Cases & Holdings Flashcards
1
Q
Duncan v Louisiana
A
jury trial right extends to the states if the possible sentence exceeds 6 months
2
Q
Drope v Missouri
A
Held that as a matter of due process a defendant must have the present ability: (1) to understand the nature of the proceedings against him; and (2) the consult with counsel to assist in preparing the defense.
3
Q
Media v California
A
placing the burden to prove incompetence on the Defendant does not violate due process.
4
Q
Cooper v Oklahoma
A
clear and convincing standard is too high for competency to stand trial
5
Q
Riggins v Nevada
A
Involuntary medication to ensure the defendant could stand trial violated due process.
6
Q
Sell v United States
A
Government can only forcibly medicate someone to stand trial if the government can prove that it serves an important governmental interest. Only for serious crimes
7
Q
Gideon v Wainwright
A
requires the appointment of counsel for felonies
8
Q
Nichols
A
no violation if the prior aggravating offense did not include counsel
9
Q
Alabama v Shelton
A
A suspended sentence without counsel violates the Sixth Amendment.
10
Q
Rothgery v Gillespie County Texas
A
Attaches when the defendant becomes the subject of adversary judicial criminal proceedings and at all critical stages
11
Q
Douglas
A
If states afford criminal defendants an opportunity to appeal, they must appointment of appellate counsel for indigent defendants
12
Q
Ross v Moffatt
A
right to counsel on appeal does not extend to further discretionary review or to collateral attacks on the judgment.
13
Q
Halbert v Michigan
A
Appeals for error correction requires appointed counsel.
14
Q
Strickland v Washington
A
A showing of ineffective assistance of counsel requires:(1) deficient performance; and (2) prejudice
15
Q
Rompilla v Beard
A
ineffective assistance for failing to look at file which would have led to substantial mitigating evidence
16
Q
Padilla
A
ineffective assistance for failing to advise that a guilty plea can affect immigration status
17
Q
Nix v Whiteside
A
No prejudice where counsel says he will withdraw if the defendant commits perjury. Lawyer also threatened to tell the court about the perjury.
18
Q
McCoy
A
Lawyer admitting guilt in order to avoid the death penalty against the defendants wishes violated strickland
19
Q
Kimmelman
A
attorney failure to get illegally obtained evidence suppressed violated Strickland
20
Q
Fretwell
A
Attorney failure to raise favorable precedent (that was later overturned) violated strickland
21
Q
Glover
A
incorrectly calculated the sentence was prejudicial.
22
Q
Flores-Ortega
A
Failure to tell Defendant he could appeal is ineffective assistance if but for the bad advice, the defendant would have appealed
23
Q
Holloway v Arkansas
A
Presumed prejudice where attorney’s representation of two co defendants. and There was clearly an effect on the lawyer’s performance because he couldn’t properly ask the right questions or object to those questions.
24
Q
cuyler v sullivan
A
prejudice will be presumed, but some kind of effect on the lawyers performance must be shown
25
Mickens v Taylor
Where a former client was murdered by the current client. There is no evidence that the lawyer acted differently than he would otherwise have acted. The prior representation was quite brief.
26
Missouri v Frye
Is counsel’s failure to communicate a plea offer ineffective assistance?
27
Lafler v Cooper
The attorney says they can’t convict because he says they can’t show intent because you shot below the waist, and D rejects plea bargain. Apply Frye Test
28
Faretta v California
Faretta had a constitutional right to represent himself
29
Martinez
no right to self representation on appeal
30
McCaskle v Wiggins
defendant must have actual control over the case and the appearance of self-control over the defense.
31
Indiana v Edwards
states are permitted to set a higher bar for competence to represent yourself, above the competence standard required to stand trial.
32
Gonzalez-Lopez
defendant has the right to hire a counsel of their choice
33
Stack v Boyle
bail was excessive because there was no showing that the higher amount was needed to ensure the defendant showed up. Bail should be similar to offenses with like penalties. bail would not be excessive if that jurisdiction always set bail really high.
34
Salerno
Pretrial detention is not punishment
35
Inmates of Attica
Rule: no requirement to prosecute.
