Chapter 11 Flashcards by Nate Harris

Discovery

Informal and formal exchange of information between parties

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Discovery Examples include:

*Lab reports
Statements of witnesses
Defendants’ confessions
Police reports

*Civil Cases
Every party is entitled to the disclosure of relevant information in the possession of any person – unless privileged

Criminal Cases

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Law on the Books: Rules Requiring Disclosure

No general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

State v. Tune (1953)

Too much prosecutorial disclosure may result in defendant’s taking undue advantage

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Federal Rules

Provide the defendant-upon motions-rights to tangible objects that are relevant to the case (documents, recordings, test results, witness statements, summaries of expert testimony prosecution intends to use at trial, etc.)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Discovery of exculpatory evidence

*Evidence favorable to defendant
Cast doubt on guilt
Mitigate culpability

Brady v. Maryland

Wood v. Bartholomew

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Brady v. Maryland

*Suppression of evidence violates 14th Amendment Due Process

*Material exculpatory evidence only
“reasonable probability” that had evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would be different

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Wood v. Bartholomew

If inadmissible, then not discoverable

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Discovery of impeachment evidence

Cast doubt on credibility of witness

Jencks v. United States

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Jencks v. United States

*Requires prosecutors to disclose all statements made by witnesses
Upon request of defense

*Prior inconsistent statements of prosecutorial witnesses

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Discovery Rules are Important to Defense Attorneys

Save time

Eases the attorney client relationship

Greatly encourages guilty pleas

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Guiding Principle:

Trial Should be a Level Playing Field:

Williams v. Florida

Insanity Plea

Constitution limits reciprocal discovery

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Alibi Defense

*Williams v. Florida

Requires defense to disclose alibi defe

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Exclusionary Rule

Prohibits the prosecutor from using illegally obtained evidence at trial

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Weeks v. US (1914)

Federal law enforcement only

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Wolf v. Colorado (1949)

Applied to states but not required

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Mandated enforcement of exclusionary rule to states

Principle method to deter 4th Amendment violations (illegal search and seizure)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Derivative evidence

Evidence indirectly obtained as a result of a constitutional violation

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

“Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” is excluded from admission at trial: TRUE OR FALSE

TRUE

Poisonous tree

– evidence directly obtained as a result of a constitutional violation

Fruit

derivative evidence because of knowledge gained from the first illegal search

Voluntariness standard – 14th Amendment

………

Miranda warnings

5th Amendment

*Custodial interrogations
Does not apply when police conduct not designed to illicit an incriminating response

Interrogation law

6th amendment

Privilege of assistance of counsel
Attaches when formal charges filed

Miranda v. Arizona

*Miranda had extensive criminal history Was interrogated by officers, and told he failed *Signed a written confession admitting guilt Found guilty by jury *Was not advised of his constitutional rights during interrogation Warren court stated his rights were violated and this changed the way police handled interrogations ever since

Search and Seizure

Fourth Amendment

Reasonableness clause

Right to be secure in “persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…” Violation occurs when governmental invasion of an individual’s subjective expectation of privacy

Reasonable expectation of privacy is infringed

Seizure

Interference with possession of property

Warrants clause

No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized TFreedom from “unreasonable search and seizure”

Searches and seizures unsupported by probable cause are illegal :TRUE OR FALSE

TRUE

Stop and frisk

Terry v. Ohio

“Reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity Police permitted to stop an individual and frisk for weapons

Exigent circumstances

Cause a reasonable person to believe that entry or prompt action is necessary to prevent

Reasonableness standard of 4th Amendment applies

Compliance with usual requirements of probable cause and warrants would be unreasonable in certain situations

Search Warrants

Issued by a neutral judge

Written Affidavit

Prepared by law enforcement and prosecutor “Fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.

Knock-and-announce

Presence, authority and purpose Wait 10-20 seconds before entering No knock exceptions

Katz v. US

Warrantless searches unconstitutional subject to specific exceptions

Three forms of warrantless searches

Consent Plain view Incident to a lawful arrest

Pretrial Motions

Suppression motions

*Defense attorney usually bears the burden of proof | Except Miranda

Defense Attorney as Prime Mover

Unless the defense objects, it is assumed that law enforcement officials have behaved properly

The Defensive Posture of the Prosecutor

Best case, suppression motions mean extra work | Worst case, the case is lost

Trial Judges as Decision Makers

Key policymakers in applying and implementing Supreme Court decisions

Police Testimony

The Exclusionary Rule and the Courtroom Workgroup