Crim & CrimPro Flashcards
General intent crimes
General intent crimes (e.g., battery) require at least criminally negligent conduct (i.e., grossly deviating from the level of care a reasonable person would use under similar circumstances).
Specific intent crimes
Specific intent crimes (e.g., conspiracy) require intentional conduct–i.e., purposefully and knowingly causing a particular result.
Larceny: movement requirement
Larceny requires the carrying away of another’s personal property.
This occurs when the ∆ moves property a slight amount (majority) or brings the property under her dominion and control (minority).
Once the property is taken, crime is “complete.”
Warrantless search when person consents voluntarily
Police may conduct a warrantless search if the person consented to the search voluntarily– i.e., without police coercion–even if consent was not informed (i.e., police don’t need to tell them they can refuse).
Privilege against self-incrimination application to evidence
The privilege against self-incrimination only applies to compelled production or creation of evidence–not evidence discovered during a constitutional search.
when does 6th Amendment right to counsel attach?
The 6th Amendment right to counsel automatically attaches once judicial proceedings commence and requires the presence of counsel during all critical stages of prosecution–including interrogations conducted by undercover government agents. (eg. prosecution hires undercover psychologist to ask ∆ about mental state during crime).
Conspiracy
Under the modern-prevailing view, conspiracy requires proof that:
* one party actually entered an agreement with the specific intent to accomplish an unlawful purpose; and,
* at least one co-conspirator committed an overt act in furtherance of the agreement.
A conspiracy can exist among individuals who do not know each other when there is a community of interest in the achievement of the objective of the conspiracy. A community of interest typically exists when each alleged conspirator plays a role in reaching that objective.
* Think chain link (liable) v. wheel (not liable).
use and derivative use immunity
The 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects suspects from compelled testimony communications–e.g., the act or producing a document that would prove its existence, possession, and/or authenticity.
However, self-incriminating testimony can still be compelled if the government grants use and derivative use immunity.
Use and derivative use immunity prevents the government from using self-incriminating testimonial communications (and any evidence derived therein) against suspect in any way that could lead to a criminal prosecution (e.g., obtain grand jury indictment).
4th Amendment search: open fields
NO SEARCH WARRANT REQUIRED.
A government intrusion upon open fields does not trigger 4th Amendment protections since open fields are not constitutionally protected areas and persons have no reasonable expectations of privacy in those areas.
Causation in homicide
To be convicted of a homicide, the ∆’s conduct must be the actual (“but for”) cause AND proximate cause (“foreseeable”) of the specified result–the victim’s death.
4th Amendment search: dept. store fitting room
Through a department store is not a constitutionally protected area, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fitting room because society would find the teenager’s subjective expectation of privacy in the fitting room objectively reasonable.
Accomplice
In most jurisdictions, and under the Model Penal Code, a conviction based on accomplice liability requires proof that a person:
* intentionally aided or encouraged the principal before or during the crime; and,
* intended that the principal commit the crime.
Mere knowledge that another person intends to commit a crime is not enough.
In cases where the primary party’s crimes is one involving recklessness or negligence, most jurisdictions hold that the second intent element is satisfied if the ∆ intended to assist the primary party and otherwise acted with the mens rea required for the underlying offense.
Both parties are equally liable for the encouraged crime and its natural and probable consequences.
5th Amendment: Miranda warnings
Police must give Miranda warnings prior to a custodial interrogation. The suspect can then waive these rights if he does so knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily–not due to police coercion.
Criminal battery: unlawful force requirement
general intent crime.
For battery, the ∆ can unlawfully apply force to another by:
* applying force directly;
* ordering another person to apply force; or,
* setting an object in motion that results in the application of force.
is mistake of fact a defense to rape?
Rape is a general intent crime. As a result, mistake of fact is a defense if the ∆’s honest, reasonable, but mistaken belief negated the intent to engage in nonconsensual sexual intercourse with the victim.
Harmless error rule
The privilege against self-incrimination prohibits the prosecution from commenting on a ∆’s failure to testify at trial.
However, under the harmless error rule, an improper prosecutorial comment warrants a reversal on appeal only if it contributed to the guilty conviction.
What mens rea is required to prove attempted murder?
