Criminal Procedure Cases: Bail To Jail

Front 1

Johnson v. Zerbst

Back 1

Federal Right to counsel

Front 2

Gideon v. Wainwright

Back 2

Right to counsel in felony cases

Front 3

Powell v. Alabama

Back 3

Special Circumstances

Front 4

Betts v. Brady

Back 4

Special Circumstances

Front 5

Argersinger v. Hamlin

Back 5

Right to counsel if it ends in imprisonment

Front 6

Scott v. Illinois

Back 6

Right to counsel if it ends in ACTUAL imprisonment

Front 7

Alabama v. LeReed Shelton

Back 7

Extends to suspending sentences

Front 8

Gerstein

Back 8

If there is probable cause to detain

Front 9

Rothgery v. Gillespie County

Back 9

Initial appearance is when right to counsel attaches

Front 10

Coleman v. Alabama

Back 10

Preliminary hearing is a critical stage

Front 11

Gagnon v. Scarpelli

Back 11

No attorney required at later probabtion violation hearing

Front 12

Caldwell v. Mississippi

Back 12

must provide expert if it will be a significant issue at trial

Front 13

Rey v. State

Back 13

must make particularized showing for expert

Front 14

Dowdy v. Commonwealth

Back 14

require showing of prejudice in order to get expert

Front 15

Faretta v. California

Back 15

right to self representation

Front 16

State v. Joseph Spencer

Back 16

standby counsel doesn't violate that right

Front 17

Martinez v. California

Back 17

doesn't apply to direct appeal

Front 18

Martel v. Clair

Back 18

"interests of justice" standard for capital cases

Front 19

Strickland v. Washington

Back 19

To get relief for ineffective assistance, must show that (1) it fell beneath the reasonable minimum standard, (2) it made a difference on the outcome

Front 20

Padilla v. Kentucky

Back 20

Must inform ∆ about collateral consequence of deportation

Front 21

Missouri v. Frye

Back 21

Right to counsel during plea bargaining; failure to tell ∆ of plea

Front 22

Lafler v. Cooper

Back 22

Right to counsel during plea bargaining; ineffective advice leading to rejection of the offer

Front 23

Bruno v. State

Back 23

application of Strickland; no prejudice found

Front 24

People v. Hernandez

Back 24

presumed prejudice for conflicts of interest

Front 25

Cuyler v. Sullivan

Back 25

private attorneys also judged with Strickland

Front 26

US v. Cronic

Back 26

Recognizes exceptions to Strickland; can presume prejudice if no counsel at critical stage

Front 27

State ex rel. Missouri Public Defender v. Pratte

Back 27

must reprsent unless "unreasonable and oppressive"

Front 28

State v. Leonard Peart

Back 28

defense services so lacking that there's a rebuttable presumption that there's ineffective assistance of counsel for all ∆s

Front 29

Kimberly Hurrell-Harring v. State

Back 29

says that her real complaint wasn't about assistance of counsel, but about funding and this is more properly for the executive and judicial branches

Front 30

State v. Delbert Lynch

Back 30

Statute that requires appointed counsel to represent when there's no assurance of compensation is unconstitutional

Front 31

U.S. v. Salerno

Back 31

allows detention on basis of additional criminal acts by ∆ before trial

Front 32

State v. Wallace Baynes

Back 32

baynes was eligible for diversion; failure to do so was abuse of discretion

Front 33

Bender test (abuse of discretion)

Back 33

1. Not premised on all factors, 2. based on consideration of irrelevant or inappropriate factors OR 3. Amounted to clear error in judgment

Front 34

State v. Culbreath

Back 34

conflict of interest creates appearance of impropriety; private prosecution tainted entire investigation

Front 35

Kristy Maddox v. State

Back 35

instance where she wasn't sent to juvenile because of the violence of the crime

Front 36

In re Gault

Back 36

Federal required right to counsel for juvenile court

Front 37

Wayte v. U.S.

Back 37

selective prosecution must be because of and not despite in order to be overturned

Front 38

U.S. v. Armstrong

Back 38

∆ has burden of proof to show other people of different race weren't prosecuted

Front 39

Commonwealth v. Khari Wilcox

Back 39

grand jurors don't have to hear all the evidence to convict

Front 40

Blueford v. Arkansass

Back 40

can retry on larger offense even if jury says they agree; as long as there's no finding

Front 41

U.S. v.DiFrancesco

Back 41

not a double jeopardy violation to increase sentence

Front 42

Afonse Bartkus v. Illinois

Back 42

coordination of federal officials with state officials doesn't violate double jeopardy; dual sovereign

Front 43

Petite v. U.S.

