Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
69 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Gideon v Wainright
|
1963; must give indigent atty for felony
AND applied 6th A to states |
|
|
Powell v Alabama
|
1932 - right to counsel not just in court - at all "critical stages"
based on DP, b/c 6A not inc'd yet |
|
|
Scott v ILL
|
no prison sentence without right to counsel
|
|
|
Alabama v Shelton
|
even probation, if violation leads to jail, would require atty
|
|
|
US v Wade
|
lineups are a critical stage, must have right to atty
|
|
|
Order of Criminal Proceeding
|
initial appearance
preliminary hearing (where 6A attcs) indictment/information arraignment |
|
|
Stovall
|
showup of man in hospital room - OK'd because of
"totality of the circs" |
|
|
DP limit on lineups:
|
no "unnecessarily suggestive" lineups
|
|
|
Kirby v ILL
|
1972, no per se exclusionary rule when person ID'd before prosecution commences
(pulls back from Wade) |
|
|
US v Ash
|
Lineup of photos needs no atty because harder to manipulate
|
|
|
Manson v Braithwaite
|
single photo showup deemed "unnecessarily suggestive," but was still admissible
|
|
|
DP Totality of the Circs Test for Lineup
|
i. Factors Affecting Reliability –
(i) The witness’s opportunity to view the defendant at the time of the crime; (ii) the witness’s degree of attention at that time; (iii) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (iv) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the ID; (v) the length of time between the crime and the ID. |
|
|
Dee v State (GA)
|
suggestiveness of inanimate object ID goes to credibility (DP doesn't protect physical evidence)
|
|
|
White v State (GA)
|
there is heresay exception for ID'ing someone in a past lineup, but only when that person subject to cross;
Cops are not allowed to testify that a 3d person IDd |
|
|
4 Federal Limitations on confessions
|
4th A - seized illegally
5th A - incrimination/Miranda 6th A - no atty right DP - coerced/involuntary |
|
|
Standard for Motion to Suppress Invol confession
|
preponderence of the evidence
(Jackson Denno) |
|
|
Jackson v Denno
|
gives fair procedures for assessing voluntariness, regardless of truth or falsity
|
|
|
Crane v KY
|
if JD hearing shows voluntary confession, defendant can still use the evidence in court to say that confession is still unbelieveable
|
|
|
McNabb Mallory Rule
|
confessions acquired in violation of prompt presentation requirement are not valid
Federal Rules created to protect NOTE: 1968 act legitimates any confession made in 6 hours |
|
|
Everest v US
|
kid who hears Miranda and waives also deemed to waive prompt presentation rights, so his 8 hour late confession admitted
|
|
|
Gerstein v Pugh
|
under warrantless arrest, can only be held briefly on probable cause, jdcl determination of PC needed to get "extended restraint"
|
|
|
Riverside
|
without warrant, probable cause suspect can only be held 48 hours without viol of 4A
|
|
|
Wong Sun
|
confession made after illegal search was not "sufficiently distinguishable" from the illegal search to purge the taint
|
|
|
Brown v ILL
|
late Miranda warning does not sufficiently cure a 4A viol
|
|
|
Dunaway v NY
|
seizures are only reasonable if supported by probable cause
|
|
|
NY v Harris
|
PC arrest in home, confessed outside of house (disting'd from Payton), and confession was admitted - not a 4A viol
|
|
|
Massiah v US
|
man who already had counsel could not be eavesdropped on in conversation with informer
|
|
|
Brewer v Williams
|
Christian Burial Speech Case
ellicitation is interrogation; can't do if already gotten atty |
|
|
US v Henry
|
can't intentionally get person to incriminate self via ACTIVE informant after indictment and has atty
|
|
|
Edwards v Ariz
|
police can't ask you to go back and waive Miranda after you elect it
|
|
|
Maine v Moulton
|
even when getting counsel for robbery, police can get info on murder AND can use it to prevent the crime
|
|
|
McNeill v Wisc
|
rt to counsel is "offense specific", even though Miranda is not - so he can be questioned for murder if no critical stage has begun, even if he does have atty for the robbery charge