Attempt is a specific intent crime.
Thus, attempted murder requires proof that the ∆ acted with the intent to kill–no other form of malice aforethought will suffice. If he only intended to scare victim, and acted recklessly, it’s NOT attempt.
Terry stop
During a Terry stop, police may:
* briefly stop and question a person if they reasonably suspect he (or will soon be) involved in a criminal activity; and,
* frisk that–person’s outer garments if they reasonably suspect he is armed and dangerous.
Are Miranda warnings required during a Terry stop?
No, Miranda warnings are not required to question a suspect during a Terry stop.
Police-citizen encounters: standards of suspicion
- consensual: no suspicion required
- Terry stop/frisk: reasonable suspicion
- arrest: probable cause
Criminal liability mens rea
A criminal conviction requires proof that the ∆ voluntarily committed the criminal act or omission. Therefore, an act that is not a product of the ∆’s free will cannot be used to impose criminal liability.
Bruton rule
In a joint jury trial, the 6th Amendment confrontation clause is violated when a non-testifying co-∆’s prior statement implicating the other ∆ in the crime is admitted at trial.
A way to not violate the confrontation clause is to allow the other co-∆to testify at trial.
Voluntary manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter is an **intentional killing **of another prompted by adequate provocation (or imperfect self-defense) and committed before a reasonable cool-of period has elapsed.
6th Amendment right to impartial jury
An appellate court should automatically reverse a ∆’s conviction and sentence if a structural error–e.g., a violation of a ∆’s 6th Amendment right to an impartial jury–occurred before or during trial.
Impartiality requires:
* the jury pool must be selected from a fair cross-section of the community; and,
* the impaneled jury must be unbiased and able to decide the case based on the evidnece presented at trial.
6th Amendment right to impartial jury in a capital punishment case
In a capital punishment case, the defense and prosecution can challenge potential jurors for cause (e.g., people who would never vote for the death penalty being taken off jury).
Burglary: breaking and entering
The breaking and entering element of burglary requires the perpetrator entering the dwelling without the owner’s consent. Even if the perpetrator entered the dwelling with a key, if she does not have consent, it’s “breaking and entering.”
e.g., pushing an already open door still counts as “breaking”
is ∆ guilty of underlying felony in burglary?
A burglary ∆ who fails to complete the underlying felony is also guilty of the attempted commission of that felony.
Implied Waiver of Miranda rights
Miranda rights may be expressly or impliedly waived.
A waiver is implied when a suspect:
* has not asserted his Miranda rights;
* understands those rights; and,
* engages in a course of conduct indicating a knowing and voluntary waiver (e.g., by making an uncoerced incriminating statement).
MEE
Involuntary manslaughter
In most jurisdictions, a ∆ is guilty of involuntary manslaugther when the ∆ causes the death of another human being by engaging in conduct that creates an unreasonable (or high and unreasonable) risk of death or serious bodily injury. Under the majority view, the ∆ must have acted “recklessly” (i.e., had a conscious disregard of a known risk).
In other jurisdictions, a ∆ is guilty of involuntary manslaughter for the criminally negligent killing of another. Criminal negligence requires a substantially greater deviation from the reasonable person standard of civil liability. In these states, even if the ∆ was unaware of the risk, the ∆ could be found guilty if an ordinary person in the ∆’s situation would have been aware that his conduct created an unreasonable (or unreasonable and high) risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Attempt
Attempt always requires:
* the specific intent to commit a crime;
* an act by the ∆ or her agent in furtherance of that crime;
* target crime must not have been completed.
Criminal battery: intent
Battery requires proof of both intent and contract with the π’s person.
Intent exists when ∆ acts with either purpose of causing contact with the π or knowledge that such contact is substantially certain to occur.
4th Amendment: Stop and Arrest
Under the 4th Amendment, the constitutional reasonableness of a traffic stop does not depend on the motivation of the officer involved or the petty nature of the offense charged, so long as state law permits arrest. If the officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect has committed an offense, then a stop and arrest of that suspect is reasonable if authorized under state law.
4th Amendment: Search of the accused
A search of the accused requires a warrant, unless an exception applies.
4th Amendement warrant exception: Plain view
No warrant is required if the item is in plain view and the officer had the right to be there.
