Crim Law & Pro Flashcards
jurisdiction of federal government
power to criminal and prosecute crimes that
- occur anywhere in the US
- occur on ships and planes
- committed by US nationals abroad
jurisdiction of states
can only punish crimes with some connection to the state
- crime that occurs in whole or in part inside the state
- conduct outside the state that involves an attempt to commit a crime inside the state
- conspiracy to commit a crime if an overt act occurred w/in the state
actus reus
what are the requirements for actus reus
- no thought crimes
- must be some physical act in the world (including speech)
- act must be voluntary (willed by the defendant, not involuntary act, need to have the motor control to do it, not necessarily want to do it)
- failure to act can be sufficient (ex. failure to comply with statutory duty, special relationship b/t D and victim, voluntarily assuming a duty of care that is cast aside, D causes a danger and fails to mitigate harm to the victim)
mens rea / common law
categories of intent
- specific intent
- malice
- general intent
- strict liability
mens rea / common law
specific intent
D committed the actus reus for the very purpose of causing the result that the law criminalizes
applies to FIAT crimes
specific intent crimes under common law (list)
common law
FIAT
- First-degree murder
- Inchoate crimes - Conspiracy, Attempt, Solicitation (CATS)
- Assault with attempt to commit battery
- Theft offenses - larceny, embezzlement, burglary, robbery, forgery
mens rea / common law
malice
common law
D acts in reckless disregard of a high degree of harm, D realizes the risk and acts anyway
Arson and Murder
“I AM certain there are two malice crimes”
mens rea / common law
general intent
common law
- catch-all
- requires an intent to perform an act that is unlawful
- do NOT need to know that the act is unlawful
mens rea / MPC
general intent crimes
MPC
knowingly, recklessly, or negligently
ex. battery, kidnapping, rape, false imprisonment
mens rea / MPC
specific intent crimes
MPC
purposely
mens rea / common law
strict liability
common law
- no state of mind requirement
- D must merely have committed the act
- statutory / regulatory offenses + moral offenses
moral offenses like statutory rape - doesn’t matter if you thought the victim was 18+
tip
“with the intent to”
what type of mens rea category is this?
specific intent
tip
“knowingly or recklessly”
what type of mens rea category is this
general intent
tip
what type of mens rea category is it if there’s no mens rea language
maybe strict liability
MPC
Model Penal Code
mens rea / MPC
hierarchy of mental states
MPC
- purpose (highest level of culpability)
- knowledge
- recklessness
- negligence
+ strict liability
mens rea / MPC
if no mens rea language, what is the default the prosecutor must prove?
MPC
recklessness
mens rea / MPC
purposely
MPC
D’s conscious objective is to engage in the conduct or to cause a certain result
mens rea / MPC
knowingly (or willfully)
MPC
D is aware that
1. their conduct is of the nature required to commit the crime
AND
2. the result is practically certain to occur from this conduct
mens rea / MPC
recklessly
MPC
D acts with a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that
constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct of a law-abiding person
mens rea / MPC
negligently
MPC
D should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
and acts in a way that grossly deviates from the standard of care of a reasonable person in the same situation
mens rea
transferred intent doctrine
- only applies to competed crimes, not attempted
- when D has the requisite mens rea for committing a crime against Victim A, but actually commits the crime against Victim B
- law transfers the intent from A to B
vicarious liability
- holds a person or entity (like a corporation) liable for an actus reus committed by someone else
merger
general info about merger doctrine
- D can be convicted of 1+ crime arising out of the same act
- D cannot be convicted of 2 crimes when those crimes merge into one
- two categories - lesser-included offenses + merger of an inchoate and a completed offense
merger
lesser-included offenses
an offense in which each of its elements appears in another offense, but the other offense has something additional
can’t be convicted of both, but can be tried for both
like if offense 1 requires circle and square and offense 2 requires circle, square, triangle –> offense 1 is lesser-included offense, D can be convicted of #2 but not #1 b/c #1 merges into #2
merger / lesser-included offenses
if there are two separate victims, can you merge?
nope, crimes against each victim do not merge
merger / inchoate crimes
attempt
D who actually completes a crime CANNOT also be convicted of attempting that crime
merger / inchoate crimes
solicitation
merges into the completed offense
merger / inchoate crimes
do conspiracy and a completed substantive offense merge?
nope! D can be convicted of both conspiracy to commit a crime + crime itself
rule for children to be convicted of crimes (common law)
common law
- under age 7: NEVER capable of committing a crime
- 7 - 14: rebuttably presumed to be incapable
- 14+: can be charged as adults
principals, accomplices, aiders, abettors
principals
D whose acts or omissions form the actus reus of the crime
can be more than one principal to a particular crime
“who committed the actus reus that gives rise to the offense?”
principals, accomplices, aiders, abettors
accomplices
- theory for holding people other than the principal responsible for the crime committed by the principal
- same degree of responsibility as the principal
- assist principal before or during the commission of a crime
- must act with the intent of assisting the principal to commit the crime
- EXCEPTION: person protected by statute can’t be an accomplice in violating the statute (ex. victim of statutory rape)
principals, accomplices, aiders, abettors
are bystanders accomplices?
no, even approving bystanders
principals, accomplices, aiders, abettors
what is an accomplice liable for?
both the planned crime + any other foreseeable crimes that occur in the course of the criminal act
crimes that are the natural and probable consequnece of their conduct
principals, accomplices, aiders, abettors
can an accomplice be criminally liable if the principal can’t be convicted?
