the factual elements of the offense charged (including acquittals and convictions; w/ exceptions).

Front 58

What's the mistrial doctrine and does it bar double jeopardy?

Back 58

General rule is that mistrials don't bar subsequent trial on the same offense if there was a "manifest necessity."

(1) Always if there's a hung jury.
-Maybe if there's too few jurors (depends on whether prosecution just made inaccurate calculation).
(2) In judge's discretion bc of impartial verdict can't be reached or an obvious procedural error that will cause this case's reversal.
(3) Pros can't goad D into moving for mistrial.

Front 59

What's the "dual sovereignty" exception?

Back 59

Each citizen is said to owe allegiance to 2 sovereigns. A D can be tried for the same offense once in federal court and once in state court so long as one isn't bribing the other to bring the subsequent charge.

Front 60

What is the purpose of the writ? Why were writs of habeas initially issued? (what grounds).

Back 60

It is a remedy to prisoners who are in custody in violation of the C, laws, or treaties of the U.S.

They were initially issued in response to imprisonment in southern states of former slaves and Union officers.
-Classic grounds: (1) the proceeding was dominated by mob violence, (2) pros knowingly used perjured testimony, (3) convictions based on coerced confessions.

Front 61

(1) Why are writs of habeas of much less importance today? (2) And why do some argue that no one should need federal habeas today?

Back 61

(1) When the Warren court was establishing all sort of new federal constitutional criminal procedure rights it NEEDED some mechanism for enforcing them upon the states, now that’s not going on.

(2) If the system worked exactly how the people who want to restrict habeas wish it would work (you had good lawyers all the way through and all new evidence was adequately adjudicated in your post-conviction trials) then no one would need federal habeas.
-Efficiency: it's been reviewed SO many times before;
-Federalism
-Accuracy: it may have a miniscule addition to accuracy but more likely it diminishes it (bc convictions get overturned bc the accurate evidence it was based on turns out should've been excluded from the jury).
-Finality of verdicts.

Front 62

What are the 3 main claims brought by a prisoner on his state post-conviction review?

Back 62

(1) ineffective assistance of counsel

(2) new evidence

(3) fundamental change in the law or new rule.

Note: Teague doesn't apply to a state court's adjudiciation of federal issues.

Front 63

Once state prisoner exhausts his state court post-conviction review how does he get into Fed Habeas Court (3 claims)?

Back 63

(1) state courts clearly violated an established principal of federal law (failed to fairly and accurately look at the issues).

(2) Actual factual innocence

(3) watershed criminal procedure (enhances accuracy and alters our understanding of bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of a particular conviction).

Classically: denial of right to counsel (Gideon); biased judge.
-if state court wrongfully decided one of these prisoner would get writ and remedy.

Front 64

What's the standard of review when a Fed Habeas court is reviewing a claim for "lack of sufficient evidence"

Back 64

Question is whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, ANY rational trier of fact could've found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Otherwise it must be reversed.

Front 65

What's the harmless error rule when reviewing constitutional errors? And what are the structural errors that are exempt from this review?

Back 65

Question is whether there's a reasonable possibility the evidence complained of might have contribued to the conviction.

So basic to a fair trial and the proper function of the adversary system that they demand REVERSAL and can never be reviewed for "harmless error."
(1) coerced confession (later taken off by Fulminante)
(2) right to counsel (Gideon)
(3) impartial judge
(4) excluding grand jurors of D's race
(5) right to proceed pro se
(6) right to public trial

Front 66

What was the court's new rule regarding harmless error and coerced confessions in Fulminante?

Back 66

They shall now be reviewed for harmless error like any other trial error.

Burden is on the one benefiting from the erroneous admission/ruling to prove it was harmless error.