MEE
5th Amendment Miranda warnings: “custody” requirement
A ∆ is in custody if she is not free to leave or rasonably does not feel free to leave.
e.g., if a person goes to a police station voluntarily (not under arrest) and could have terminated the encounter, the person is not in custody.
e.g., Since drivers are generally not in custody during traffic stops, Miranda warnings do not need to be provided before brief police questioning.
MEE
5th Amendment Miranda warnings: “interrogation” requirement
Interrogation is any statement or conduct reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the accused.
MEE
5th Amendment Miranda warnings: knowing and voluntary
A Miranda wanring must be knowing and voluntary. Courts will employe a totality of the circumstances test in making this determination.
MEE
5th Amendment Miranda warnings
Under the 5th Amendment, a ∆ must be given Miranda warnings before any custodial interrogation.
MEE
5th Amendment Miranda warnings: right to an attorney
If an accused makes an unambiguous and unequivocal request or demand for an attorney, police must cease interrogation and honor the request.
MEE
voluntary confession obtained after initial failure to give Miranda warnings
In Elstad, the Court held that the initial failure to administer Miranda warnings before quesitoning does NOT taint a subsequent voluntary confession that was given after Miranda warnings were given and waived.
4th Amendment search: standing
Court will only suppress evidence obtained from an unlawful search if ∆ has standing to challenge it–i.e., a legitimate expectation of privacy.
4th Amendment search of 3rd party’s premises: standing
A ∆ cannot challenge an unlawful search of a 3rd party’s premises since it infringed on 3rd party’s right to privacy–not ∆’s.
MEE
False pretenses
False pretenses is a type of theft offense that is:
* a false representation of material fact;
* that causes another person to transfer title to property (including money) to the ∆.
MEE
False pretenses: false representation
The false representation must be one of material present or past fact. Commercial puffery is not generally considered false pretenses.
False pretenses: mens rea
The mens rea requireed is knowledge that the representation of fact is false and an intent to defraud. Most courts find that a ∆ acts knowingly and has knowledge of a particular fact when the ∆ is aware of a high probability of the facts existence and deliebrately avoids learning the truth.
Crime prevention defense
Non-deadly force (e.g., hitting someone with a shoe) may be used to prevent a lesser felony (e.g., burglary) or a breach of the peace misdemeanor.
For crime prevention defenses, doesn’t need to be directed against a person/habitation/property of ∆. It can be against a 3rd person (e.g., neighbor).
Accomplice liability: principal v. accomplices
- Principals: persons who commit a criminal act with the requisite mental state
- accomplices: persons who 1) intentionally aid or encourage the principal to commit a crime 2) with the specific intent that the principal complete that crime.
Voluntary manslaughter: adequate provocation
Adequate provocation is conduct that would cause a reasonable person to lose control.
e.g., a reasonable person would not hit someone on the head with a hammer in response to a broken television screen–no adequate provocation. Instead, this would be considered murder because the man acted with malice aforethought.
Due process: guilty pleas
Due process requires that guilty pleas be made:
* voluntarily: a free and deliberate choice; and,
* knowingly and intelligently: with sufficient awareness of the nature and essential elements of the charged offense, the ranges of possible punishment, and the constitutional rights being waived (e.g., that ∆’s have right to jury trial).
Malice crimes
Malice crimes (e.g., malicious damage to property) require proof that the ∆ was practically certain his act would cause a particular result (knowledge) or consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm (recklessness).
Double jeopardy
The 5th Amendment double jeopardy clause prohibits multiple punishments or a second prosecution for the same offense.
Two crimes are considered the same offense when they have identical elements or when every element of one crime (e.g., underlying felony like rape) is also an element of the other crime (e.g., felony murder).
Imperfect self-defense
Murder may be reduced to voluntary manslaugther if the ∆ acted in imperfect self-defense.
This occurs when ∆:
* honestly but unreasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death; or,
* started the altercation that led to the necessary use of deadly force.
Think of Menendez brothers case.
consent to sexual intercourse obtained by fraud
Fraud in factum occurs when the fraud pertains to the nature of the act itself and negates a rape victim’s consent.