yes, accomplice can be criminally liable EVEN IF they can’t be principal or if the principal can’t be convicted
NOTE: this is the modern view. Under common law, accomplice can only be convicted if principal was convicted (PQs Set 3, Crim Law)
principals, accomplices, aiders, abettors
accessories after the fact
people who assist the D AFTER the crime has been committed
ex. obstruction of justice, harboring a fugitive
principals, accomplices, aiders, abettors
aiders and abettors
idv who aid or abet a D to commit a crime may also be guilty of the separate crime of conspiracy IF
there was an agreement to commit the crime + overt act was taken in furtherance of that agreement
principals, accomplices, aiders, abettors
mental state of accomplices - majority / MPC approach
MPC
accomplice (1) must act with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense
AND
(2) must intend that their acts will assist or encourage the criminal conduct
principals, accomplices, aiders, abettors
mental state of accomplices - minority approach
accomplice is liable IF they intentionally or knowingly aids or causes another person to commit an offense
principals, accomplices, aiders, abettors
mental state of accomplices - criminal facilitation (under majority rule)
person who is NOT guilty of the substantive crime (b/c lacks intent) may still be guilty of the lesser offense of criminal facilitation for simply assisting
negating mens rea
categories for negating mens rea
- mistake
- insanity
- intoxication
negating mens rea / mistake
what is mistake (generally)?
D will claim that some mistake (about facts or law) negates their mens rea SO they cannot be convicted of a crime for which there are mens rea + actus reus elements
mistakes of law + mistakes of fact
negating mens rea / mistake
mistake of law
- mistakes about what the law forbids and permits
- ignorance of the law is NOT an excuse
negating mens rea / mistake
mistakes of law - what are the potential exceptions?
- reliance on high-level govt interpretation
- lack of notice
- mistake of law that goes to an element of a specific-intent crime (only for FIAT crimes)
relying on your lawyer’s advice is NOT within these exceptions
tip
mistakes of fact - how to tackle
first determine whether the crime is a specific intent crime (FIAT), general intent crime, or strict liability crime
negating mens rea / mistake
mistake of fact - rule for strict liability crimes
mistake of fact is NEVER a defense to SL crimes
must be a voluntary act
D’s state of mind is irrelevant
negating mens rea / mistake
mistake of fact - rule for general intent crimes
defense ONLY IF mistake is reasonable + goes to criminal intent
negating mens rea / mistake
mistake of fact - rule for specific intent crimes (FIAT)
are a defense whether the mistake is reasonable or unreasonable
question is whether the D held the mistaken belief
negating mens rea / insanity
list of tests for insanity
- M’Naghten test
- Irresistible impulse test
- Durham rule
- MPC
negating mens rea / insanity
M’Naghten test
D either did not know the nature of the act OR did not know the act was wrong B/C OF mental disease or defect
negating mens rea / insanity
irresistible impulse test
D has a mental disease or defect that prevents D from controlling themself
negating mens rea / insanity
Durham rule
D would not have committed the crime BUT FOR having a mental disease or defect
D friendly so rarely used
negating mens rea / insanity
MPC
due to a mental disease or defect, D did not have substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions OR to confirm their conduct to the law
negating mens rea / insanity
majority rule for burdens
- D has the burden of proving insanity either by a preponderance of the evidence OR clear and convincing evidence.
- some juris require D to intro evidence of insanity THEN burden of persuasion shifts to prosecution to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt
negating mens rea / intoxication
what substances are covered?
alcohol, drugs, and medications
negating mens rea / intoxication
involuntary intoxication - elements
occurs when a person
- doesn’t realize they received an intoxicating substance
- is coerced into ingesting a substance OR
- has an unexcited or unanticipated reaction to prescription medication
negating mens rea / intoxication
involuntary intoxication - what type of crimes can involuntary intoxication be a defense for?
- general intent
- specific intent
- malice crimes when it negates the mens rea necessary for the crime
negating mens rea / intoxication
voluntary intoxication - elements
person intentionally ingests the substance, knowing that it is an intoxicant
inchoate crimes / conspiracy
common law elements of conspiracy
common law
- agreement
- b/t 2+ people
- to commit an unlawful act
inchoate crimes / conspiracy
elements of conspiracy under federal law, MPC, majority states
MPC
- agreement
- b/t 2+ people
- to commit an unlawful act
- performance of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy
MPC doesn’t require overt act if conspiratorial crime is felony 1st or 2nd
#4 is difference from common law
inchoate crimes / conspiracy
MPC conspiracy
MPC
ONLY D must actually agree to commit the unlawful act (so undercover agents can be the other people)
inchoate crimes / conspiracy
what is needed for the agreement?
- explicit or implicit
- simply knowing a crime is going to occur and doing nothing does NOT turn bystander into co-conspirator (lacks agreement)
inchoate crimes / conspiracy
what is needed for the purpose of the conspiracy?
- must be an unlawful act
- if conspirators agree to do something that is not a crime, then it’s not conspiracy
inchoate crimes / conspiracy
what is required for the overt act?
can be lawful or unlawful as long as it furthers the conspiracy
inchoate crimes / conspiracy
what is the scope of conspiracy under common law?
common law
each co-conspirator can be convicted of both
(1) conspiracy AND (2) all substantive crimes committed by any other conspirator acting in furtherance of the conspiracy
inchoate crimes / conspiracy
what are the two theories for the relationship of co-conspirators?