|
|
|
Texas v Cobb
|
no automatic attachment of 6A rights for "closely related" crimes
|
|
|
Fellers v US
|
Fruits of deliberate ellicitation, post indictment w/o atty or waiver, will not be admitted
|
|
|
Miranda
|
5th A
- silent/used against/atty/provision - heavy burden of proving waiver |
|
|
RI v Innis
|
Miranda protects against express questioning OR its functional equivalent
|
|
|
Dickerson v US
|
congress can't override Miranda with statutes because Miranda a constitutional decision, not supervisory
|
|
|
Harris v NY
|
even if Miranda is defective, you can still use that info to impeach defendants statement as "prior inconsistent statement"
|
|
|
Oregon v Hass
|
even after intentional interrogation w/o lawyer, were able to impeach contrary statements
|
|
|
NY v Quarrles
|
"public safety" exception for Miranda - does not protect statements of where gun was
|
|
|
Patain
|
gun found in violation of Miranda is admitted, b/c Miranda protects 5A statements, not 4A evidence
BUT, states have reacted against this |
|
|
Duckworth v Egan
|
OK not to give Miranda word for word, even to say that lawyer would only be in trial
|
|
|
Moran v Burbine
|
not a viol of Miranda to not tell interrogated suspect that atty has been arranged by 3d party
|
|
|
US v Watson
|
strengthens cops' Prob cause power - even if enough time to get a warrant, PC is enough
|
|
|
Attwater v Lago Vista
|
can't be arrested for a misdemeanor that is only fineable
|
|
|
Probable Cause for Arrest
|
cop has knowledge of facts and circs that would lead reasonable person to believe that person had committed crime
|
|
|
Probable Cause for a Search Warrant
|
that seizable evidence exists at the place where it is being sought
|
|
|
Whren v US
|
right to search attaches at lawful arrest - puts "pretextual search" doctrine to death
(speeding --> drug search) |
|
|
US v Robinson
|
as long as custodial arrest is valid, fruits of the search are admissible
|
|
|
Knowles v Iowa
|
a search, after issuing citation, when could have arrested, was not valid
Rule: if not incident to valid 4A arrest, invalid search |
|
|
State v Harvey
|
GA case where coke found on search incident to arrest from recently expired warrant was admitted
|
|
|
Payton v US
|
if there is arrest warrant for a felony, you can enter premises to search, but not just on probable cause
|
|
|
Terry v OH
|
if there is reasonable suspicion to believe there may be an offense (can be future looking) pat down OK
|
|
|
Cali v Hodari D
|
running away triggers reasonable suspicion
|
|
|
Categories of Searchable Items
|
- fruits of crime
- instrumentalities of crime - contra ban - mere evidence |
|
|
Wilson v Ark
|
first holding by SC that notice is req'd to execute warrant
|
|
|
No knock complies with 4A when
|
1. allowed by statute/caselaw
2. police have reasonable suspicion to need it |
|
|
US v Banks
|
20 seconds deemed sufficient notice to execute warrant
|
|
|
Carroll v US
|
first case giving S&S power to search cars, allowed with probable cause
|
|
|
Katz v US
|
first case to say that non-physical trespass was invalid search (phone tap)
|
|
|
Test for violation of privacy
|
1. there must be an expectation of privacy that is
2. seen as objectively reasonable by society |
|
|
4A Exclusionary Rule
- modern day trigger |
Will it deter police illegality?
|
|
|
Mapp v OH
|
gives 4A exclusionary rule to states, based on privacy
|
|
|
US v Leon
|
NO constitutional right to 4A exclusionary rule (pulls back on Mapp)
|
|
|
Subjective test of entrapment
|
1. police encouraged behavior that would lead reasonable person to commit crime AND
2. this person was not already inclined to do so |
|
|
Lewis v US
|
if an undercover agent is invited in, his deceptions are not violations - there is no reasonable privacy expectation here
|
|
|
Katz rule on surveillance
|
there must be a warrant to use surveillance
|
|
|
2 issues with bugging devices
|
3d party interception - not allowed w/o warrant
participant monitoring - when one is a rat and consents, allowed |
|
|
US v White
|
no 4A viol if overheard via participant monitoring - no privacy expectation
|