In contrast, fraud in the inducement occurs when fraud is used to gain consent to what the victim knows is an act of sexual intercourse and does not negate the victim’s consent.
2nd degree murder
2nd degree murder includes unlawful kiling with intent to kill (even if there was adequate provocation).
kidnapping
Under the modern view, kidnapping is the unlawful and intentional confinement of another against the person’s will (e.g., by threat, force, or fraud) that involves the movement or concealment of that person.
Only a short distance is required. For a kidnapping to occur incident to the commission of another offense, the victim must be moved more than is necessary to complete the other offense.
consent as defense to kidnapping
Since confinement occurs when a person’s movement is restricted against his/her will, consent is a defense to kidnapping. There is no kidnapping if a victim consents to confinement–e.g., person is locked in an apartment voluntarily (even if under false pretenses).
abandonment as defense to attempt
Abandonment is NOT a defense to attempt if it was motivated by:
* a desire to avoid detection;
* a decision to delay the commission until a more favorable time; or,
* the selection of another similar objective or victim.
Basically, abandonment needs to be permanent for it to be a defense.
M’Naghten insanity defense
The M’Naghten insanity test is met if a mental disease prevented the ∆ from understanding the nature and quality of the criminal act or knowing that it was wrong.
Under the M’Naghten test for not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI), the defense must prove that, at the time of the offense:
* the ∆ suffered a defect of reason, from disease of the mind; and,
* as a result of this mental disease or defect, the ∆at the time of the act did not know the nature and quality of the act, or that the act was wrong.
MPC insanity defense
The Model Penal Code insanity test is met if a mental disease prevented the ∆ from appreciating the wrongfulness of his conduct or conforming to the law.
Attempt intent
Attempt always requires proof that the ∆ specifically intended to commit a crime–even if the target crime does not require specific intent (e.g., statutory rape).
4th Amendment search: administrative or regulatory search
An administrative search of a highly regulated industry is an exception to the warrant requirement since it furthers administrative objectives (e.g., to protect public welfare)–not traditional law enforcement objectives (e.g., to gather evidence for criminal prosecution).
Thus, a statute permitting warrantless administrative searches of highly regulated industries is valid if:
* its purpose concerns a substantial government interest;
* warrantly searches are necessary to further that purpose; and,
* it is a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant (i.e., it gives notice of right to search and limit officer discretion).
is a 4th amendment violation grounds for dismissing indictment?
A 4th amendment violation is not a proper basis to dismiss an indictment. However, evidence obtained from an illegal arrest can be suppressed at trial.
e.g., girlfriend’s arrest was invalid so it was a 4th amendment violation. court will not dismiss the indictment on this basis but she can move to suppress any evidence.
MEE
Self-defense
At common law, a person can raise an affirmative defense of self-defense based upon the use of non-lethal force, a ∆ must prove that she:
* reasonably believed that the force was necessary to protect her from another person’s imminent use or attempted use of unlawful force; and,
* used an amount of force proportionate to the force encountered.
In some jurisdictions, a ∆ must also prove that:
* she was not the initial aggressor; or,
* if she was the initial aggressor, she withdrew from or abandoned the conflict before acting in self-defense.
4th Amendment: searches in public areas
The government does not need a warrant to inspect items left in a public area or exposed to the public since:
* public areas are not constitutionally protected; and,
* persons have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
e.g., garbage in alleyway
Prosecution’s burden of proof
Due process requires that the prosecution prove every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt to convict a ∆–even when the ∆ asserts a defense that negates an element of the crime.
The BOP cannot be put on the ∆.
Omission in murder
A ∆ is guilty of murder when his voluntary act or omission:
* actually and proximately caused another’s death; and,
* was committed with malice aforethough.
An omission is the failure to perform a legal duty when the ∆ could have reasonably done so.
possession of a controlled substance
A ∆ can be convicted of possession of a controlled substance (or other prohibited object) if the prosecution establishes that the ∆ knowingly possessed the controlled substance.
The possession element requires proof that ∆:
* knowingly received an illegal item; or,
* exercised dominion and control over the item after learning of its illegal character.
robbery: intimidation requirement
For robbery, a taking by intimidation occurs when there is immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to the victim, a close family member, or another person present.