- chain conspiracy
co-conspirators are engaged in an enterprise consisting of many steps, each participant is liable for substantive crimes of their co-conspirators
ex. everyone on the supply chain of a drug ring is liable - spoke-hub conspiracy
involves many people dealing with a central hub, participants are NOT liable for substantive crimes of co-conspirators
each spoke is treated as separate agreement rather than one large general agreement
ex. pawn shop operating as a fence, each robber is not responsible for goods of the other robbers
inchoate crimes / conspiracy
how do you withdraw from a conspiracy in common law?
common law
impossible to withdraw b/c crime is complete the moment the agreement is made
inchoate crimes / conspiracy
how do you withdraw from a conspiracy under federal law and MPC?
MPC
conspirator can withdraw prior to the commission of any overt act by communicating her intention to withdraw to all other conspirators OR by informing law enforcement
after an overt act, conspirator can withdraw only by helping to thwart the success of a conspiracy
inchoate crimes / conspiracy
how can a D limit their liability for substantive crimes if they can’t withdraw from a conspiracy (federal law + MPC)?
MPC
informing other conspirators of the withdrawal OR
timely advising legal authorities
inchoate crimes / attempt
what is required for attempt (elements)?
- specific intent to commit a particular criminal act
AND - substantial step towards perpetrating the crime
specific intent crime even when completed offense is only a general intent crime
inchoate crimes / attempt
what defenses can be used for attempt?
defenses for specific intent crimes apply
certain defenses (voluntary intoxication, unreasonable mistake of fact) are available EVEN IF they wouldn’t be available had the crime been completed
inchoate crimes / attempt
can attempt be merged?
- attempt merges into a completed offense
- CANNOT be convicted of both attempted murder + murder of the same person in the same episode
- CAN be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder + murder
inchoate crimes / solicitation
what is required for solicitation?
occurs when an individual intentionally invites, requests, or commands another person to commit a crime
the ask is the crime
inchoate crimes / solicitation
what happens if the person agrees to the solicitation?
it’s conspiracy instead
inchoate crimes / solicitation
what happens if the person commits the offense?
solicitation merges into the completed offense
homicide
general definition of homicide
killings of a living human being by another human being
animals don’t count
victim can’t be dead already
suicide is not, but assisting someone can be
homicide
what causation is needed for homicide?
must be a causal relationship b/t D’s actions and what happened to victim
actual causation - victim wouldn’t have died but for what D did
AND
proximate causation - D’s act is a foreseeable cause of victim’s death / death is the natural and probable result of the conduct
independent actions by 3p are not a foreseeable cause
homicide
is consent a defense to homicide?
nope
tip
what is the default type of homicide on MBE if question doesn’t specify?
common law murder
homicide
what are the types of homicide?
- first degree murder
- common law murder
- manslaughter
homicide / first degree murder
what is required for first degree murder?
- specific intent crime
- deliberate and premeditated murder OR
- a killing that results during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony
felony murder is frequently classified as M1
homicide / common law murder
definition of common law murder
unlawful killing of another human being committed with malice aforethought
lawful killing of another is not murder (ex. state execution)
homicide / common law murder
what are the types of malice?
- intent to kill - D acted with desire that the victim end up dead, intent need not be premeditated
- intent to inflict serious bodily harm - D intended to hurt the victim badly and victim died
-
abandoned or malignant heart or depraved heart - D acted with cavalier disregard for human life and death resulted
D must realize their conduct is really risky, but doesn’t need intent regarding outcome of actions
majority + MPC: D must actually realize there is danger
minority: reasonable person would have recognized the danger -
felony - death occurred during the commission or attempted commission of a dangerous felony (BARRK felonies)
dangerous felony must be independent of killing itself
can involve someone who resists the felony
includes when bystander is killed during a felony
can include 3p killed by resistor or police (majority uses agency theory - D is only responsible for crimes of D’s agents)
homicide / common law murder
with felony murder: what happens if a co-felon is killed by a resistor or a police officer?
majority: D is not guilty of felony murder
minority: D might be guilty of felony murder
tip
what are the dangerous felonies?
BARRK
- burglary
- arson
- robbery
- rape
- kidnapping
homicide / common law murder
what if there is a death caused by another felony (not a BARRK felony) - is that common law murder?
nope, misdemeanor manslaughter
homicide / manslaughter
definition of manslaughter
all unlawful killings of another human being that are not M1 or common law murder (catch-all)
voluntary + involuntary manslaughter
homicide / manslaughter
voluntary manslaughter
- occurs when a D intends to kill the victim, but mens rea is less blameworthy than murder
- acted in heat of passion or under extreme emotional disturbance
- test: is this situation one in which most people would act w/o thinking and w/o time to cool off?
ex. walking in to your spouse in bed with someone else (not hearing about it)
homicide / manslaughter
involuntary manslaughter
- criminally negligent killing OR killing someone while committing someone other than those covered by felony murder (BARRK)
- D who engages in a criminally negligent conduct and causes a death
property crimes
list the property crimes
- larceny
- robbery
- burglary
property crimes / larceny
list elements of larceny
common law
- taking any movement of property
- another person’s property tangible personal property only
-
without their consent (trespassory) AND
consent must be real (not by a trick)
D has burden of proving there was consent -
with the intent to deprive them of it permanently
borrowing is not larceny
specific intent crime (part of theft)
property crimes / larceny
is it larceny if the property was destroyed in your care?
