This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Accuracy: - Correct results are the goal of the criminal justice system. There is a high standard of proof to protect the defendants from wrongful adjudication. Sometimes there is no way to know if justice is actually being served. Ex: defendant could be of bad character but maybe innocent and there are no witnesses how do you know whether to prosecute? There are so many factors that go into accuracy including: right to counsel, impartial jury, public trials, and defendant’s right to call witnesses.
Fairness: - What constitutes fair? Equality Limited-Government Provisions: - The bill of rights limits the ability of the government to interfere with the people (to protect us from a central government). - The fifth amendment is what truly protects the citizenry. Efficiency: - Balance between speedy trial and the rights of the party, there has been some damage to the system because the Judge wants to clear cases from his calendar so it may gloss over too many cases it may lead to conviction or release of defendants due to the need to clear the cases. Plea Bargaining really speeds up the process, but is this justice if the defendant pleads guilty just to hedge his/her chances? Without plea-bargaining the system would bog down due to the amount of time needed to try all the cases.
PRETRIAL RELEASE: (764-774)
1. System begins at arrest and filing of the complaint. 2. After arrest a hearing is held pertaining to bail (arraignment) [in lesser crimes there is no hearing, the police release the defendant with a set bail]. This is an issue of freedom. They set the conditions of containment. BAIL Ways to get people out of jail: 1. Police let you out on bail or with a citation 2. Release on recognizance (sign a certification to show up again) 3. Supervised or Unsupervised Release (sometimes the defendant is required to get treatment) 4. Unsecured bond on failure of defendant to show; only applies if defendant fails to show 5. Deposit bond (10% program): defendant can get out by posting 10% of the bail amount but gets the money back if they show up in court. 6. Full bond: secured; generally you go to a bailbondsman and he will keep the 10% and he basically guarantees that you will show *Stack v. Boyle p.769: - Excessive bail under the 8th amend. - Court finds that there is no right to pre-trial release. - Your right to release is conditioned upon assurance that you will not flea the jurisdiction and will show up in court for your hearings. - Therefore, bail can only be so high as to provide adequate assurance that the defendant will show for trial. If a bail amount which is greater than is usually fixed for a crime is applied evidence should be produced to support that unusually high bail. The Federal Reform Act of 1984 (note 8 p.773) - Provides that a judicial officer may not impose a financial condition that results in the pretrial detention of that person. This is to force the judge to use the preventative detention provisions of the statute. There is racism in the system, because the whites make bail far more often and those that make bail are less often convicted because if in jail at time of trial it seems as though you are already guilty.
This is also often the case with drug dealers.No constitutional right to bail. . 50 of supplement: “the judicial officer may not impose a financial condition that results in the pretrial detention of the person.Furthermore. Salerno p. Court can extend the commitment indefinitely. .States are not subject to the Bail Reform Act. .This is seen as ok because it is regulatory and not punishment . in appropriate circumstances.PREVENTIVE DETENTION *United States v. Gillespie p. . *Rothgery v. or be seen as soft to the public in big cases. outweigh an individual’s liberty interest.” Involuntary Civil Commitment: . then preventative detention is fine.This can be a problem because the defendant can hurt his case if he speaks at the hearing.Burden to prove need for civil commitment is “danger to self or others. .Therefore if the goal is to protect community safety. It is for rehabilitation of the person’s mental health.This is not classified as punishment. you can be detained and it is not considered excessive. However it should not be used to ensure that defendant shows at trial.Court holds that preventative detention under the Bail Reform Act is regulatory and not punitive (detention cannot be forever due to the speedy trial statute which requires a trial within 180 days of indictment). because they see bail as part of the cost of doing business. Bail Reform Act of 1982 §3142(c)(2) p. .Judges might set bail high to prevent perpetrator from fleeing or being a danger to society.Public Defender does not have to be supplied at the bail hearing. substantiality of the Government’s evidence. .10 of the supplement: . the arrestee’s background and characteristics.774: . . In their case they are more likely to detain in capital cases because the defendant’s are more likely to flee. Trentonian Factor: Appellate Judges do not reverse high bail because they don’t want to be put in the Newspaper and have the perp injure someone else.However. .” Sexual Predator Laws: . Bail Reform Act etc.If acquitted by reason of insanity person is put in a mental institution for upwards of the maximum sentence for the crime. there are factors for determining whether bail can be denied: nature and seriousness of the charges. and the nature and seriousness of the danger posed by the suspect’s release. a sexual predator is evaluated and the court can be persuaded that defendant will be a continuing danger.At the end of a sentence. . the government’s regulatory interest in community safety can.
Arrests are made first. Armstrong p. Prosecutor should use subpoena power to compel. the defendant is not entitled to discovery on the selective prosecution issue. .Therefore. They are kept secret.The prosecutor can bring a high number of charges but the judge will not sentence on them all. then a complaint is issued and charges are rendered.800: . . .Supreme Court held that the defendant failed to establish a threshold showing. however. Where witness refuses to testify. is concerned with fairness and felt that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing discovery. Cont. like the case and go for an indictment 2. 4. State level is different. The standards are in no way exhaustive and are not always applicable. which is that the Government declined to prosecute similarly situated suspects of other races. Cases which the prosecutor decides not to prosecute do not have arrests. . This is because the wife often doesn’t want them to and will refuse to testify.The dissent. Domestic Violence Crimes tough for the prosecutor to charge. Prosecutor should not bring or seek charges greater in number or degree than can reasonably be supported at trial or to fairly reflect gravity of offense. .PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION IN CHARGING: P. or 3. Merger: All similar crimes can merger the lesser offenses into the larger offenses. 2. dismiss the case if it is sucks. or protecting someone. (State is far more public whereas fed is more private) The state prosecutor can screen cases in 3 ways: 1. corrupt. or feels that they are incompetent.Rationale: The majority is concerned with efficiency because they feel that freely allowing discovery in these matters will bog down the system.Reasons to bring all charges: To get the defendant to plea bargain or in case the prosecutor does not think the greater charges will garner convictions.AG can take over any case and can even take over a whole office. He may do so where he wants to take pressure off a prosecutor. 793 At the federal level. the prosecutor chooses which cases to prosecute and then arrest warrants are issued for those defendants. .Defendant claimed to be selectively prosecuted because he was black. . downgrade the crime and send it to municipal court Attorney General: . the office. Prosecutor doesn’t have to bring all charges that are supported by the evidence.He wanted discovery on the issue. . Prosecutor should not bring charges absent probable cause or sufficient admissible evidence to support conviction. 5. *United States v. Standards of the Bar p.797: 1. 3. .Has supervisory powers over the prosecutors even though the prosecutors are appointed by the governor.