Back 43

precludes later prosecution in different jurisdiction if one has already begun unless 1. substantial federal interest, 2. interest unvindicated, 3. conduct is federal offense and evidence sufficient for conviction

Front 44

Blockburger v. U.S.

Back 44

same elements test

Front 45

Taylor v. Commonwealth

Back 45

can be charged with both theft and assault

Front 46

Grady v. Corbin

Back 46

same conduct

Front 47

U.S. v. Dixon

Back 47

go back to blockburger

Front 48

Ashe v. Swenson

Back 48

same transaction

Front 49

White

Back 49

Single intent and goal

Front 50

Ex Parte Philip Taylor

Back 50

if jury made finding on alcohol intoxication, can't bring another case on marijuana intoxication

Front 51

Bruton v. U.S.

Back 51

if co-∆ confession implicates ∆, and co-∆ doesn't testify at trial, admission of confession violates right to confrontation

Front 52

Brady

Back 52

must disclose evidence favorable to the accused if that evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment

Front 53

Gilgio

Back 53

impeachment information must be disclosed under Brady

Front 54

Smith v. Cain

Back 54

must disclose any favorable treatment in return for testimony

Front 55

People v. Alan Beaman

Back 55

To apply Brady: 1. evidence favorable, 2. suppression willful or inadvertant, 3. accused prejudiced

Front 56

Arizona v. Youngblood

Back 56

only against bad faith failure to retain evidence

Front 57

Hickman v. Taylor

Back 57

work product doctrine

Front 58

State v. John Lucious

Back 58

shouldn't have allowed ∆ access to all the scientific files of prosecution

Front 59

U.S. v. Marion

Back 59

speedy trial applies only after accused of a crime

Front 60

Commonwealth v. Scher

Back 60

20 year delay didn't violate right to due process

Front 61

Beckwith v. Anderson

Back 61

no speedy trial violation because ∆ was responsible and didn't relaly aassert right; no prejudice

Front 62

U.S. v. Lovasco

Back 62

Must show that 1. there was prejudice and 2. there was no good reason for it

Front 63

Barker v. Wingo

Back 63

1. length of delay, 2. reason for delay, 3. assertion of right, 4. prejudice

Front 64

People v. Lumzy

Back 64

no agreement, no breach

Front 65

People v. Evans

Back 65

can't change sentence you agreed to

Front 66

People v. Linder

Back 66

can change if the sentence had no cap

Front 67

Raymond Espinoza v. Hon. Gregory Martin

Back 67

cannot implement policies to automatically reject all plea bargains without considering whether stipulated sentence is better in lihgt of circumstances

Front 68

State v. Brimage

Back 68

having different district guidelines violated the mandate of uniformity

Front 69

State v. Patrick William Casey

Back 69

allowing the victim to speak after plea accepted satisfied his rights

Front 70

Henderson v. Morgan

Back 70

must explain critical elements

Front 71

Moore v. Michigan

Back 71

must have counsel for pleas or waive counsel

Front 72

North Carolina v. Alford

Back 72

can have knowing, intelligent, voluntary plea even if asserting innocence

Front 73

Godinez v. Moran

Back 73

must be mentally competent to plea

Front 74

State v. Landour Bouie

Back 74

judicial interference had a coercive effect, making plea not valid

Front 75

Strauder v. West Virginia

Back 75

Equal protection challenge about excluding blacks from jury

Front 76

Norris v. Alabama

Back 76

quashed statute because in statute it excluded blacks from serving, even though thtey are legally eligible

Front 77

Taylor v. Louisiana

Back 77

Right to challenge; violates right to impartial jury

Front 78

Duren v. Missouri

Back 78

test to show discrimination: 1) distinctive group, 2) representation not the same in group and in society, 3) due to systematic exclusion

Front 79

Ham v. South Carolina

Back 79

no constitutional rule requiring racial inquiry

Front 80

Aldridge v. U.S.

Back 80

more dangerous to allow disqualified people to serve as jurors

Front 81

State v. Reche Smith

Back 81

Court didn't err when they didn't give additional peremptory challenges

Front 82

Batson

Back 82

cannot be sued to exclude jurors by race; 1) show part of racial group, 2) used challenges to remove people of ∆'s race, 3) any other relevant facts/circumstances

Front 83

Rodney Lingo v. State

Back 83

held that prosecution gave valid reasons for dismissal

Front 84

Hernandez v. NY

Back 84

expands to hispanics

Front 85

JEB v. Alabama ex rel TB

Back 85

expands to women

Front 86

Georgia v. McCollum

Back 86

by defendant

Front 87

Commonwealth v. Tuey

Back 87

first established dynamite charge

Front 88

Allen

Back 88

asking minority to reconsider

Front 89

Brasfield

Back 89

can't ask about numerical division

Front 90

Spencer Charge

Back 90

non-coercive charge instructing jurors to be true to their convictions, but reconsider their original views