no if you intended to give it back
property crimes / larceny (variation)
embezzlement
common law
D starts out with victim’s consent to have the property BUT commits embezzlement by converting the property to their own use
property crimes / larceny (variation)
false pretenses
common law
D obtains title to someone else’s property through an act of deception
mens rea: with the specific intent to defraud (intent to steal)
PQs Set 3, Crim Law
property crimes / larceny
MPC requirements for larceny, embezzlement, and false pretenses
MPC
treated as single statutory crime of theft that includes tangible and intangible property
property crimes / robbery
elements of robbery
common law
robbery = larceny + assault
- taking
- another person’s property
- without their consent
- with intent to deprive them of it permanently
- taking occurs from victim’s person or in their presence
- either by violence or putting victim in fear of imminent physical harm
property crimes / robbery (variation)
extortion
common law
involves threats of fixture harm (including non-physical harm)
majority: threat alone is sufficient
minority: threat + actually obtaining the property
property crimes / burglary
common law burglary requirements
common law
- breaking and
- entering
- the dwelling (structure regulars lived in)
- of another (can’t burgle yourself)
- at night
- with specific intent to commit a felony once inside (usually larceny)
property crimes / burglary
modern law burglary requirements
- breaking and
- entering
- the property (can include commercial buildings)
- of another
- at any time
- with specific intent to commit a felony once inside
property crimes / burglary
what is needed for the elements of breaking and entering?
breaking can involve pushing open or smashing a door or window, or obtaining entry by fraud or threat
entering involves breaking the plane of the dwelling
battery
elements of battery
- unlawful (consent is a complete defense)
- application of force
- to another person
- that causes bodily harm OR an offensive touching
general intent crime
doesn’t require actual physical contact b/t D and victim
assault
what are the types of assault?
- attempted battery
- fear of harm
assault
attempted battery
- if D has taken a substantial step toward completing a battery but fails
- specific attempt crime b/c attempt
assault
fear of harm
- intentionally placing another in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact
- general intent crime
PQs Set 2 Crim Law
rape
elements of common law rape
- unlawful
- sexual intercourse
- with a female
- against her will by force or threat of force
rape
elements of modern rape statutes (generally)
- unlawful
- sexual intercourse
- with anyone (gender neutral)
- without their consent (no force requirement)
rape
is rape a general intent or specific intent crime? what defenses are available?
- general intent
- voluntary intoxication CANNOT be a defense
rape
statutory rape
- strict liability offense
- ignorance or mistake about victim’s age is not a defense
kidnapping
- unlawful
- confinement of another person
- against that person’s will
- either by moving or hiding the victim
arson
arson - basic elements
common law
- malicious
intent to act in a way that will cause burning or is substantially likely to do so - burning
- of another person’s
- dwelling
arson
what is required for “burning” under common law + modern statutes?
common law - had to be a burning (fire) not just explosion or smoke damage
required to damage structure of building not just contents
modern - arson even if no damage to structure or fire caused by explosion
arson
what is required for “another person” under common law + modern statutes?
common law - can’t torch your own home
modern - it’s still arson if it’s your home (insurance fraud concerns)
arson
what is required for “dwelling” under common law + modern statutes?
common law - had to be a dwelling, not another structure
modern - commercial buildings count
perjury
willful act of falsely promising to tell the truth (verbally or in writing) about material matters
- person must know what they are saying is false
- person must intend to say something that is false AND
- falsity must go to a material matter
subornation of perjury
person persuades someone else to commit perjury
bribery
common law
corrupt payment of something of value for purposes of influencing an official in the discharge of their official duties
bribery
modern
allows a bribery charge even if person being bribed is not a public official
offering a bribe + receiving one are both felonies
can be convicted of bribery even if person could not “be bribed”
defenses
list the defenses
- intoxication
- insanity
- mistake of fact
- self defense
- defense of others
- defense of property
- duress
- necessity
defenses
intoxication - what type of crimes can use this as a defense?
- specific intent crimes - voluntary or involuntary intoxication available as a defense IF D could not maintain the state of mind necessary for the offense
- general intent crimes - only voluntary intoxication
not valid defense if D got drunk to commit the crime
defenses
insanity (basic definition)
D is unable to confirm their conduct to the law b/c of a mental defect or disease
defenses
mistakes of fact - what type of crimes can use this as a defense?
- general intent crimes - ONLY reasonable mistakes of fact
- specific intent crimes - ALL mistakes of fact
defenses
self-defense - what types of force can you use?
- deadly force - intended or likely to cause death or serious injury
only if reasonably believes that deadly force will be used against him OR (MPC) reasonably believes that the crime will result in serious bodily injury
doctrine of retreat - non-deadly force
allows if reasonably fears imminent unlawful harm
defenses
for self-defense, what are the rules for the doctrine of retreat? (when is retreat required)
- majority: retreat is not required even if entitled to use deadly force
- minority: must retreat rather than using deadly force if safe to do so
- retreat is NEVER required when employing deadly force in your own home
defenses
defense to others
idv has same right to defend others against criminal that they have to defend themself
defenses
defense to property
right to use ONLY non-deadly force to protect property
booby traps or spring guns to protect your property –> not appropriate use of force
defenses
duress
D claims they
1. committed a crime only b/c they were threatened by 3p AND
2. reasonably believed that hte only way to avoid death or injury to himself or others was to commit the crime
must be a threat of death or serious bodily harm (not just mere injury)
defense for all crimes except intentional murder
defenses
necessity
available in response to natural forces (choice was lesser of two evils)
basic principles
who do constitutional protections apply to (like whose actions)?
govt only
EXCEPT
private persons acting as govt agents
defense counsel (public + private) for purposes of 6th Amendment for effective assistance of counsel
arrests + seizures
what can a police officer do if the encounter is NOT to the level of a seizure?