The Supreme Court held that the Prosecutor has a right to bring charges for an increased punishment but not in order to punish defendants for appealing their convictions nor could the prosecutor bring greater charges in order to discourage appeals.Prosecutor brought charges for a harsher penalty after the defendant appealed his conviction. a prosecutor would try to avoid this by indicting the defendant. . the Judge will dismiss it and take it off the prosecutor’s hands without him having to take blame for it.Defendant claims that this was unconstitutional. In most states the prosecutor must have notice of a preliminary hearing.812: . NOTES: . JUDICIAL SCREENING – PRELIMINARY HEARINGS: p. Alabama p. the prosecutor may want to let it get to the preliminary hearing.* Blackledge v. which is ordered by a Judge. They are also to screen cases *Cleman v. .Court held that counsel would have affected the trial so counsel is necessary for preliminary hearings. . If the case is not good. 812 Preliminary hearings are basically a chance for the defendant to look at the prosecutor’s charging documents.Court states there has to be an analysis of: o Whether there was a chance for substantial prejudice and o Whether presence of counsel would avoid that prejudice. That way.Courts expect greater probable cause where no warrant was issued for the arrest. . .Counsel not provided for defendant at the preliminary hearing. Therefore. Perry p. which would make the hearing moot.808: .
They are chosen the same way that jurors are chosen for voire dire and there is more leeway for excusing them because it can be a 24 month process.The contempt conviction was upheld on appeal. Grand Jury is a good way to screen cases because you get a good feel from the jury preliminarily. the rule for denying privilege is that it must be perfectly clear.“To sustain the privilege it need only be evident from the implications of the question in the setting in which it is asked. existence of evidence 2.838: .Rules of evidence for hearsay do not apply to grand jury.Only issue to be decided at grand jury is probable cause and not to decide guilt. .Court holds that prosecutor was not required to provide the grand jury with the exculpatory evidence.GRAND JURY SCREENING: 818-834. that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result. and that the answers cannot possibly have such tendency to incriminate. . Notes: .grand jury problems make no difference once a verdict has come down from the real jury and the mistake is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt PREPARING FOR ADJUDICATION 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is the most important privilege! Privilege can be used by a defendant who claims his innocence as well as the defendant who is guilty. . show up and bring stuff (duces tecum) *Hoffman v.Court said no supervisory authority to force prosecutor to disclose.” . . that the witness is mistaken. 2 types of subpoenas: 1.Prosecutor failed to disclose substantial exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. location of evidence 3. Supreme Court reversed holding that the privilege applies to answers that would support a conviction or provide a link in the chain of evidence. . Williams p824: . *US v. . 837-849 If the prosecutor does a good enough job indoctrinating the grand jury they should get whatever they want. . from a careful consideration of all the circumstances in the case. Imposing such would run counter to the traditional function of the grand jury (and it is not their job to consider exculpatory evidence).Defendant was convicted of contempt for not answering questions about which he claimed his 5th amend privilege.The dissent however felt that the prosecutor has to be fair at the grand jury and should provide the info. to show up and talk(testify) 2. US p.Therefore. identification of evidence . Production could be testimonial in 3 circumstances: 1.
Government wanted tax documents and the court found that they were not involuntarily produced and that the incrimination happens at the creation of the documents therefore all voluntarily made documents are discoverable. . transactional immunity: covers all convictions related to the testimony. US . there is no privilege for documents.Fisher v. Compulsion of documents: . 844: Court holds that use immunity is constitutional The immunities overlap both state and federal jurisdictions and the immunized testimony cannot be used for any reason. location of the evidence (possession/control of the documents) 3. US p. *Kastigar v. . use and fruits immunity: transaction not immunized but testimony and anything that comes from that testimony (evidence as well) is immunized (so can still prosecute for that crime just cannot use that evidence or testimony).Also. 2. which were voluntarily created.5th amendment doesn’t apply because no one compelled you to make them. including impeachment (with the exception of perjury) .5th amendment only applies to testimonial acts not including participating in a lineup or submitting a blood sample. . 2 types of immunity: 1. Production Issue: The act of turning over documents can convey three things 1. It is important for the prosecutor to build his case and collect the evidence before immunizing the witness. the documents exist (government may not have known about their existence 2.Testimonial evidence requires a communicative act.To get around the 5th amendment privilege the prosecutor can grant immunity. says “these are the records I believe you asked for” Immunity: .
The government tried to use this testimony against him at trial and the court found that the testimony from the hearing cannot be used against you.856: jurors are impartial if they can lay aside any impressions they had formed “and render a verdict based on the evidence in court. facilitates plea bargaining MOTION TO SUPPRESS . Dowd p. . Rule 21(a) motion to change venue based upon prejudice Rule 21(b) motion to change venue based upon convenience of the parties Note 7 p.In the states you can request a foreign jury as an alternative to a motion for change of venue (they bring in jurors from another county). file everything for which you have a colorable claim (if the case is not very strong or important.Simmons: Police seized D suitcase from a friend’s house and he asserted his right to privacy in testimony regarding a motion to suppress. smooth and efficient trials 2. MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE Venue is where the crime occurred. 3 Goals of Pretrial Motion Practice: 1.858: Sept. this approach may turn up some interesting evidence or may lock in the witnesses testimony.Rationale: You should not have to sacrifice one constitutional right for another. aside from for impeachment. a person has standing to bring a motion to suppress when their “legitimate expectation of privacy was violated”. Whether the setting of the trial was inherently prejudicial. . Murphy Test p.857: Two Pronged Inquiry 1. Of course it may have the opposite effect by pissing off the prosecutor and limiting the client’s access to a good plea bargain.e. i. 11 hijacker case court held that he was going to be prejudiced in every jurisdiction in the US so no need to move it from Washington DC . Good idea to change venue when defendant feels he cannot get an impartial jury. or 2. .Therefore.However this is not possible at the federal level because the districts are too large. Furthermore.” Foreign Jury: . prevents prejudicing the jury with inadmissible testimony 3. . the prosecutor may offer a plea or to dismiss to avoid all the work).PRETRIAL MOTIONS: P.850 One view on the issue is to paper the government to death. *Irivn v. The jury selection process of which defendant complains permits an inference of actual prejudice.