But a threat to damage or destroy property other than the victim’s home, is not sufficient.
Robbery
Robbery requires the taking of the victim’s property by force or intimidation.
Merger crimes: robbery and larceny
Robbery requires a taking of the victim’s property by force or intimidation. Since larceny satisfies the taking requirement and battery/assault satisfies the force or intimidation requirement, they are lesser included offenses that merge with robbery.
when can voluntary intoxication defense be used?
When a ∆ is charged with a specific intent crime (i.e., assault, attempted murder), evidence of voluntary intoxication may be offered to show that the intoxication prevented the ∆ from forming the required intent.
Ineffective assistance of counsel
Under the 6th Amendment, defense counsel was ineffective when:
* his performance was deficient; and,
* there is a reasonable probability that the trial’s outcome would have been different absent the deficient performance.
MEE
Competence to stand trial
Competence to stand trial is a legal requirement that defers to a ∆’s ability to particcipate in criminal proceedings. To be competent, it is not enough that the ∆ be oriented to time and place and have some recollection of events.
Under the Dusky test, the ∆must have:
* sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding;
* a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.
The ∆ must be able to assist in preparing his defense, which requires the ∆ to be able to make decisions such as whether to go to trial or plead guilty. Whenever the defense can establish a bona fide doubt regarding the ∆’s decision-making abilities, the court must hold a hearing to determine competence to stand trial.
MEE
burden of proof for M’Naghten Rule
In most states, the defense must prove the affirmative defense of NGLI by a preponderence of the evidence.
MEE
M’Naghten Rule: “wrongfulness”
For a court to find a ∆ NGRI, the ∆’s mental defect must be so severe to cause the consequences in prong 2. The court must balance the evidence at trial against the evidence at the time the crime occurred. Various state laws differ on the definition of wrongfulness.
Some states define wrongfulness as legally wrong (i.e., criminal violations) and other states define “wrongfulness” as morally wrong (i.e., the type of acts society would condemn).
Defenses unique to solicitation
A person cannot be convicted of solicitation if:
* the solicited crime requires more than one participant (e.g., sale of narcotics requires a buyer & seller);
* the criminal statute only imposes liability on one participant (e.g., only the seller of narcotics can be convicted); and,
* the soliciting party is the type of person the law was enacted to protect (e.g., buyer).
4th Amendment search: emergency
No warrant is required to search under the 4th Amendment if there is an emergency. However, once an emergency ends, a subequent search is unconsitutional absent a valid reason to do so.
E.g., an emergency ends once victim was taken to hospital. Since the police searched the house again to look for guns used in the shoooting and had no search warrant, no other exception applied. The search was unreasonable.
depraved heart murder
In most jurisdictions, a person who recklessly causes the death of another can be charged with so-called “depraved-heart” murder if the person acted with extremember indifference to the value of human life.
This is common law murder or 2nd degree murder.
MEE
duress
The typical affirmative defense of duress excuses ∆s from criminal liability if their conduct was committed under the pressure of an unlawful threat from another human being to harm the ∆.
The unlawful threat must cause the ∆ to reasonably believe that the only way to avoid imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or to another is to engage in conduct which violates the literal terms of the criminal law. The ∆ must also prove that he engaged in the criminal behavior because of the threat and not for some other reason.
MEE
Due process jury instructions
A jury instruction violates the Due Process Clause if it creates either:
* an irrebuttable conclusive presumption; or,
* a rebuttable mandatory presumption.
MEE
DPC jury instructions: conclusive presumption
A conclusive presumption is an irrebutable direction by the court to find intent once convinced of the facts triggering the presumption.
This is usually a per se violation of the DPC.
DPC jury instructions: mandatory presumption
Unlike irrebutable conclusive presumptions, rebuttable mandatory presumptions are not always per se violations of the DPC.
However, the Supreme Court has held that jury instructions that could reasonably be understood as shifting the burden of proof to the ∆ on an element of the offense are unconstitutional.
Right to a jury trial
Under Apprendi v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court held that, other than other prior convictions, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory max must be submitted to the jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The statutory maximum is the maximum sentence a judge may impose soley on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the ∆. Any fact that is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the max authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilt or a jury verdict must be admitted by the ∆ or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Is mistake of fact a defense to larceny?