can approach anyone in a public place
no real contract on what they can/can’t do or what they can discover
arrests + seizures
what is a seizure
- occurs when an officer, by means of physical force or show or authority, intentionally terminates or restrains a person’s freedom of movement
- whether a reasonable person would feel free to disregard the officer
arrests + seizures
types of seizures (list)
- stop and frisk / Terry stop
- traffic stops
- arrests
- warrants
- warrantless arrests
- searches incident to arrest
arrests + seizures
stop and frisk / Terry stop - definition
- officer stops an individual when officer has reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts to believe suspect is or about to be engaged in criminal behavior
- officer’s reasonable mistake of law can give rise to reasonable suspicion
hierarchy of burdens (in general)
- beyond a reasonable doubt –> conviction
- probable cause (more likely than not) –> arrest
- reasonable suspicion –> stop
arrests + seizures
stop and frisk / Terry stop - can officer pat down detainee for weapons and evidence?
only weapons, not evidence
if pat down reveals objects whose shape makes their identity obvious, officer can seize
arrests + seizures
stop and frisk / Terry stop - can officer make an arrest?
if probable cause develops during a Terry stop, officer can make an arrest
arrests + seizures
stop and frisk / Terry stop - what are the consequences of a stop that is NOT based on adequate suspicion?
- if initial stop is unlawful but officer develops basis for a lawful arrest during stop –> evidence seized can be used at trial
- if initial stop is unlawful + no basis for making a lawful arrest –> evidence cannot be used
arrests + seizures
arrests
- must be probable cause to believe that the idv has committed a crime
- can be w/ or w/o arrest warrant
arrests + seizures
traffic stops
- officers must have reasonable suspicion to stop a car
- once lawful stop, officers may pat down an occupant for weapons IF they have reasonable suspicion that person has a weapon
- do not need reasonable suspicion at a checkpoint (stop everyone)
arrests + seizures
pretext arrest
as long as police have probable cause to believe an individual committed a crime, it’s irrelevant whether officer stopped that person for the crime for which there is probable cause or another crime
allowed under 4th but probs an Equal Protection issue
if three co-conspirators, can only one be guilty of conspiracy at the same trial?
PQs Set 2, Crim Law
no, need consistency in verdicts returned by single jury
conspirator cannot be convicted if ALL other co-conspirators are acquitted at the same trial
can conspirator be criminally liable for any foreseeable crimes by co-conspirator?
PQs Set 2, Crim Law
Yes, Pinkerton Rule
conspirator is criminally liable for any foreseeable crimes committed by a co-conspirator acting in furtherance of the conspiracy
arrests + seizures
arrest warrants
authorizes an officer to arrest a particular person
- must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate
- must be based on finding of probable case to believe that they committed a particular crime AND
- name the person and ID the offense
arrests + seizures
warrants - what happens once a warrant is issued?
- allows officers to enter an idv’s home to arrest them
- does NOT allow them to enter 3p’s home or business
- need to have a search warrant to search the premises for the idv
arrests + seizures
without an arrest warrant, when can an officer arrest someone inside a dwelling?
only if
- there are exigent circumstances OR
- there is consent to enter
arrests + seizures
warrantless arrests - when can these occur?
can arrest idv w/o warrant in public place for crime committed in officer’s presence OR based on probable cause to believe idv committed a felony (only a felony)
arrests + seizures
does an illegal arrest prevent prosecution for the crime?
no, but might result in exclusion of evidence discovered during the event
illegal arrest = no probable cause
arrests + seizures
during a lawful arrest, what type of search can officer do?
can make a contemporaneous search of person + immediately surrounding area to
* protect officers from weapons or other danger
* prevent destruction or concealment of evidence
arrests + seizures
what happens to evidence discovered and seized during search incident to lawful arrest?
can be used against person arrested
arrests + seizures
in a search incident to arrest that occurs on the street, where can officer search?
suspect + their wingspan (immediate surrounding area)
arrests + seizures
in a search incident to arrest that occurs at home, where can officer search?
suspect + immediate arrest area
can also do a protective sweep for people
arrests + seizures
in a search incident to arrest that occurs in a car, where can officer search?
passenger compartment of vehicle as long as suspect still has access to vehicle at the time
can’t start searching the car once suspect is in the back of the squad car b/c no longer a threat to officers and no longer risk of destruction of evidence
(but can search car if it is reasonable that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle)
arrests + seizures
rule for searching cellphones during an arrest
may seize the phone but can’t search for digital info
need a search warrant to search a phone
searches
elements of a search
when (1) govt conduct violates a (2) reasonable expectation of privacy
searches
what is needed for “govt conduct”?
- physical intrusion upon private property
- can occur without a physical intrusion
- using some types of technology (ex. thermal imaging device) can constitute a search
searches
where do we have / not have “reasonable expectation of privacy”?
do have:
- houses
- hotel rooms
- offices
- luggage
- curtilage (yard)
- cars but limited
don’t have:
- public streets
- open fields (even private property)
- garbage cans on the street
- abandoned property
- prison cells
tip
what to focus on with searches
- who is claiming the search
- who holds the reasonable expectation of privacy
gov’t actions are valid UNLESS D has a reasonable expectation of privacy
only govt actions
searches
requirements for search warrant
- must be issued by neutral magistrate
- must be based on probable cause to believe that the items sought are fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime
- must describe the property and place to be searched with particularity
ex. bank robbery –> loot is fruit of the crime, gun is instrumentality, bloody shirt robber wore is evidence
searches
when is a search warrant required?
generally govt needs search warrant to conduct a search if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy
searches
if warrant doesn’t meet requirements, what happens?