the government must provide all exculpatory evidence or else they are violating due process. *US v.Rationale: Court found that the state did not rely on the missing materials and that the defense had other means of proving innocence.Rationale: The test moves focus to the result. 858-890 When requesting discovery ask for everything you want because you want to make the state defend its rights not to share. failure to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence doesn’t constitute a denial of due process.863: Upon request. . Agurs p. .This thereby says that failure to disclose exculpatory evidence can be excusable.865: (KILLS BRADY) .883: . Vilardi p. (there is one caveat. as opposed to the process.Police failed to preserve potentially exculpatory bodily fluids.863: Obvious exculpatory evidence creates duty to disclose. when the defense requests materials it triggers a reciprocal obligation so you should not ask for anything you don’t want to give up [state can’t ask for things you don’t ask for]) *Brady v. Puts burden on reviewing court to look at entire trial to see if the exculpatory evidence would have affected the verdict (no longer a constitutional violation) *US v. . . o Brady test is far more stringent with more for the prosecutor to lose because the defendant would be guaranteed a do-over. o Bagley creates an incentive for the defense to look hard for exculpatory evidence because there is no longer a guaranteed do-over.874: .DISCOVERY: p. state complied with both Agurs and Brady.Defendant argued that this rule forced him to testify against himself in violation of the 5th and 14th amendments.” is used.Holds that in a Brady case involving exculpatory evidence the Agurs standard of whether “there is a reasonable probability that.FL rule forced defendants to offer any alibi before the trial or the evidence was suppressed and in return the prosecution had to inform defendant of any witnesses to be used to rebut. Youngblood p. . Plus.Court held that unless bad faith on part of the police. *People v. .864: NY case that rejects the Bagley view and accepts the Brady view. MD p.Dissent did not like the “Bad Faith” rule because it is almost impossible to prove and does not create a bright line. the result of the proceeding would have been different. . . Bagley p. had the evidence been disclosed to the defense. FL p. *AZ v. *Williams v.Court held that alibis are not compelled and the statute did not affect his decision to claim it therefore the statute does not violate the 5th amendment.
The more charges the more likely the conviction and joinder effect was greater where case was weak. based on same transaction or part of same scheme or plan.“where there is smoke there is fire” theory and jury might confuse evidence and wrongly construe .with jury or . Reldan p.892: .(b) Court can ask prosecution to hear in camera any statement by the defendant that prosecution wishes to use as evidence There is potential for bias in joinder: .Offenses may be joined if of similar character. *State v.Court establishes categories to define types of prejudice: o When defendant may become embarrassed or confounded in presenting separate defenses o When Jury may use the evidence of one of the crimes to infer guilt in the other o When Jury may cumulate the evidence of the various crimes and find guilty where if severed they would not have found guilt .(a) Counts or defendants can be severed if there will be prejudice to a defendant or the prosecution. .(b) Defendants can be joined if all took part in the same action not all must be charges in all counts Rule 14 Fed Rules of Crim Pro: SEVERANCE . . . Defendant wants to sever because he feels it is prejudicial.Court found that joinder was not prejudicial because evidence of one homicide would not be evidence of the other.Man charged with the murder of 2 women and the cases were joined.JOINDER AND SEVERANCE: Rule 8(a) of Fed Rules of Crim Pro: JOINDER . .
length of delay (must have some sort of triggering mechanism) 2. negligence) will weigh against government [however the delay may be legitimate such as a missing witness] 3. On one hand you want to be fair and not delay trial for long on the other hand you do not want to set criminals free due to delay.A Due Process violation would “if it were shown at trial that the pre-indictment delay caused substantial prejudice to defendant’s rights to a fair trial and that the delay was an intentional device to gain tactical advantage over the accused.But it often doesn’t arise because both sides want to delay . defendants responsibility to assert his rights [theory is that is the defendant was being hurt by the delay he would be screaming about it.In the federal system the government has 6 months to try you .There is a problem with speedy trial doctrine. So court adopts a 4 factor balancing test: 1. Undue delay requires dismissal with prejudice.Both sides usually agree to postpone the arraignment until right before trial to prevent triggering of the statute. *Strunk v.SPEEDY TRIAL: 897-913 Guaranteed by the 6th Amendment. Pre-Indictment Delay: . Marion . US: p 909: Affirms remedy of dismissal with prejudice when a speedy trial violation is found. .898: .Court rejects the demand waiver rule which would require a defendant to request a speedy trial because it goes against waiver law. prejudice to the defendant Factors 3 and 4 are the most important.” . Court found that he was not denied a speedy trial because he was waiting for result of his friends trial to use the result in his own trial.US v. Wingo p. Federal Speedy Trial Act: . reasons for delay (neutral dealy (back log. if not screaming then not hurt by it] 4. *Barker v.
