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;
15 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Ammendments all have provisions related to criminal procedure. Only two provisions of these Amendments have NOT been extended to the states. What are they?
|
The Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive bail and the Fifth Amendment right to a grand-jury indictment.
|
All the rest are applicable to the states (search and seizure rights under the Fourth Amendment; Fifth Amendment prohibitions against compelled self-incrimination and double jeopardy; Sixth Amendment right to a speedy and public trial, right to trial by impartial jury, right to confront witnesses, and right to counsel; Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment).
|
|
|
Over what types of crimes can the federal government pass laws?
|
Only those for which it has jurisdiction under the Constitution. Congress has passed laws covering, for instance, narcotics, commerce (foreign and interstate), naturalization, bankruptcy, counterfeiting, the military, revenue laws, and customs laws. What this means is that most of criminal procedure is controlled by STATE law.
|
COMPARE: States can punish all crimes within their boundaries, unless the federal goverment has exclusive jurisdiction (i.e., punishable by act of Congress, unless concurrent jurisdiction is provided in the statute). Naturally, there is concurrent jurisdiction where an act is an offense against both the federal government and a state government.
|
|
|
Is a juvenile proceeding considered "criminal"?
|
No; however, a juvenile IS entitled to due process in such proceedings.
|
In re Gault (1967). This includes:
1. Written notice of charges; 2. Assistance of counsel; 3. Right to confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses; 4. Privilege against self-incrimination; 5. Proof of guilt under the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard; 6. Privilege against double jeopardy. RELATED ISSUE: Right NOT extended to juvenile delinquents: Jury trial. |
|
|
What is the "exclusionary rule"?
|
It is a remedy for violating one's Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, mandating that evidence obtained via a constitutional violation of defendant's rights may not be admitted as evidence against the defendant. The rationale is deterrence; if police know the evidence seized won't be admissable at trial, they're less likely to conduct an illegal search and seizure.
|
Note that not only is all illegally-obtained evidence excludable, but all evidence DERIVED or OBTAINED from the illegally-obtained evidence must be excluded also (with some exceptions), as "tainted fruit of the poisonous tree." Wong Sun v. U.S. (1963).
|
|
|
Is the exclusionary rule required by the Fourth Amendment?
|
No. It is considered a judicially-created remedy, not a constitutional right.
|
The Fourth Amendment covers only illegal searches and seizures, not the use of evidence obtained from them. U.S. v. Leon (1984).
|
|
|
If evidence is seized in derogation of one's constitutional rights, what's the most common remedy?
|
Exclusion of the evidence at trial. This is the "exclusionary rule".
|
NOTE: If the trial court erroneously admits the evidence, defendant's subsequent conviction will only be reversed if the error was prejudicial (i.e., it wasn't "harmless error"). To satisfy this standard, the appellate court must be convenced beyond a reasonable doubt that, even if the tainted evidence HAD been excluded, the defendant would have been convicted ANYWAY. Chapman v. CA (1967).
|
|
|
Are modern courts expanding the coverage of the exclusionary rule?
|
No - quite the contrary. The coverage of the exclusionary rule has been diminishing in recent years, most obviously via U.S. v. Leon (9184), in which the Court recognized a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule.
|
The "good faith" exception provides that, if police have a good faith but erroneous belief as to the validity of a search warrant, the evidence illegally obtained pursuant to the warrant will be ADMISSIBLE against the defendant in the prosecution's case-in-chief.
|
|
|
Must evidence that is illegally obtained be excluded from SENTENCING hearings?
|
No. Sentencing hearings are not subject to the exclusionary rule; thus, illegally obtained evidence will be admissible.
|
RELATED ISSUE: The same goes for parole revocation hearings and deportation proceedings. NOTE: The benefits and costs are weighed this way: benefit to government = deterrence of unlawful police conduct; the cost = loss of probative evidence and less accurate prosecutions.
|
|
|
What is the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule?
|
The "good faith" exception allows the state to use, in its case-in-chief, "evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate, but ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause."
|
BLANK
|
|
|
What is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine?
|
It holds that ANY EVIDENCE DERIVED FROM UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE IS INADMISSIBLE. Such "derivative" evidence is called the "tainted fruit of the poisonous tree."
