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
Reading...
Front

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

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/16

Click to flip

16 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Sandoval
D gets a hearing to determine what is permissible on cross, and usually concerns prior convictions. The test is whether the evidence is pore probative of his credibility than it is prejudicial. Crimes demonstrating anti-social behavior are more probative, wheres those showing a personal vice, such as alcohol or drugs, may be more prejudicial.
Grant
Even if hearing judge fucks up Sandoval hearing and rules that convictions come in, leading to Ds decision not to testify, court can speculate as to what DF would have said to find that judges ruling was harmless error.
Ventimiglia
Same balancing as Sandoval, but to determine if the convictions and acts can come in the case in chief.
Clayton Hearing
At the hearing the parties may, if they are so advised, present such evidence and arguments as may be pertinent to the interests of justice. Among the considerations which are applicable to the issue are (a) the nature of the crime, (b) the available evidence of guilt, (c) the prior record of the defendant, (d) the punishment already suffered by the defendant, (e) the purpose and effect of further punishment, (f) any prejudice resulting to the defendant by the passage of time and (g) the impact on the public interest of a dismissal of the indictment
Speedy Trial Hearing Issues
Dont charge to the people when delay is due to Ds own stuff.
Darden
Where probable cause is based entirely on info from an informant, hearing should be conducted, with no one else present, and a record of that provided to the defendant.

At the hearing the parties may, if they are so advised, present such evidence and arguments as may be pertinent to the interests of justice. Among the considerations which are applicable to the issue are (a) the nature of the crime, (b) the available evidence of guilt, (c) the prior record of the defendant, (d) the punishment already suffered by the defendant, (e) the purpose and effect of further punishment, (f) any prejudice resulting to the defendant by the passage of time and (g) the impact on the public interest of a dismissal of the indictment
Fitness Hearing: C.P.L. 730
Upon receipt
of an examination order, the director must designate two qualified
psychiatric examiners, of whom he may be one, to examine the defendant
to determine if he is an incapacitated person. In conducting their
examination, the psychiatric examiners may employ any method which is
accepted by the medical profession for the examination of persons
alleged to be mentally ill or mentally defective.
Parker
To determine if the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right o be present at trial.
Mahboudian
Severance is compelled where the core of each defense is in irreconcilable conflict with the other and where there is a significant danger, as both defenses are portrayed to the trial court, that the conflict alone would lead the jury to infer defendant's guilt.
Frye
To determine whether a certain test has gained enough standing and recognition among authorities to admit expert testimony based on it.
Sirois Hearing
A Sirois hearing is a legal hearing used when a prosecution witness either becomes unavailable to testify at trial or refuses to testify, and the prosecution alleges that this is due to the defendant's misconduct. In this situation, the prosecution may introduce the witness's prior statements at trial if it can show that the defendant is responsible for the witness's nonappearance.

In order to obtain the hearing, the prosecution must allege specific facts that the defendant's conduct induced the witness's refusal. Absent waiver by the defendant, a hearing is needed to determine the admissibility of the prior statement, where the prosecution must establish defendant's responsibility for a witness refusing to testify People v. Johnson. The prosecution is required to show "Clear and Convincing Proof" of the defendant's malfeasance as the admission of such testimony violates the defendant's sixth amendment rights "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." In addition, the Sirois ruling also results in the absent witness's statement becoming de facto unquestionable.

Geracci - Out-of-court statements, including grand jury testimony, may be admitted as direct evidence where the witness is unavailable to testify at trial and the proof establishes that the witness's unavailability was procured by misconduct on the part of the defendant.
Hinton
To determine whether to close the courtroom.

Nazario: D can argue that, Where the defendant has shown that there is a special relationship between a proposed spectator and the defendant of a kind that enables the proposed spectator to give the defendant the kind of moral and emotional support that might be expected from a family member, the trial court should admit that spectator to an otherwise closed courtroom unless the prosecution shows a specific reason for his or her exclusion.
Wade
ID evidence.

D's burden to prove that the ID is improper
Wade- Show up
Witness iDs the guy at the scene.

While showup identifications are generally suspect and disfavored, at-the-crime-scene civilian showup identifications are not presumptively infirm. It must be emphasized, however, that such showup or identification evidence should not be routinely admissible either. It must be scrutinized very carefully for unacceptable suggestiveness and unreliability.
Wade- confirmatory Identifications
Witnesses confirms the ID in court. Even if he testifies to a corporeal line up that is impermissible, if his testimony in court establishes it, still ok.
Wade - Sequential Lineups
The record, including the lineup photographs, established that defendant was surrounded by fillers of reasonably similar appearance and that there was no substantial likelihood that defendant would have been singled out for identification. There was no authority supporting defendant's claim that he was entitled to have the court-ordered lineups conducted in sequential fashion and preceded by lineups in which he was not a participant.