When appealing Guilty Plea or Nolo Contendre: The case falls in the ambit of Douglas and a lawyer is required for the first appeal. *Douglas v.Furthermore.Court held that this was not ineffective assistance of counsel.6th amendment was not applied in Douglas because 6th only deals with criminal prosecution. . (for capital cases) *Betts v.Court feels that failure to appoint counsel on first appeal is discriminatory because in CA everyone gets case looked at on first appeal. a misdemeanor. (overturns Brady) *Scott v. He had appointed counsel and he wanted to appeal. .Defendant moved for ineffective assistance of counsel.951: picks up where Douglas left off. . Note 4 p.919: Justice White is almost advocating an anything goes attitude for the defense counsel with exceptions for illegal acts such as making up evidence or to encourage lying.He argued that Argersinger requires appointment of counsel whenever there is a punishment of imprisonment. . RIGHT TO APPOINTED COUNSEL: 931-956 *Powell v. *Gideon v. CA p. Moffit p. *Ross v.Harlan in the dissent says cannot be equal protection because it would mean that Gideon was wrong.938: . court found that to satisfy due process defendant required counsel.931: Court held that in a criminal case the assistance of counsel is required to satisfy the 6th amendment. Rationale that the affluent would have a much greater chance of winning appeal because they could afford counsel. .924: . Supreme Court holds that counsel is not necessary because jury trial not required for petty offenses (6 month prison term or less). Illinois p.930: Knowledge standard required to determine whether client will perjure himself.931: counsel need not be appointed in all cases and left the decision to the discretion of the trial court where the standard would be failure to appoint counsel would be offensive to the common and fundamental ideas of fairness.931: Defendant was indigent and couldn’t handle their own case. Wainwright p. that the indigent is not required to be given counsel. . there is no Due Process argument because DP only deals with a fair trial.Defendant charged with theft. . . Overturned by Gideon.Note: A suspended sentence still leads to a right to counsel. .DEFENSE ETHICS: 914-931 Note 1 p.Defendant appealed for lack of counsel. The court feels that because there is no denial of access because the record is already developed and the appeal is at the discretion of the court.Court finds if defendant will be sentenced with imprisonment then the right to counsel arises.946: . . Brady p. Whiteside p. . Alabama p. and there was a bench trial.Defendant wanted to commit perjury and lawyer knew and threatened to withdraw if defendant did so. .Defendant was indigent and convicted.Case holds that an indigent is not required to have counsel for discretionary appeals to the Supreme Court.Equal protection was never cited in the case but it appears to be the basis for the decision. . Zealous advocacy… *Nix v.
.Dissent: attacks the historical analysis because the constitutional argument is lacking because there is not express writing to grant this right.RIGHT OF SELF-REPRESENTATION: 957-73 *Faretta v. Note 4 p. .967: assistance of counsel is default position and the court will not ask if defendant wants to represent himself. 966: Autonomy Right diminishes post-trial therefore upon appeal court can appoint counsel (no right to appeal so out of the 6th amendment context) Note 2 p. (counsel’s errors deprived the defendant of a fair trial). Morris v.Defendant should be made aware of the potential problems so they can make a wise choice.966: many people who represent themselves have an agenda and don’t want counsel because they won’t go as far as the defendant wants them to.968: competency to waive counsel. • Not guaranteed perfect assistance just acceptable assistance. Edwards. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: 973-1004 *Strickland v. Now about fair result where before it was about fair process. Note 5 p. Washington p. Note 5 p. Bad tactics are not reviewable because not all tactics work out. if D is disruptive in his own representation than his self representation can be terminated.957: . . .973: • Benchmark for judging any claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.1004: What happens where the appointed counsel knew the case would lose so purposely acted ineffectively by doing nothing to get defendant new trial? Appellate court suggested in these circumstances that the judge should ask the defendant if he was satisfied with the attorney in attempt to get him to waive his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. o By stating that all rights go to the accused not to the lawyer of the accused the 6th amendment provides the right of the defendant to make own defense.However. • SO basically this is not a performance test. Slappy Note 11C p. CA p. Note 9 p. Either because of ethics or would not sit well with the bar. it is a test to see if the counsel prejudiced the defendant. See p. It’s up to the defendant to request to represent himself.992: Freedom to choose counsel does not apply to appointed counsel. • 2 components to the defendant’s argument must be proved: o (1) the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient (including errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as counsel guaranteed by the 6th amendment) o (2) the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.Court holds that the right to make your own defense is in the 6th amendment by implication.Question of whether the defendant can be allowed to proceed without counsel when he knowingly and intelligently elects to do so. 11 of supplement for Indiana v. .
knowing and intelligent *Brady v. . changes in the law do not invalidate pleas. o Collateral consequences of the plea do not have to be explained by the prosecutor or the Judge (such as immigration law which may require deportation if convicted or meghan’s law) *North Carolina v.” Note 3 p.1012: most defendants plead because they think it will lead to a more lenient sentence. Wired Pleas: Where one plea is contingent on another person’s plea is ok so long as the cases are connected somehow. which is often the case.Supreme Court upheld the plea because he was sufficiently aware of his circumstances and he made his choice voluntarily with competent counsel. CHARACTERISTICS OF A VALID GUILTY PLEA: .Defendant stated that he was pleading guilty to avoid the death sentence not because he was guilty.Voluntary. .Defendant was then give the max sentence of 30 years and he later sought post conviction relief. .Defendant must know what they are giving up in order to plead guilty.1012: Judge Easterbrook thinks plea bargaining is best because it is good for both sides.1017: .PLEA BARGAINING AND GUILTY PLEAS: 1017-34 Fed Rule of Crim Pro 11 purtains to Pleas Note 1 p.1011: there would be more trials without pleas which the author thinks may bring more reliable results. Alford p.1022: Yates who drowned her children could not assert Jackson if the jury recommended the death penalty because Yates involved a plea and Jackson involved a statute. the judge wants to seem firm on crime so they give harsher sentences because it is more public.1029: . Cont. .) Note 2 p. . According to Fed R Crim Pro 11: Judicial participation in plea bargaining is not supposed to happen.Defendant pled guilty to avoid the implementation of a statute which allows the jury to recommend the death penalty.Defendant must know what they are pleading guilty to.“Compromise better than conflict. . Where a case has a lot of public notoriety it may be hard to plea bargain because a plea can give the appearance of not guilty. . The statute was invalidated and the defendant appealed his plea. Statute: Note 3 p. Furthermore. Plea vs. US p.Defendant was fully aware of the consequences and he met classic waiver requirements. Where a case goes to trial. Holding: the Judge can accept a guilty plea if the facts seem to negate innocence even if the defendant professed his innocence during his guilty plea. (plus you don’t want to deny the public the right to know if actually guilty.