Front 91

Williams v. Florida

Back 91

6 person jury okay

Front 92

Ballew v. Georgia

Back 92

5 person jury not

Front 93

State v. Sherrie Tucker

Back 93

numerical system not okay

Front 94

Johnson v. Louisiana

Back 94

9-3 okay

Front 95

Burch v. Louisiana

Back 95

5-1 not

Front 96

Globe newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct. for Norfolk County

Back 96

press has right to be in court

Front 97

State v. Barry Garcia

Back 97

proper closure of the court; partial, so you can use "substantial reason" test

Front 98

Waller

Back 98

considering closing: 1. advancing overriding interest likely to be prejudiced, 2. no braoder than necessary, 3. consider reasonable alternatives

Front 99

U.S. v. Klem

Back 99

kid who previously testified in court didn't properly make motions to exclude face-to-face testimony

Front 100

Winegeart v. State

Back 100

test is whether jury applied instruction in an unconstitutional manner

Front 101

Victor v. Nebraska

Back 101

don't have to use any particular words in instruction on reasonable doubt

Front 102

Taylor v. Kentucky

Back 102

refusal to instruct on presumption of innocence is violation of due process

Front 103

Kentucky v. Whorton

Back 103

only have to instruct on presumption if instruction is skeletal

Front 104

Francis v. Franklin

Back 104

split between mandatory presumption v. permissible inference

Front 105

Sandstrom v. Montana

Back 105

conclusive presumptiosn are a due process violation

Front 106

State v. Johnny Rufus Belcher

Back 106

inference of intent was half truth and a mandatory presumption; not okay

Front 107

Romeo v. State

Back 107

disguise violated ∆'s right to confrontation

Front 108

Maryland v. Craig

Back 108

must show emotional trauma for child victims

Front 109

Crawford v. Washington

Back 109

split between testimonial and non-testimonial statements

Front 110

Commonwealth v. Bacigalupo

Back 110

violated confrontation rights to use nickname

Front 111

Richardson v. Marsh

Back 111

can redact to alllow confession

Front 112

Gray v. maryland

Back 112

can't be obvious blank

Front 113

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusettes

Back 113

sworn reports of analysts are testimonial evidence

Front 114

Johnny Carroll v. State

Back 114

inquiry into past crimes permissible to show intent

Front 115

Griffin v. California

Back 115

can't comment on ∆'s choice not to testify

Front 116

Doyle v. Ohio

Back 116

can't talk about pretrial silence after Miranda

Front 117

Fletcher v. Weir

Back 117

okay to talk about post-arrest silence if there's no Miranda

Front 118

People v. Derek Andrades

Back 118

if ∆ wants to perjure, ∆ attorney only has to allow narrative form

Front 119

People v. Victor Reichman

Back 119

allowing false testimony knowingly is a violation of ethical code

Front 120

Nix v. Whiteside

Back 120

attorney doesn't have to remain silent when they know their client is going to commit perjury

Front 121

Miller v. Alabama

Back 121

8th amendment prohibition against life in prison without possibilty of parole for juvenile homicide offenders

Front 122

McCleskey v. Kemp

Back 122

"baldus" study not enough to show discriminatory purpose of legislation

Front 123

Freddie Stephens v. State

Back 123

can't use statistics by themselves to support an inference of discrimination

Front 124

Commonwealth v. Albert Shiffler

Back 124

need chance to redeem himself to be subject to 3 strikes rule

Front 125

Taggart Parrish v. State

Back 125

court had to answer the question of if the ∆ substantially assisted

Front 126

State v. Antwon Johnson

Back 126

allow testimony about gang involvement when demonstrating community impact

Front 127

Booth v. Maryland; South Carolina v. Gathers

Back 127

limited introduction of victim evidence

Front 128

Griffin v. illinois

Back 128

must provide ∆ with free transcript if necessary for appeal

Front 129

Douglas v. California

Back 129

get counsel for initial appeal

Front 130

Anders Brief

Back 130

truncated brief allowed when attorney thinks the appeal is frivolous

Front 131

Mosley v. State

Back 131

rejects anders and adopts aba position

Front 132

Ross v. Moffitt

Back 132

no right for discretionary appellate review

Front 133

US v. Sanges

Back 133

double jeopardy limits appeal

Front 134

Jackson v. Virginia

Back 134

standard of review: whether any reasonable trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt

Front 135

Fahy v. Conneticut

Back 135

erroneous admission of illegal seized can was not harmless; reasonable possibility contribute to conviction

Front 136

Chapman v. California

Back 136

federal constitutional error can be harmless; must be able to declare belief beyond a reasonable doubt

Front 137

Arizona v. Fulminante

Back 137

structrual defects v. trial errors; harmless error to involuntary confessions

Front 138

People v. Budzyn

Back 138

extraneous factors might have affected trial

Front 139

Sullivan v. Louisiana

Back 139

whether verdict was not attributable to error

Front 140

Kotteakos v. U.S.