|
NOTE: Needless to say, there are exceptions to this rule:
1. INDEPENDANT SOURCE: If the government can show the evidence was obtained from a source independent of the unlawful source, the evidence will be admissible. 2. INEVITABLE DISCOVERY: If the government can show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that police would have found the evidence regardless of the illegality, it'll be admissible. 3. PURGED TAINT: Evidence is sufficiently removed from the original illegality to purge the taint, so it's admissable. |
|
|
Police suspect that Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid robbed the Union Pacific Railroad. They bring in Butch for questioning. They don't give him his Miranda warnings. During the questioning, he says: "OK, OK, I confess. Sundance and I robbed the train." The statement was made voluntarily, but since Butch wasn't given his Miranda warnings, it can't be used against him at trial. Can it be used against SUNDANCE?
|
Yes. The exclusionary rule only bars admission of an illegally-obtained confession against the one who made the confession. Thus, it will be admissible against Sundance.
|
BLANK
|
|
|
Police suspect Big Bad Wolf of robbing Red Riding Hood of her goody basket, but they don't have probable cause to arrest him. Nonetheless, they go to his house at 3 a.m. and force their way in. Wolf runs out of his bedroom and sees them as they enter. They handcuff him, and he says: "The goody basket is in the coat closet." The police find the goody basket. At Wolf's trial, he objects to admission of the basket, claiming it's the "tainted fruit" of an illegal search. Is he correct?
|
Yes. Where evidence is acquired indirectly through a constitutional violation, it will be inadmissible under the "tainted fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine (unless it fits an exception to the doctrine).
|
The doctrine applies here because the search was illegal, and the situation doesn't fit an exception to the doctrine (purged taint, independent source, or inevitable discovery).
|
|
|
Ichabod Crane has been murdered and the police begin to suspect Headless Horseman is the culprit. They want to find the murder weapon and go to Horseman's house one night without a warrant. They walk into Horseman's house, brandishing guns, and find Horseman watching TV. They begin rifling through closets and papers, and they handcuff Horseman. Horseman says, "OK, I confess. I killed him. I guess I lost my head." At Horseman's trial, is his statement admissible against him?
|
No, because the confession will be considered the "tainted fruit of the poisonous tree." The "poisonous tree" here is the illegal entry and search. Because Horseman's confession was closely related to the illegality, his confession will be inadmissible against him.
|
Factors to consider: Police's wrongful intent, a lack of significant intervening acts between the illegality and the confession, and the lack of free will.
|
|
|
Police suspect that Little Jack Horner robbed the local bakery, making off with the contents of the register, as well as a few pies. They obtain a warrant for his arrest and arrest him. They take him to the station and interrogate him without giving him his Miranda warnings first. He confesses. The police realize their mistake, give him his Miranda warnings, and interrogate him again, and again he confesses. Assuming the second confession is valid, will it be excluded as "tainted fruit" of the first, illegal interrogation?
|
No; in fact, in such a situation the "tainted fruit" doctrine doesn't come into play. Instead, the court analyzes whether the confession was "knowingly and voluntarily made". If it is, the existence of an earlier, invalid confession won't invalidate it. Note that the police needn't tell the suspect that the earlier confession was INVALID. Oregon v. Elstad (1985)
|
RELATED ISSUE: The first confession here appears to be invalid only because it lacked Miranda warnings. If the first confession has been the product of "deliberately coercive or improper tactics," not merely failing to give Miranda warnings, the second confession would be excluded, since the coercion would be seen as carrying over to the second confession.
|
|
|
Police suspect Baron von Frankenstein has been stealing bodies from graves and conducting revivification experiments on them. They enter his house one night and seize his diary. The diary discloses that two men, Burke and Hare, are smuggling in narcotics to fund operations. Subsequently, the police interview Frankenstein's major domo, Igor, who also states that Burke and Hare are smuggling drugs. Frankenstein objects to evidence of the narcotics trafficking at his subsequent trial, citing the illegality of the seizure of his diary. Is he correct?
|
No. The evidence isn't excluded by the "tainted fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, because of the INDEPENDENT SOURCE exception, which states that, where evidence is possibly derived from illegal police activity but discovery could just as easily be traced to LEGAL police conduct, the legal conduct prevails, and the evidence isn't barred by the exclusionary rule. Here, the police learned about the drug trafficking from Igor (a legal source) AS WELL AS the diary (an illegal source). As such, the valid source will prevail, and it will be admissible.
|
RELATED ISSUE: The independent source exception can save evidence police find during an illegal search; it will be admissible if it is later rediscovered during the execution of a valid search warrant. The warrant must be unrelated to the prior illegality, from the viewpoint of both the magistrate who issues it and the officer who asks for it (although the prosecution needn't prove that the warrant would have been sought absent the illegal entry). Murray v U.S. (1988).
|