- warrant is invalid
- items seized pursuant to the warrant are excluded from prosecution’s case in chief
searches
what is required for wiretapping?
- constitutes a search
- must have probable cause + warrant
- need to specifically ID whose convos are to be intercepted, include an end date, perform minimization
searches / warrant exceptions
list major exceptions to warrant requirement
ESCAPES from the warrant requirement
Exigent circumstances
Search incident to arrest
Consent
Automobiles
Plain view
Evidence obtained from administrative searches
Stop and frisk
searches / warrant exceptions
exigent circumstances
- if officers are in hot pursuit or there is an immediate danger, may conduct a search w/o a warrant
- officers are entitled to secure premises while they obtain a warrant, but sometimes not sufficient
- does not apply if police created the exigency
- need warrant for DUI blood draw absent exigent circumstances
searches / warrant exceptions
search incident to lawful arrest
if arrest is lawful, search warrant is unnecessary to search the person being arrested and wingspan (immediate surrounding area) for weapons or evidence
searches / warrant exceptions
consent
don’t need warrant if D consents to a search
officer can engage in outright deception
3p consent - officer cannot search over objection of present occupant, but can search if other occupant consents when suspect is not present
searches / warrant exceptions
automobiles
if police have probable cause to believe car contains contraband, can search those parts of the vehicle that might contain contraband even without an arrest
ex. can’t search the money holder for a machine gun (obvi too small to hold the gun)
searches / warrant exceptions
plain view
if police are legally present, can seize any item in plain view or plain smell, even if that item wasn’t named in the warrant
searches / warrant exceptions
evidence obtained from administrative search
don’t need search warrant for administrative searches
- administrative warrants (ex. health inspection of building)
- warrantless administrative searches (ex. airplane boarding areas, international borders, stu in public schools)
searches / warrant exceptions
stop and frisk
Terry stops merely require reasonable suspicion
may conduct limited frisk for weapons
interrogations / 5th Amend
5th Amendment
no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself , nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
interrogations / 5th Amend
scope of privilege
- applies to natural persons (not corporations or unions)
- applies to testimonial evidence, not physical evidence
- applies to testimony that would be a link in chain leading to prosecution or conviction
- if given immunity, can’t continue to refuse to answer
interrogations / 5th Amend
statements by an idv
- must be made by idv to the govt
- statements made as result of custodial interrogation are inadmissible UNLESS accompanied by procedural safeguards (Miranda warnings)
interrogations / 5th Amend
what is a custodial interrogation?
custodial
person being questioned has been arrested or is otherwise not free to leave
if not in custody, no warning is required
interrogation
official asking questions or engaging or words or conduct that police know/should know will elicit a response
does not include volunteered statements or routine booking questions
interrogations / 5th Amend
Miranda warnings - timing + requirements
before conducting custodial interrogations
- you have right to remain silent
- any statement you make may be used against you in court
- you have right to consult an atty and have atty present during questioning
- right to have atty appointed if you can’t afford one
- must ask whether D understands the rights
no magic words
interrogations / 5th Amend
when must police cease questioning?
- invoking right to remain silent
must be affirmatively invoked (have to say you don’t want to talk, can’t just be silent)
can resume interrogation after substantial period of time and give Miranda warnings again - invoking right to counsel
must be affirmatively invoked
all must questioning must stop until lawyer is present OR D affirmatively initiates contact with police
police can’t question D again
police don’t have to tell D that lawyer is trying to reach them
“I think I should talk to somebody” isn’t enough
interrogations / 5th Amend
Public Safety Exception
when public safety is at risk, police don’t have to give Miranda warnings
interrogations / 5th Amend
interrogation tactics - what’s allowed?
- confessions must be voluntary
- statements obtained by threats are inadmissible (even after Miranda)
- confessions can be product of deceit
interrogations / 5th Amend
consequences of 5th violations - statements obtained involuntarily
NEVER admissible against D
whether to overturn conviction - harmless error standard
evidence obtained as result of involuntary statement is fruit of poisonous tree is presumptively inadmissible
interrogations / 5th Amend
consequences of 5th violations - statements in violation of Miranda
inadmissible in prosecution’s case in chief, BUT may be admissible to impeach witness to challenge credibility
evidence obtained as result of voluntary statement taken in violation of Miranda is admissible
6th Amend
right to counsel
explicitly provides criminal defendant with “assistance of counsel for his defense”
5th Miranda vs. 6th Right to Counsel
how do you invoke each?
5th: must be affirmatively invoked by D
6th: auto attaches once there has been an indictment, info, or other formal charges
exists unless D knowingly and intelligently waives
5th Miranda vs. 6th Right to Counsel
what charges does each apply to?
5th: applies to custodial interrogation for ANY charge, but not to non-custodial interrogation
6th: ONLY applies to offense for which D has actually been charged (including any lesser-included offenses)
doesn’t apply to unrelated charges - D can be questioned still
applies whether you’re in custody or not
6th Amend / right to counsel
what type of prosecutions does it apply to?
applies to all felony prosecutions + any misdemeanor prosecutors for which jail time or suspended jail sentence is imposed
6th Amend / right to counsel
what stages of prosecution does it apply/not apply to?
applies to all critical stages of the prosecution
critical stages
* evidentiary hearings
* post-indictment lineups
* post-indictment interrogations
* all parts of trial process
non-critical stages
* investigative lineups (pre-indictment)
* witnesses looking at photo arrays
* discretionary appeals and post-conviction proceedings
6th Amend / identification procedures
what are the kinds of identification procedures (how victims and witnesses ID the person)?