plea only has to be knowing and intelligent.Remanded with 2 options: re-sentence with new Judge or allow defendant to withdraw the plea. .Dissent would eliminate the ability for vindictiveness by making the prosecutors show all charges to the defendant and attorney. will harm another defendant. the defense attorney should do the questioning not the Judge . . Purpose of Bordenkircher and Blackledge is to prevent vindictiveness by the prosecutor. The 6th circuit ended up reversing on Blackledge grounds.1042: .“To punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort.Can there be ineffective assistance of counsel in the plea stage? YES . .1034: .Defendant agreed to plea bargain in which prosecutor would make no sentence recommendation. a broken deal was not a problem because the defendant accepted a later deal. o In Mabry. . A new prosecutor was assigned to the case and he recommended a max sentence. Supreme Court held that Blackledge didn’t apply. Hayes p.Issue: Can the prosecutor threaten to bring more charges to coerce the defendant into taking the deal? . and for an Agent of the State to pursue a course of action whose objective is to penalize a person’s reliance on his legal rights is ‘patently unconstitutional. No constitutional requirement for factual basis. .Factual basis for the plea is given under oath therefore. there is no such element of punishment or retaliation so long as the accused is free to accept or reject the prosecution’s offer. it may be harder for the defendant to talk to the Judge than his own attorney. The judge does not have to accept every guilty plea and a criminal defendant doesn’t have a constitutional right to have their plea accepted.to control the communication of the facts and prevent the defendant from saying something he will regret. or hurt the defendant in another case.Coercion does not equal vindictiveness. NY p.Supreme Court held that plea promises must be fulfilled and there is no harmless error because no way to tell what effect the recommendation had on Judge.’ But in the ‘give-and-take’ of plea bargaining. the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s errors.Defendant objected but after discussions with the Judge it became clear that the recommendation had no effect and the judge would have given max anyway.” . .State Appeals said it was fine.Furthermore.In order to satisfy the prejudice requirement of ineffective assistance of counsel for a plea bargain. he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. . . .Due process was most likely the constitutional issue because the defendant was denied the benefit of his bargain and was unknowing. BREAKING THE DEAL: *Santobello v. Note 4 p.1033: not all states allow nolo contendere pleas including and there still must be a factual basis MAKING AND BREAKING DEALS: 1034-54 *Bordenkircher v.
completeness.The guilty plea cannot be coerced and since it is a waiver of trial. it is also a waiver of the right to contest admissibility of evidence. . Note: When client lies you should have him admit it on the stand to avoid the gotcha moment. The sentence reduction was contingent upon the prosecutor’s assessment of defendant’s truthfulness.1060: conditional pleas pursuant to Fed Rule of Crim Pro 11(b) can be had to preserve appellate review of certain pretrial motions and the defendant may withdraw the plea if successful on the appeal. .Whether a valid guilty plea can be impeached is a collateral matter by assertions of proof that the plea was motivated by a prior coerced confession. Brechner p. Judge found that he was cooperative and it was warranted.Cont. . Note 3 p. *US v. the 2nd circuit felt the lies undermined the defendant’s credibility and made his cooperation useless. and cooperativeness. . Richardson p. accuracy. PROCEDURAL EFFECT OF A GUILTY PLEA: 1055-60 *McMann v.1049: .In debriefing the defendant lied about kickbacks but later admitted it and corrected it. The prosecutor did not offer up the sentence reduction at sentencing and the defendant objected.On appeal.Defendant offered up info in exchange for a sentence reduction.1055: .
*Farretta: 6th amendment guarantees right to represent oneself but where defendant waives jury the prosecution must consent.A petty offense (punishable by jail of 6 months or less) do not qualify for trial by jury. cause: something that would render the juror unable to serve (i. Louisiana a 5-1 verdict is unconstitutional with 6 jurors must be unanimous. Georgia states that 5 people is too small a jury. bias) 2.Jury nullification allows a jury to afford higher justice by refusing to enforce harsh laws . [if only 6 jurors than they must be unanimous] o Burch v. . Louisiana p. . or eccentric judge.A distinctive group is (1) group defined and limited by some factor (like race or sex) (2) a group with a common thread or basic similarity in attiture. . protection from an overzealous prosecutor and the compliant. or experience runs through the group and (3) a community of interests among members of the group such that the group’s interest cannot be adequately represented if the group is excluded fron the jury selection process. General Policies: .Sometimes where the issues are very technical or facts are really disturbing is a reason to waive a jury.States don’t have to require 12 people to make up a Jury but shouldn’t have less than 6. RIGHT TO IMPARTIAL JURY and VOIRE DIRE: 1061-1102 *Taylor v. . . .Court says women have different sensibilities than men therefore without women on the jury not a fair representation of the community. .Ballew v. Lousiana p. . Rationale: Because if defendant forced to have jury he has at least got what was guaranteed by the constitution.Women cannot be excluded from the jury pool because it is not a representative cross-section.1075: .State must be 9-3 or better.jurors can ask questions of witnesses Defendant can waive a jury trial with approval of court and consent of the government.THE RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL JURY: 1061-82 *Duncan v. Challenges: 1. .e. peremptory: exclude a juror because attorney doesn’t want them on jury .Many jurors feel mental health is a poor excuse.1062: right to trial by jury is to prevent oppression by the government.societal interest in jury trials because the people’s interest in the trial is upheld to allow them to prevent the arbitrary use of the judicial system . biased.Jury trial is often waived where the defendant has a mental health problem and they are at issue.Federal cases must have unanimous verdicts but in state that is not the case. . Size of Jury and Verdict: .D must show a systematic exclusion of a distinctive group. ideas. Proving Unfair Cross-section: .Not an equal protection case it’s a 6th amendment case. Voire Dire used to make sure the jury is actually impartial.
Mississippi an error in dismissing a Juror reverses the death penalty but not the guilty determination. *Rostino v.Supreme Court held that a race based question didn’t have to be asked.1094: Jurors were asked about NRA membership.Attorney was asking the jurors questions regarding racism.” *US v.Judge didn’t want them to be asked. Intrusive Voir Dire: Some questions may embarrass the jurors of the venir VOIRE DIRE IN A HIGHLY CHARGED CRINIMAL PROSECUTION *People v.Different from Ham because defendant in Ham was a civil rights activist whereas Rostino wasn’t a race based case so the questions not necessary. . Witt: challenges for cause in a capital case should be treated no differently than non-capital cases. Witherspoon: If juror is so opposed to death penalty they would not impose regardless the verdict. Murray: Capital Case . .1083: Case about drug possession where the defendant was black civil rights activist. . defendant can request that the jurors be questioned about race because it is the Jury who decides the penalty in capital cases therefore there is a need to uncover racial bias. Ross . *Turner v. .Court holds that membership in the NRA should not exclude those jurors in a case involving gun laws. Salamone p. since juror was dismissed the jury was impartial and that is the real issue.RACISM IN JURY SELECTION *Ham v. .In reverse Witherspoon scenario where juror would vote for death regardless. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict on the evidence presented in court. *Gray v.Where crime is interracial. . than they can be excluded for cause. The Supreme Court upheld the questions had to be asked. Newton p.Court therefore held that loss of peremptory was not a constitutional issue. SC p. 2 types of bias: actual and implied Wainright v. .1089: “it is not required that the jurors be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. could be excluded for cause but didn’t matter because defendant used a peremptory. these jurors are called Witherspoon excludables (they are not a distinct class).
