1.01 BACKGROUND

Question 1

CRIMINAL vs. CIVIL

Answer 1

Broadly Applicable Principe = Deference to Legislative Determination

Question 2

SELF-INCRIMINATION

US v. L.O. Ward (1980)

Answer 2

Civil Penalties Enforced by EPA for Oil Spill Based Required Self-Reporting of Oil Spill, Self-Reported Admission = Admissible

Question 3

“CIVIL” CONFINEMENT

Answer 3

Allen v. Illinois (1986) = No Fifth Privileges Sex Deviants Confined Beyond Their Sentence without Treatment

Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) = No Ex Post Facto / Double Jeopardy for Persons Absolved of Criminal Conduct (Evidentiary)

Question 4

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION

Smith v. Doe (2002)

Answer 4

MAJORITY = AK’s “Megan’s Law” Not Parole or Supervised Release B/C Offenders Move Where Wish W/O Supervision or Revocation

CONCUR = Scheme with Some Indications of Punishment, but Presumption of Constitutionality

DISSENT = Part of Punishment Scheme, Shaming Punishments Similar to Parole and Supervised Release

Question 5

CRIMINAL (Punishment) vs. CIVIL CONTEMPT (Coercive, ‘Person Holds Key to Jail in Their Pocket’)

Answer 5

PUNISHMENT vs. COERCION United Mine Workers v. Bagwell (1994) = Judge Treated Unions Contempt of Court Orders to Behave as Civil, SCOTUS = $64 M in Fines Punitive > Coercive Character

ENFORCEMENT OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
Robertson v. US ex rel Watson (2010) = “A basic step in organizing a civilized society is to take that sword out of private hands and turn it over to an organized government, acting on behalf of all the people.”

[Dismissed as Improvidently Granted, Three Judges Dissented … Criminal Contempt Prosecuted by Party Named in Writ]

Question 6

INCORPORATION

Answer 6

SELECTIVE INCORPORATION Duncan v. LA (1968) = “Fundamental Principles of Liberty and Justice” in “Anglo-American Regime”

Once Incorporated, Requirements MAY Take Many Different Forms (e.g., jury size)

UNINCORPORATED = Indictment by Grand Jury, Bail Clause, Misc. Non-Criminal Provisions

Question 7

DUE PROCESS

Answer 7

Specific Provisions of Constitution > “Due Process”

Question 8

FEDERALISM

Answer 8

US Constitution Sets the FLOOR which States Cannot Go Below, Though They May Set Higher Bar

Question 9

DIRECT vs. COLLATERAL REVIEW

Answer 9

DIRECT REVIEW = Overturned on Path or Results in Final Decision

1. Fed. Dist. Ct. … Cir. … SCOTUS (Discretionary)
2. State Trial Ct. … State Appellate … State High Courts (Discretionary) … SCOTUS (Discretionary)

COLLATERAL REVIEW ( Habeas Corpus ) = Convicted Defendant Seeking Further Relief for “Held Violation Const.”

1. Final Decision … Back Through Fed. on Habeas
2. Final Decision … Back Through State on Habeas … SCOTUS Habeas Review

Question 10

RETROACTIVITY
Habeas “the Great Writ” No More

AEDPA (1996) & Williams v. Taylor (2000

Answer 10

DIRECT REVIEW = All New Rules Apply to Cases Prior to Final Decisions

COLLATERAL REVIEW = New Rules Do Not Apply to Habeas Corpus (Extraordinary Relief)

• EXCEPTION 1/2 = Constitutionally Protected Conduct
• EXCEPTION 2/2 = Fundamental Rights, Procedures w/o which Likelihood of Accurate Conviction Seriously Diminished

AEDPA (1996) Codifies Teague without Exceptions = Habeas Corpus Effectively Ended, Very NARROW Fed. Review

REMAINS AVAILABLE IF State has Violated SCOTUS Decision OR Held W/O Conviction (May Still Loose Appeal)

STATE May Provide Greater Collateral Review / Protections Than Fed., Danforth v. MN (2008)

Question 11

NEW RULE

Answer 11

“If reasonable minds could have differed about result before it was rendered”, Butler v. McKellar (1990)

APPLIES TO: Fourth Amend. Rulings Apply to Present Case, but Exclusionary Rule D/N Extent to Good Faith Gov. Act, Davis v. US (2011)

DETRIMENTAL RULES, Lockhart v. Fretwell (1993) = Detrimental Decisions Must Apply Retroactively to Habeas Petitions

REASON = Defendant Has No Interest in Finality of Decision (Wants to Appeal Until Free)

Dissent = Two Rules on Same Issue is Fundamentally Unfair

Question 12

OLD RULE

Answer 12

Defendant Gets Benefit of the Rule / Established Law IF it Benefits the Defendant