- photo arrays
- pre-indictment lineups
- post-indictment
6th Amend / identification procedures
in which identification procedures does D have right to counsel?
- photo arrays - neither D nor atty have right to be present, but police must turn over array to D
- pre-indictment lineups - D has no right to counsel
- post-indictment lineups - D has right to counsel present
if right is violated, evidence that witness ID’d D at lineup must be excluded
6th Amend / identification procedures
is lineup evidence at trial admissible?
If D moves to suppress evidence that a witness picked the D out of lineup, court will consider whether the lineup was impermissibly suggestive
if so, court can exclude the testimony
6th Amend / identification procedures
is an in-court identification admissible?
prosecution must establish by clear and convincing evidence that witness would have ID’d the D even without the suggestive lineup
like pointing to the D at trial “that’s the guy”
tip
how to address questions about identification
- was the identification before or after the indictment?
- was the lineup or photo array impermissibly suggestive
exclusionary rule
what is the exclusionary rule (in general)?
illegally obtained evidence (physical evidence obtained by illegal search OR statement from illegal interrogation) is inadmissible at criminal trial of person whose rights were violated to prove their guilt
applies at trial, not pretrial proceedings (like grand jury)
evidence obtained in violation of 4th, 5th, or 6th
applies to states through 14th
exclusionary rule
what standing is needed?
violation must have been the D’s rights, NOT someone else’s
BUT
if driver of car is arrested w/o probable cause, passengers are deemed to have been seized as well + can challenge constitutionality of the stop
exclusionary rule
does exclusionary rule apply to evidence obtained as result of initial violation?
yep, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
exclusionary rule / exceptions
list exceptions to exclusionary rule
- knock and announce
- inevitable discovery
- independent source
- attenuation in causal chain
- good faith
- negligence (half exception)
exclusionary rule / exceptions
knock and announce
officers executing an arrest warrant at a residence are required to knock and announce they are police
if they fail to do so + discover evidence, that evidence does NOT have to be suppressed (if they were entitled to enter)
exclusionary rule / exceptions
inevitable discovery
if evidence would have been discovered anyway through lawful means, it will be admissible
exclusionary rule / exceptions
independent source
evidence discovered on basis of an independent source will be admissible
exclusionary rule / exceptions
attenuation in the causal chain
intervening events + passage of time can remove the taint of the unconstitutional conduct
exclusionary rule / exceptions
good faith
most important exception to Exclusionary Rule
applies to officers who violate an individual’s rights BUT have good faith reason to believe their conduct is constitutional –> allowed to use that evidence
officers who rely on an existing law that’s later unconstitutional OR warrant that is facially valid and is later found defective
can rely on a warrant UNLESS
* warrant is obtained by fraud
* warrant was facially defective
* magistrate wholly abandoned judicial role
exclusionary rule / exceptions
negligence (kinda an exception)
isolated negligence by law enforcement personnel does NOT necessarily trigger this rule
police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate so that exclusion could meaningfully deter it
tip
suppression is only an issue AFTER you conclude there has been an underlying constitutional violation
- was there an underlying cons violation?
* 4th - was there a search? Seziure? If yes, was there probable cause?
* 5th - was D in cusotdy? Was there an interrogation? Was the D given warnings? did he invoke his rights?
* 6th - did right to counsel under 6th attach? Was this a critical stage? - if there was a violation, does exclusionary rule apply?
- was there an exclsuion to the exclusionary rule that makes the evidence admissible anyway?
- if question is about overturning a conviction (so not about whether evidence should be suppressed), apply harmless error rule: if this evidence had not been admitted, would it make a difference to the outcome?
pretrial procedures
initiation of charges - 5th Presentment Clause
all federal felony charges MUST be intiiated by indictment by grand jury unless D waives indictment
indictment requires probable cause to believe D committed the crimes charged
pretrial procedures
initiation of charges - 5th Presentment Clause –> does this apply to states?
nope, has not been incorporated to states
SO states can choose whether to proceed by grand jury indictment or by info
if by info, there must be a preliminary hearing before a neutral judge to determine whether there is probable cause
pretrial procedures / proceedings before grand jury
what type of evidence can grand jury consider?
can consider evidence that has been obtained illegally AND hearsay evidence in deciding whether there is probable cause
pretrial procedures / proceedings before grand jury
what are the rules for the proceedings? Are they public? Can D testify? Does the vote have to be unanimous?
- D do NOT have right to testify or call witnesses
- witnesses don’t have right to counsel (but can leave the room to consult w/ their lawyers)
- held in secret
- does not have to be unanimous (majority vote)
pretrial procedures
what is the test for competence to stand trial?
whether D comprehends the nature of the proceedings against him + can assist his lawyer in defending the case
if competent to stand trial, also competent to plead guilty + waive right to trial
pretrial procedures
what happens if D pleads guilty?
waives various trial rights (right to put prosecution to its proof, confront and produce witnesses, trial by jury, challenge intro of evidence, appeal if conviction)
pretrial procedures
what’s needed for guilty plea to be valid?
D must knowingly and intelligently waive these rights through plea allouction where judge asks questions
- informs D of his rights and ensures that D understands
- informs D of possible sentences
- informs D of immigration consquences (but judge isn’t required to inform of other collateral consequences)
- determines that plea didn’t come from force, coercion, threats, or promises
- makes sure there is a factual basis for the plea
pretrial procedures
can D later challenge his plea agreement (guilty plea)? What happens if they successfully reopen the case?
yes, if succeeds in reopening the case, proseuciton can bring charges again + reinstate any charges that were dropped
D is entitled to competent assitance from counsel in plea bargaining process
pretrial procedures / bail
general rule for bail + limitations
bail is available unless D poses flight risk OR danger to the community
presumption in favor of bail
8th forbids setting of excessive bail
cts can impose pretrial release conditions on D (house arrest, avoiding certain people, reporting, etc.)
trial process / jury
6th right to jury trial
D has right to jury trial for all serious offenses for which authorized punsihment is more than 6 mo
when does 6th right to counsel attach for misdemeanors?
only if a sentnece of incarceration is actually imposed
trial process / jury
jury size for federal + state courts
how many jurors need to vote in favor?