36
Batchelder
when there are two identical statutes that have different punishments, gov can prosecute under either
37
McClusky v Kemp
due process Prohibits only intentional discrimination, just a mere disparate impact does not violate the equal protection clause. But disparity could be enough if it is extreme enough to show that intention should be inferred. (Yick Wo)
38
United States v Armstrong
charging decision was made based on the amount of the evidence not defendant’s race
39
Hurtado
The grand jury aspect is not incorporated to the states under the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
40
Costello
hearsay is fine at grand jury stage and the rules of evidence do not apply
41
United states v williams
prosecution not required to provide grand jury with any exculpatory evidence
42
Mechanik
if you had a trial and were convicted beyond a reasonable doubt then the prior error was harmless.
43
Bank of Nova Scotia
If you learn about it before trial, then the question is whether it influenced the grand jury’s decision to indict, basically a harmless error review.
44
Barker v Wingo
The court looks at four factors: 1) Length of the delay 2) Reasons for the delay 3) Defendant’s Assertion of the Right 4) Prejudice
45
United States v Lovasco
the speedy trial clock starts running at arrest or indictment
46
Betterman
speedy trial right end ends at guilty plea or verdict
47
Doggett
It took eight years to prosecute 8.5 years
48
Rodriguez-Mareno
Where a crime consists of distinct parts which have different localities the whole may be tried where any part can be proved to have been done. Under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3237(a), Congress has provided that continuing offenses can be tried in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed.
49
Skilling
Actual Prejudice: If any one juror that actually served on the jury was actually biased against the defendant, then reversal is required. Presumed Prejudice = Media fiasco
50
Rideau
The media played an inadmissible confession over and over again = presumed prejudice
51
Irvin
eight out the twelve admitted they thought he was guilty before they served on the panel = presumed prejudice
52
Rule 8(a)
Joinder of Offenses – Permits the government to charge, in a single indictment, charges against a defendant for offenses of a similar character or based on the same act or transaction or part of a common scheme or plan.
53
Rule 8(b)
Joinder of Defendants – Permits the government to charge, in a single indictment, charges against multiple defendants for conduct arising out of the same act or transaction or series thereof.
54
Rule 14
Prejudicial Joinder – If joinder appears to prejudice the defendant, the court may order separate trials or severance.
55
Hawkins
Charges are for carjacking, brandishing a firearm in furtherance of that carjacking, being a felon in possession of a firearm. Felony possession should be severed and failure to sever was NOT harmless
56
Zafrio
under Rule 14 = Only severe when “serious risk that a joint trial could (1) compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants or (2) prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence”. Not entitled to severance just because have a better chance of acquittal with separate trials
57
Brady v Maryland
prosecution can’t suppress exculpatory evidence that is material to the defendant’s guilt or punishment, regardless of good faith.
58
Kkyles v Whitley
Example of brady violation, failure to disclose a witness
59
Ruiz
Failure to disclose impeachment evidence during plea bargaining phase not a Brady violation
60
Williams v Flordia
Defendant required to tell the prosecution ahead of time if they were going to use an alibi defense and the names and contact information for those witnesses.
61
Taylor v Illinois
Courts may exclude defense testimony as a sanction for discovery violations
62
Rule 11(b)(1)
disclosure to defendant about the risk and various rights waived. When pleading guilty they don’t know what the exact sentence will be, only a range.
63
Rule 11(b)(2)
voluntariness – the court must ensure that the defendant’s admission is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary—also means you have capacity to plead.
64
Rule 11 (b)(3)
factual basis – the defendant must admit his guilt, supplying a factual basis for the conviction. This is even necessary in an Alford plea, but that could require some statements by others, like the prosecutors
65
Alfrod
Death penalty not inherently coercive such that a guilty plea is involuntary. Alford Plea = the defendant expressly says he is not guilty but still pleading guilty.
66
Class
negotiated plea deal on a gun charge, the prosecution dropped charges and he challenged the remaining charge under the 2nd amendment. A standard guilty plea does not waive a constitutional challenge
67
Blackledge Menna Doctrine
Served 30 days in jail for refusing to testify, then he was put in jail again for the same crime. He plead guilty but then challenged it on double jeopardy grounds. pleading guilty does not waive double jeopardy rights.
68
Blackledge
vindictive prosecution = term of art that means the defendant was punished for exercising a right. limited to cases where you don’t need additional evidence, you can make a determination of double jeopardy using the facts presented on its face.
69
Brady v United States
a plea to avoid the death penalty is not coercion
70
Bordenkircher
Re-indictment on more charges right after failure to reach a plea deal is fine
71
Hodge
locked plea agreement/ wired plea agreement: requires both defendants to accept, else neither could get it. Court takes special care to ensure one defendant wasn’t pressured more than the other
72
Garza v Idaho
Does a waiver of the right to appeal hold up? No. If the client says file of appeal and you don’t, then you’re wrong. If the client wants to file an appeal even though the client will lose then the lawyer can file an Anders brief.