Notes: . Batson 3 Step Process: . Batson cases are either won at the trail level or not at all (a few cases aside).fair cross-section applies to jury pool not to actual jury .striking all people who speak a certain language may be pretext for racial discrimination . .1104: . Batson applies to the actions of the defense counsel as well as the prosecution.Batson case opposed to Taylor case? . Kentucky p.If explanation is tendered. Doesn’t take much to bring a Batson claims and almost all get to stage 3. .Miller-El cases only post Batson cases decided for the defendant.no standing requirement for a Batson challenge .Supreme Court held that intentionally striking jurors based upon race is unconstitutional and it must be proved by defendant. Prosecutor then has a chance to provide neutral reasoning for the dismissals other than race. even if not factually backed) . however stage 3 relies upon trial court’s measurement of prosecutor’s credibility and this is a fact issue given great deference upon appeal. . court decides if race discrimination was in fact proven.Prima facie case of race discrimination made o Step one is satisfied by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw and inference that discrimination has occurred.PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES AND BATSON – 1102-1125 *Batson v. . must show race neutral explanation (of any sort.Court remanded to either pick new jury or to reverse the peremptories and sit that jury.Burden shifts.Batson applies to gender. . Defendant was denied a new jury. Consequently.Defendant was a black man and the Prosecutor used his peremptories to excuse all the blacks from the jury.
1126: Jury has an inherent power to disregard evidence and acquit if conscious provides.Juror was dismissed and Court had to figure out if nullification was an appropriate reason. .However Jury no longer informed of its right to nullify. Thomas p.Defense counsel cannot ask the jury to nullify because as officer of the court you are asking the jurors to violate their oath.Power not right to nullify do we acknowledge that the power exists? No. o difficult to separate nullification from bad or ignorant behavior. if the juror is behaving badly but still deciding on the weight of the evidence then he can’t be dismissed. . How do we do this and still protect the deliberation process and its secrecy? Notes: .JURY NULLIFICATION: 1126-41 *US v. .Judge wanted to inform the jury of the potential lengthy sentence behind the crime (to be issued against a young man) the underlying intent was to try for nullification. . .However. Dougherty p. This was found to be improper because guilt and sentencing are separate stages.Court has the power to remove a juror under 23(b). *US v. .1127: .
1157: Defendant can introduce testimony of dead witness from a previous trial where witness was cross-examined by a person with a similar or identical interest. Court found that it was OK. *Giles p. .14 of Supplement: Dying declarations are admissible as is forfeiture by wrongdoing where the wrongdoing designed to prevent the witness from testifying. Washington p.Face-to-face confrontation was not necessary also because the jury had the ability to analyze the testimony and witnesses demeanor.1163: Court reverses Roberts dicta which dealt with the indicia of reliability thereby divorcing confrontation issues from reliability issues. (this violates the confrontation clause because it is testimonial) .1153: White victim allegedly raped by a black defendant and another person which was corroborated by a black person whom she was living. Court says that confrontation is merely a rule of procedure to be used to guarantee cross-examination. *Crawford v. 1157-8: same as Mattox rule but State wanted to introduce the testimony.1141: Can a child testify outside the defendant’s presence to prevent emotional disturbance or a frozen witness? . *Ohio v. .Court held this was ok because the defendant had the right to observe the proceedings and the defense attorney would have right to cross-examination. . Craig p.She then changed the story to say only raped by the defendant.Both the witness and the victim testified at trial and the Judge denied cross-examination about their relationship. call to 911) *Hammond: where a victim is interviewed by police that is testimonial.CONFRONTATION CLAUSE: 1141-1157 *MD v.This violated the right to confrontation and was not harmless error. Kentucky p. .e. Roberts Rule p. *Olden v. *Davis: reporting incident for help is not considered testimonial (i. Rape shield statutes prevents examination of the victims past sexual experiences HEARSAY AND CONFRONTATION: *Mattox Rule p.
Texas p.1178: Supreme Court holds that a confession is barred as evidence against a co-defendant in a case called Bruton there. *Taylor v. .1191: the redaction changed the meaning of the confession so it violates the rights of the defendant. .Court says redactions come close to being ineffective due to the facts and in reality no redaction has taken place thereby denied by Bruton/Cruz. Note 3 p.Therefore. *US v.1183: deals with redaction as a way to introduce a confession and satisfy Bruton.-In Cruz however both defendants confessed and the confessions interlocked it doesn’t matter because they will not be able to be separated by the jury so inadmissible. *Cruz v.1191: defendants barred from calling co-defendants as witnesses because they are expected to be biased. Illinois p. MD p. .1193: compulsory relates to documents as well as witnesses.1191: pronouns can sometimes be used to satisfy the redaction RIGHT TO COMPULSORY PROCESS: 1191-1203 Obtaining Witness In Your Favor: *Washington v.RIGHT TO HAVE CO-DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION EXCLUDED (BRUTON): 1177-91 Bruton: Incriminating confessions of co-defendant violate confrontation clause and are inadmissible. in order to introduce a confession it must not suggest another party to the crime (merely erasing the co-defendant’s name is ineffective). no chance for cross. Burr p. allowing these games would hurt the whole justice system. • Judge did a credibility determination on the witnesss before barring them from testifying (credibility is a jury decision).1194: Supreme Court upholds the right of the Judge to bar witnesses where the defendant waited to call the witnesses until the 11th hour as a tactic in violation of the discovery rule. Note 4 p. . NY p. *Gray v. Supreme Court held that this was a violation of the 6th amendment because it denied compulsory process and the justification was insufficient. • Court said that misconduct implicates the whole fairness of the process which goes beyond tactical issues.