Larceny requires the intent to permanently deprive another of his property, so a person who takes property under the belief that he owns it is not guilty of this crime. And if larceny serves as the intended felony for common law burglary, this belief would be a defense to both crimes.
does the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination apply to corporations?
The 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination can be asserted only by natural persons–not artificial entitiesl like corporations.
Dual sovereignty doctrine
The dual sovereignty doctrine allows different sovereigns to prosecute a ∆ for the same criminal act without violating the 5th Amendment double jeopardy clause. Each jurisdiction/state has the right to enforce its laws.
Admissibility of in-court identification testimony
In-court identification testimony may be unreliable if it stems from unnecessarily suggestive out of court ID procedures arranged by police (e.g., police detective showed store owner a photo of the ∆ and explained the police were “pretty sure” that ∆ was robber).
Therefore, such in-court ID testimony is only admissible if the prosecution demonstrates that it is sufficiently reliable and poses no substantial likelihood of misidentification.
Volunteered incriminating statements
An interrogation occurs when police direct questions, words, or actions at a suspect that they know or should know are reasonably ikely to elicit an incriminating response.
Since volunteered statements (i.e., spontaneous and unprompted remarks) are freely offered, they are not elicited by an interrogation. Volunteered statements are admissible even if the speaker had not been Mirandized.
Attempted murder
Attempted murder occurs when the ∆:
* has the specific intent to kill;
* commits an act in furtherance of the killing, but;
* does not complete the killing.
An overt act occurs when ∆ was dangerously close to completing crime.
And once the ∆ comes dangerously close to completing the crime (act), he cannot avoid criminal liability by abandoning his plan.
4th Amendment search: schools
School officials may search a student without a warrant if:
* they have reasonable suspicion that the student violated a law or school rule;
* the scope of the search is reasonably related to the suspected offense; and,
* the search is not excessively intrusive.
However, a warrant is required if the search is conducted at the direction of the police. e.g., two officers ask principal to call a student out of class and search his backpack. The principal did so without a warrant and found jewelry that she then turned over to the officers. Since principals’ search was conducted at direction of the police, warrant based on PC was required.
Affirmative defenses: responsibility to prove
Due process does not apply to affirmative defenses (e.g., insanity), so state law can require the ∆ to prove an affirmative defense by any standard.
e.g., instructing the jury that the BOP is on the ∆ to prove a consent defense is OK and does not violate the ∆’s constitutional rights.
Additionally, a legislature can freely modify or eliminate these defenses.
Innocent agent
A ∆ can be criminally liable if he:
* personally commits a crime or uses an innocent agent to do so (principal liability); or,
* intentionally aids or encourages the principal before or during a crime with the intent that the crimebe completed (accomplice liability). But an accomplice is only liable to the same extent as the principal.
Larceny
Larceny occurs when there is a trespassory taking and carrying away of another’s personal property with the specific intent to permanently deprive that person of the property.
A conviction can stem from either principal liability (e.g., innocent agent) or accomplice liability.
when can ∆ waive her 6th Amendment right to counsel and engage in self-representation?
A ∆ can only waive her 6th Amendment right to counsel and engage in self-representation if the trial court confirms that the ∆:
* knows the nature of the charges, range of punishment, and disadvantages of self-representation; and,
* is not being forced to choose between incompetent counsel and self-representation.
does double jeopardy bar a second prosecution following a mistrial?
Double jeopardy does not bar a second prosecution following a mistrial if the ∆ requested the mistrial or it was based on a manifest necessity:
* when an unforeseeable event made it highly necessary to end the proceedings; and,
* the judge exercised sound and rational discretion before doing so.
e.g., judge learned that his mother in law had suddenly died (unforeseeable event) and declared a mistrial. But the judge did so without considering other alternatives like postponing the trial or substituting another judge (no exercise of sound and rational discretion). As a result, there was no manifest necessity for the mistrial, and second trial would violate the double jeopardy clause.
Ker/Frisbie doctrine
Under the Ker/Frisbie doctirne, a ∆ can be prosecuted in the U.S. even if he was forcibly abducted from another country without a warrant or the other country’s permission.