73
Newton v Rumery
release-discharge agreement presumed valid and enforceable.
74
Mezzanatto
FRE 410 rights cant be waived (statements made at plea bargaining)
75
Mabry v Johnson
prosecution can pull a plea any time before the plea is entered
76
Rickets v Adamson
the constitution does not modify state constitutional law. Due process arguments will lose, and the Court will defer to the state interpretation of contract law.
77
Santobello v New York
He pled, and the prosecution said that they would make no recommendation but then asked for a one-year sentence. Remand to the trial court to determine what relief should exist.
78
Ballew v Gorgia
five-person jury is unconstitutional.
79
Apodaca v Oregon
10 of 12 is permissible. The federal government must have unanimity, but states do not, only two states allow it though.
80
Burch v Louisana
if the jury is only six members then it must be unanimous.
81
Duren v Missouri
the defendant raising a fair cross-section challenge must show (1) distinctive group, one that is numerous; (2) that is underrepresented, group representation is not fair and reasonable; and (3) systematic exclusion, the underrepresentation must result from government policy. If a defendant can make that showing, the burden shifts to the government to show a significant state interest justifying the challenged policy.
82
Batson v Kentucky
Batson Test – Defendant has the burden to prove (1) that they are a member of a class; (2) use circumstantial evidence to show purposeful discrimination (3) The prosecution then has the power to rebut by showing a race neutral explanation. (4) Then the defense has the power to use facts and circumstances to show the excuse proffered is just a cover. (5) Then the trial court must make a decision.
83
Hernandez
excluded all Hispanics with an excuse that they could all speak Spanish. = upheld
84
Puckett
long unkempt hair as an excuse instead of the fact that he was black. He also had facial hair and looked suspicious to the prosecutor. It is a ridiculous but race neutral explanation and these all seem to pass muster.
85
Miller-El v Dretke
you can use evidence of systematic discrimination in Batson challenge reasoning.
86
Foster v Chatman
example of successful Batson challenge:racial pattern in strikes of jurors, venire list codes; notes that prosecutors took; shifting explanation
87
Allen
Right to be present at trial – not absolute, for example if they are being disruptive.
88
Rocke
Right to testify in their own defense
89
Griffin
prosecutors can’t comment on the defendant’s failure to testify
90
Agard
Prosecutors are free to comment on the fact that the defendant testified last, and had the opportunity to tailor his/her testimony to the prior testimonies.
91
Crawford
bars testimonial statements made out of court without the ability to confront. testimonial evidence inadmissible unless (1) the witness is unavailable; and (2) the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
92
Davis v washington
statements was made to the 911 operator to assist the police officers in aiding the victim not testimonial
93
michigan v bryant
statements made during an ongoing emergency, so the statements were non-testimonial.
94
ohio v clark
statements made by a three-year-old victim to his teachers were not testimonial
95
williams v illinois
keep your lab techs in the dark. if they do not know what the test is going to be used for, they cannot have an incentive to lie and the test will not be for the purpose of litigation
96
Burton
A co-defendant’s confession that also implicates the defendant, admitted into evidence without an opportunity for cross-examination violates the confrontation clause.
97
Gary v Maryland
can’t introduce a confession that implicates another defendant. Redacted the defendant’s name, but there was a clear and strong inference that defendant A was saying defendant B was also guilty.
98
Darden
Both lawyers were highly unethical in their statements but The evidence at trial strongly supported guilt, making it unlikely that the argument affected the result:
99
Pena-Rodriguez
Racism is an exception to the no impeachment rule
100
Tanner
said the jurors partying and falling asleep and on drugs at trial. unfair jury but not impartial.
101
Wagner
clear pro defendant bias but lied in voir dire. still no impeachment
102
In re Winship
Due process requires that the prosecution prove every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt. But the legislature defines the elements and may place the burden of proof on defendants as to affirmative defenses (patterson)
103
no impeachment rule
juror may not testify about any statement made or indicted during the jury’s deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror;s or another juror’s vote; or any jurors' mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. The court may not receive a jurors affidavit or evidence of a jurors sentiment on these matters
104
exceptions to the no impeachment rule
a juror may testify about whether: Extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention;. An outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror; A mistake was made in entering the verdict on the verdict form
105
williams v new york
indeterminate black box sentencing ok
106
McMillan
The legislature is generally free to decide which facts are elements of the crime and which ones are merely factors to be considered in the sentencing phase.