Ark: Hypnosis Case • Supreme Court rejected a decision to deny any testimony by the defendant that had been hypnotically refreshed Rationale behind rule was that no way to know if actual recollection or was suggested during the hypnosis). Kentucky: defendants have a right to an instruction that the jury should make no inferences from failure to testify. which is like a penalty for not testifying. *Griffin v. California p. Witness Sequestration: can be used to prevent the witnesses from becoming biased by the other witnesses’ testimony or from being influenced by it. • The Judge instructed the Jury that not testifying on own behalf did not equate to being guilty. (what if defendant doesn’t want this instruction?) • *Lakeside: held that instruction doesn’t violate self-incrimination clause. • The Supreme Court felt it infringed upon the defendant’s right to testify on his own behalf. • Dissent felt that the statements did not compel the defendant to testify and the limiting instruction was sufficient and beneficial to his case because it instructed the jury not to speculate on the defendant’s lack of testimony (jury would have noticed on their own).1205: Prosecutor commented to the jury about the defendant’s non-testimony. • Supreme Court said that these types of statements violate the 5th amendment by allowing the jury to use not testifying as evidence.DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO TESTIFY: 1203-1213 *rock v. . *Carter v.
Juror had applied for a job at the DA’s office. or tampering directly or indirectly. any private communication. (Even though the juror looked at the newspaper.” JURY TAMPERING *Remmer. NOTES: • it is hard to challenge a jury verdict because not supposed to see deliberations • Polling the Jury to make sure the verdict is valid cannot impeach the verdict unless outsie influence has affected the decision.JURY VERDICTS Allen Charge p.) PREJUDICED JUROR CASES: *US v. the majority were for acquittal. Thomas p. In cases where juror is disruptive the judge can dismiss when he refuses to be impartial. Inconsistent Verdict Theory: where jury reaches verdict but an varying grounds this is ok so long as the received proper jury instructions . • • jury coin-flipped to decide whether to charge murder or manslaughter. a dissenting juror should consider whether his doubt was a reasonable one… If. before dismissing the juror.” JURY MISCONDUCT *People v.1214: W • When a jury is deadlocked the judge can give an instruction: “if much the larger number were for conviction. with a juror during a trial about the presumptively prejudicial. however the judge should interview the juror about what they saw and what they told the other jurors.“in a criminal case. this was considered misconduct. Court found that this did not influence his thinking on the case and the verdict was ok. the verdict came back as murder and the judge declared a mistrial. the minority ought to ask themselves whether they might reasonably doubt the correctness of a judgment which was not concurred by the majority. if not made in pursuance of known rules of the court and the instructions and directions of the court made during the trial with full knowledge of the parties. upon the other hand.court will presume prejudice.1127: the earlier case with the juror who was disruptive and refused to convict no matter what. he may have been checking baseball scores. Halloway (CA). contact.
1227: • Purpose of guidelines was based on retribution. US p.] Notes: • Disparity is a matter of opinion. (4) district court improperly based such threelevel departure in part on its belief that police officers posed low risk of recidivism. US p. • Real offense issue. NY p. prosecutor’s can choose what charges to bring to get the punishment they feel is necessary can also affect sentence thru the plea. because under the sentencing guidelines lesser crimes could be punished harsher than heinous crimes. Dunnigan p. *Williams v. [this system prevents discrepancies or disparity between sentencing of similar crimes. 1269-1305 *Mistretta v. and (5) district court acted within its discretion in considering police officers' high susceptibility to abuse in prison and fact that they were subjected to successive state and federal prosecutions as factors upon which to base downward departure.1240: enhancing sentence for perjury at trial does not undermine the defendant’s right to testify.1245: 1) district court's decision to depart downward from applicable sentencing range under Sentencing Guidelines was to be reviewed under abuse of discretion standard.1258: due process is not violated when the judge gets additional out of court info to assist him in the sentencing of the death penalty. NOT IN SYLLABUS!! DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENTS ETC *US v.SENTENCING: 1220-1240. • there was no parole and guidelines were mandatory with guarded discretion to grant upward or downward departures. (2) district court acted within its discretion in departing downward five levels based on finding that suspect's misconduct contributed significantly to provoking officers' offense behavior.court can consider what defendant really did not just what was plead to. • Guidelines subject to gamesmanship. 2 types of downward adjustments: (1) when defendant’s participation in the crime was minimal (2) when defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense *Koon v. deterrence and keeping them off the street (not rehabilitation). . (3) district court improperly based three-level downward departure in part on fact that police officers would lose their jobs.
APPRENDI AND FORMALIZING SENTENCING *Apprendi v. of possession of firearm for unlawful purpose and unlawful possession of prohibited weapon • Defendant was sentenced to extended term under New Jersey's hate crime statute.involved guilty plea but after appeal the case goes to trial. NJ p. McCullough-different sentencing judges so no presumption • *Alabama v. • *TX v. violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury.) JUDICIAL VINDICTIVENESS *NC .v Pearce p. Court felt there was no vindictiveness because trial judge had no personal stake. • However a judge isn’t barred from giving a harsher sentence in a second trial so long as new facts warrant the harsher sentence and the judge must put those reasons on the record. any fact that increases penalty for crime beyond prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to jury and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Law Division. US • There must be vindictiveness (punishment for exercising his right) • A presumption arises and the government must overcome it. The New Jersey Supreme Court.1270: Defendant was convicted pursuant to guilty plea in the Superior Court. • “reasonable likelihood” that the increased sentence was vindictive No Presumption Cases: • *Chaffin-no vindictiveness because new jury without knowledge of first jury and no personal stake in the prior conviction. Cumberland County. The Superior Court. o (2) state hate crime statute which authorized increase in maximum prison sentence based on judge's finding by preponderance of evidence that defendant acted with purpose to intimidate victim based on particular characteristics of victim violated due process clause. Washington p. Defendant appealed. o (Judge can say at trial that there was a greater record to support the harsher sentence whereas as the guilty plea all facts come from the defendant so the crime will not seem as bad) Note: In overcoming the presumption the argument must be based upon objective facts. . affirmed. on basis of sentencing judge's finding that defendant acted with deliberate cruelty. violates due process. (this is because the extra sentence is a new accusation which is afforded the right to be heard by the jury.1286: trial court's sentencing of defendant to more than three years above the 53month statutory maximum of the standard range for his offense.1305: • Judge who punishes a defendant for exercising appeal rights. *Wasman v. Defendant appealed. • US SC held that: o (1) other than fact of prior conviction. Appellate Division affirmed. *Blakely v. Smith.