Back 140

error didn't influence or had slight effect

Front 141

Calder v. Bull

Back 141

manifestly unjust consequences: 1. aggravating the crime, 2. altering the rules of evidence

Front 142

Marion Reynolds Stogner v. California

Back 142

ex post facto clause bars revival of claims excluded by statute of limitations

Front 143

People v. Kurtis Washington

Back 143

free standing claim of innocence can be matter of due process under state constitution

Front 144

Herrera v. Collins

Back 144

free standing claim of innocence not due process issue under federal constitution

Front 145

Wainwright v. Sykes

Back 145

cause and prejudice standard

Front 146

Fay v. noia

Back 146

can bring claim; view ∆ as deliberating waiving appellate review process

Front 147

U.S. v. Frady

Back 147

∆ must show how the procedure worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage

Front 148

Commonwealth v. Taibu Modamu Grant

Back 148

allows ineffective counsel claims on collateral review

Front 149

Hubbard rule

Back 149

bring it up at the first instance; e.g. during appeal

Front 150

Teague v. Lane

Back 150

don't apply new rules to habeas review unless it places conduct beyond states' power to criminalize or is a watershed rule of criminal procedure

Front 151

Boykin Hearing

Back 151

ensure that they understand what's going on in a guilty plea

Front 152

When will counsel be provided for felonies

Back 152

Always.
Johnson v. Zerbst, Gideon v. Wainwright

Front 153

When will counsel be provided for misdemeanors?

Back 153

Always for federal.
For the majority of states when there's actual imprisonment. Scott v. Illinois.

Other approaches:
1. Track federal
2. Add additional crimes (e.g. VT)
3. Let judge decide (e.g. FL)

Front 154

At what point in the process is counsel required?

Back 154

1. Initiation of adversarial proceedings
2. Critical stage

Front 155

Is counsel provided for bail hearings?

Back 155

Usually no. Half do provide in urban centers only.

Front 156

Is counsel provided for psych exams?

Back 156

No right to it in over 20 states.

Front 157

Is counsel provided for sentencing?

Back 157

Yes. You must provide, unless it is a probationary hearing upon violation of probation.

Front 158

Is counsel provided for appeal?

Back 158

For the initial appeal.

Front 159

Do you have to provide an expert?

Back 159

Federal: Yes, if it is significant
State: for those who make particularized showings; might also require showing of prejudice

Front 160

What are the 3 Mechanisms to decide forum?

Back 160

Judicial waiver
Statutory exclusion
Concurrent jurisdiction

Front 161

When is the grand jury required?

Back 161

Federal right always.
No incorporation in the states. Mostly optional, but some have it required for at least some charges.

Others leave it to the legislature.

Front 162

Timing of initial hearing

Back 162

Federal: Within 48 hours
Majority: "reasonable" time (10-20 days)

Front 163

When does Jeopardy attach?

Back 163

At the initial trial when jury is sworn or when the witness is sworn for bench trials.

Front 164

When to sever joint trials?

Back 164

1. Evidence admitted against one defendant is factually incriminating to another
2. There's harmful rub-off effect
3. Disparity in the amount of evidence
4. Defense antagonistic

Front 165

What does materiality under Brady mean?

Back 165

Federal law: Reasonable probability it would have changed the outcome.
Majority: 30 states adopt the federal standard.
Minority of states adopt a more favorable standard.

Front 166

What are the Barker factors

Back 166

1. length of delay
2. Reason for delay
3. Assertion of right
4. Prejudice to defendant

Front 167

What are the prosecutorial guidelines to sentencing?

Back 167

US Sentencing Commission: Real offense sentencing
Redbook: takes away a lot of usual discretion
Thornburgh bluesheet: don't drop unless you cannot prove it
Terwiliger bluesheet: Increased review; moved away from emphasis on types of bargains
Reno: Can consider other factors (E.g. proportionality, if it achieves purposes)
Ashcroft: Most serious, provable offense
Holder: Should advocate wihtin range