107
Almendarez-Torres
Prior Convictions can be considered at sentencing.
108
Apprendi
any fact (other than a prior conviction) that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
109
Blackley
Judges must find “substantial and compelling reasons” based on a (non-exhaustive) statutory life of factors to depart from statutory guidelines
110
Alleyne
Any fact (other than a prior conviction) that increases the minimum sentence for a crime must be found by a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt
111
United States v Booker
the guideline range is merely advisory, making it equivalent to black box sentencing (williams). No factual findings are necessary to exceed the guideline maximum
112
Blakleyizing
the indictment must allege, and the jury must find or the defendant must admit as part of a guilty plea, any facts that increase the guideline range or are otherwise legally necessary to justify the sentence
113
Bookerizing
retain the guideline structure and sentencing ranges, but make them purely advisory
114
Southern union
jury fact finding is required for facts necessary, by statute, to impose a particular fine amount, at least where the fine is large enough to make the case non-“petty” for Sixth Amendment purposes
115
Crist v Bretz
Jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled, and when the first witness is sworn in for bench trials
116
Serfass
Jeopardy never attaches before trial.
117
Fong Foo
Judge has the power to end the proceedings. Acquittal was final for double jeopardy purposes
118
Wilson
Conviction but JNOV = gov appeal is okay, remedy is to reinstate jury verdict
119
Green
Implied acquittal if the jury picks a lesser included offense and implicitly does not convict on the stronger offense.
120
Blueford
Retrial after a hung jury is fine.
121
Ball
the defendant wants to appeal, the defendant wants to do the original jeopardy over again.
122
Burk
Dismissal if the evidence at the first trial was insufficient, then double jeopardy bars retrial.
123
Scott
Dismissal Grounds related to guilt or innocence = no retrial available, Otherwise, retrial okay
124
Kennedy
look at the prosecutors intent/mindset: If the Prosecutor was intentionally trying to get a mistrial, then NO RETRIAL. If Prosecutor lacking intent, then retrial is okay
125
Perez
If defendant requests a mistrial because of “Manifest necessity” = retrial okay
126
Smith v Massachusetts
Trial courts dismissal and then reinstatement of charges before submission to the jury violated double jeopardy
127
Ashe v Swenson
Collateral estoppel– when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit
128
Schmuck
Lesser included means: Assault→ assault with bodily injury→ assault for serious bodily injury
129
Currier v Virginia
A defendant’s request to sever some charges for a separate trial waives any double jeopardy objection
130
Blockburger
Where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.
131
Brown
Same elements so they are the same offense. Court says it is not enough that the offenses take place on different days. violates double jeopardy.
132
Harris
Offense 1 = aggravated robbery, Offense 2 = felony murder (death + serious felony). same offense, violates double jeopardy
133
Garrett and Felix
Federal RICO, Federal continuing criminal enterprise, Conspiracy = not the same offense, no violation
134
Grady v Corbin
Offense 1 = minor traffic ticket for DUI, Offense 2 = minor traffic ticked for crossing median, Offense 3 = reckless homicide. HELD same offense violates double jeopardy
135
Dixon
Offense 1 = criminal contempt for violating a bond condition not to commit “any crime” based on possession of cocaine with intent to distribute: Offense 2 = possession of cocain with intent to distribute. Same offense, violates double jeopardy. Rehnquist (for 3): no crime is a lesser included of contempt
136
Heath v Alabama
two different crimes because it was against the societies of two separate sovereigns.
137
Denezpi
The dual sovereignty doctrine depends on the sovereign source of the offense, rather than the sovereign that prosecutes the case. One federal Prosecutor can, Charge and prosecute under tribal law and under federal law
138
Griffith
new legal rules apply retroactively to cases still pending on direct appeal.
139
Chapman
There are constitutional errors that are harmless. BUT this error was not harmless. Burden on The government to prove that the error would have changed the result at trial beyond a reasonable doubt
140
Weaver
structural error raised for the first time on collateral review does not automatically qualify as prejudicial under Strickland.
141
Plain Error
(1) it wasn’t waived but simply forfeited; (2) the error is clear/obvious; (3) prejudicial; (4) even then, it is discretionary