Same offense issue. *Blockburger v. . o Here there are different elements so different offenses. Hunter p. not a lesser included offense. Must look to statute as written by the legislature. defendant ordered the drugs on day 1 during a delivery and then the 2nd set delivered the next day.Court found them to be separate acts because different days even though joy riding is a separate included offense.1318: Defendant stole a car on Nov. US p.DOUBLE JEOPARDY: 1310-1331 Fifth Amendment protects defendants from being tried twice for the same crime. . if multiple victims is it one offense or multiple offenses? Must look at the crime statutes and compare them to the crime actually committed. Blockburger struggles where offenses are different and the crimes fo not seem that different because differences have nothing to do with actual crime (such as time of the offense).He was found guilty for both in trials in separate jurisdictions. Can get confusing because legislative intent is not always clear.Court held that there were separate criminal impulses so it is 2 transactions. • US Supreme Court found that no double jeopardy where only 1 trial and where the legislature is clear it wants 2 punishments. Court found that this was ok Note: Blockburger works ok with lesser included offenses because of merger. . What if the person is acquitted for GTA but then charged for joyriding for the same occurrence? Does the greater offense charge for the lesser as well? Unit of prosecution issue.Supreme Court reversed holding that they were the same crime and cant be tried twice for the same crime. assault and then victim dies after trial] *Missouri v.defendant sentenced for three counts consecutively arising from one drug sale. no matter if the lesser crime is prosecuted first. .e. . 1325: 2 similar crime statutes but if convicted of both crimes they run concurrent. 29. *Brown v.Lesser included offense test: does each offense require proof of element different from the other? o If so. *Whalen-cant impose extra sentencing because rape is lesser included offense of the felony murder and legislature didn’t intend multiple punishments.Question of whether this was one or more crimes. US. Rule of Lenity: Court must construe criminal statutes narrowly for benefit of defendant and should not convict defendant on more offenses than the legislature authorized. • Mizz Supreme Court did a Blockburger analysis found double jeopardy. Ohio p. . 1313: multiple drug sales on different days. *Gore v. 1973. (continuous transaction?) . o [this doesn’t apply where the greater offense has not yet arisen at the time of the trial for the lesser crime i. 1973 found joy riding in another jurisdiction on Dec 8.
he was then tried again for another victim and convicted.Question arose as to whether the second case was collaterally estopped.Judge dismissed the case. • Court agreed and dismissed. Swenson p. . (ex: defendant bribed judge) Note case . • Supreme Court then upheld acquittal upon double jeopardy grounds. Court found therefore still in jeopardy. *US v.defendant charged with 1st degree murder and convicted of 2nd degree.Supreme Court had differing views of Sanford because there is a 7 day period for post trial motions. • If no resolution of facts than can retry the case.If was that defendant was not a robber therefore. o Any acquittal triggers double jeopardy. so different elements) Implied Acquittals: . *US v. Some states allow appeals of acquittals on legal issues for precedent purposes only.(Blockburger didn’t apply because there was more than one victim. Prosecutor retried because not acquitted.1335: Robbery of a poker game. Martin Linen Supply Co. o Supreme Court implied acquittal because it was a lesser offense. Note: Prosecutor in federal court cannot appeal acquittals. US p. . Court said estoppel is not applied hyper-technically in criminal cases and it should be decided what Jury would had to have held to acquit here . and the appellate court reversed because there was no authority to give that direction.*US v. would be retrying for same crime and cannot retry.*Green v.FORMER ACQUITTAL/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL: 1331-1353 *Fong Foo v. Supreme Court reversed because he was not in Jeopardy because the 2nd case hadn’t started yet. . State appealed. US. it doesn’t matter the reasoning if it is for the defendant it is considered an acquittal for double jeopardy reasons. *Ashe v.1331: Judge directed jury to acquit. Sanford-defendant asked on 2nd trial after mistrial to dismiss the indictment because the evidence at 1st trial was insufficient.Defendant tried 1st time for one victim and acquitted.. . Scott.
Court likens this to a hung jury and says retrial is not barred however if stoppage interfered with defendant’s ability to get acquittal it should be treated as an acquittal.Judge does dismiss and restarts trial. (Court seems to ignore Downum Principle of best chance at acquittal) Defense Motion for Mistrial will never create a jeopardy bar except where prosecution intended to goad defendant into asking for a mistrial (this is a really tough standard because must get in the mind of the prosecutor) Oregon standard is probably better “whether prosecutor intended.] IMPORTANT! . if it went to trial it would be reversed so mistrial needed to prevent implied acquittal if dismissed. a mistrial” DUAL SOVERIGNTY . p. Fed wont re-prosecute unless prior proceeding left fed interests demonstrably unvindicated.*Bartkus v. .Each state is also considered a different sovereignty o State and municipal courts are still same soverign.[If there is a situation where statute of limitation has run than whether it is a mistrial or a dismissal makes no difference because prosecutor can’t refile. Illinois p. . in most bench trials no opening statements 2. Mistrial Test: “manifest necessity” or “ends of public justice test” *Illinois v.1352 . .In a bench trial when 1st witness is sworn in.1341: Prosecutor’s key witness not available so he asks to dismiss until witness can be found.Defendant says why should they get to retry where they messed up the indictment anyway. .MISTRIAL DOCTRINE *Downum v. .fed can prosecute same conduct that underlies a state verdict . Somerville bad indictment.1348: defendant can’t use an acquittal or conviction from one to bar a trial in another sovereignty (can’t use a state verdict to block a federal case) *Abbate. therefore if the case is dismissed (and double jeopardy attached at 1st witness) the prosecutor would know the defendant’s strategy. In jury trial must be at swearing of jury because prosecution will hear defendant’s opening statement.Supreme Court finds manifest necessity for mistrial because if convicted would be overturned and retried anyway. or was indifferent to the danger of.In a Jury trial it attaches when the Jury is sworn in because 1. US p. Defendant was then convicted. .When does double jeopardy attach? .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.