- federal criminal case - 12 jurors
- states - can use 6+ jurors
- must be unanimous to convict
trial process / jury
jury selection stages
venire (jury pool) –> petit jury (the jury that actually decides)
trial process / jury
what is required for the jury pool / venire?
must represent a fair cross-section of the community from which no distinctive group is excluded
trial process / jury
what are the ways to remove a potential juror during voir dire (selecting the petit jury)?
- for cause
something that prevents them from being impartial and deliberating fairly
no limit - peremptory challenges
can be made for any reason, incl hunches
BUT can’t remove based on race or sex (Batson doctrine)
statutory limit for each side
trial process / jury
what is required for the actual jury?
needs to be impartial BUT doesn’t have to reflect a fair cross-section of the community
trial process / speedy and public trial
when does statute of limitations begin?
begins to run when crime occurs
for contuining offenses, beings when the offense ends
statute of limitations give D repose
trial process / speedy and public trial
what cons provisions protect against delay?
- DP Clause protects against pre-accusation delay
- Speedy Trial Clause of 6th protects D against delays that occur b/t time of arrest/indictment and time of tiral
trial process / speedy and public trial
factors court looks at for Speedy Trial Clause under 6th claim
- length of delay
- reason for delay
- whether D asserted their right to a speedy trial AND
- risk of prejudice to D
trial process / speedy and public trial
right to public trial
6th protects rights of D + 1st to have a public trial
cts have some discretion to close particular proceedings if there is a substnatial likelihood of prejudice to the D
6th / Confrontation Clause
what does the Confrontation Clause guarantee D?
- right to confront witnesses against them (Crawford Doctrine)
- right to compulsory process to produce their own witnesses (Bruton Doctrine)
6th / Confrontation Clause
Crawford Doctrine
if statement is testimonial, 6th bars admission IF
declarant is unavailable AND
D had no prior oppy to cross-examine the witness
if non-testimonal statement, look at rules of evidence
6th / Confrontation Clause
Bruton Doctrine
D’s own statements are always admissible against him even if the D doesn’t testify at trial
if co-D, a non-testifing co-D’s statemetns are NOT admissible against the other D
testimonial statement
made under circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to believe that the statemnet would be used at a later trial
6th / Confrontation Clause
D’s right to present witnesses
D has right to testify on his own behalf
has right to compulsory process to obtain witnesses in his defense
burden of proof
prosecution must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt
govt can place the burden of proof for affirmative defenses on the D
affirmative defenses - insanity, self-defense, entrapment, mistake
responsibilites of judges
DP Clause requires judges possess neither actual nor apparent bias
actual bias - interests that would impair judge’s impartiality
prosecutors
duties of prosecutors
- Brady Doctrine
must turn over all material exculpatory evidence
including evidence that tends to show that D is not guilty of crimes charged
evidence that would enable defnese to impeach credibility of prosecution witnesses
evidence within control of govt (like police)
if D pleads guilty after negotiations, prosecution is not required to turn over Brady info - may not knowingly present false testimony
- may not contact a D oustide presence of his counsel (can’t violate 6th right to counsel)
- may not comment on D’s failure to testify at trial or make unfiar remarks about D to jury
but can comment on D’s silence before Miranda attached
prosecutors
prosecutorial misconduct
if it has a reasonable possibility of affecting the verdict - may require a mistrial or reversal of a conviction
subject to harmless error rule
defense counsel
what type of counsel is required under 6th?
effective assistance of counsel at all critical stages of prosecution
defense counsel
conflicts of interest - situations that may create COI
- joint representation
- prior representation of a witness
defense counsel
what happens if there is an actual conflict?
judge must warn D that joint representation is a risk + give them oppy to get separate counsel
need a waiver if they don’t get separate counsel
if COI actually affects counsel’s behavior, there is a presumption of prejudice and D is not requried to show actual innocence in order to obtain a new trial
defense counsel
effecitve assistance test
Strickland test - assesses whether D was denied effective assistance
1. performance - did defense counsel’s performance fall below wide range of reasonable conduct that lawyers might engage in?
2. prejudice - reasonable probability that the result would have been different if counsel performed effectively
cases that go to trial - D must show there was a reasonable probabilty that he would not have been convicted if lawyer had done a proper job
guilty pleas - D must show that he would not have pleaded guilty if lawyer had not given him bad advice or performed ineffictively
defense counsel
what happens if it’s found that D was denied effective assistance of counsel?
conviction must be reversed b/c D has already shown he was prejudiced
what is requried if D wants to be pro se?
if they are entitled to waive the right to counsel + represent themselves as long as they do it knowingly and voluntarily
sentencing
list primary constitional provisions that regulate sentencing
- Cruel and Unusual Punishment of 8th
- Double Jeopardy of 5th
- Apprendi cases under 6th
sentencing / Cruel + Unusual (8th)
rule for length of prison sentences
govt has free rein to authorize virtually any length sentence for virtually any crime
sentencing / Cruel + Unusual (8th)
life sentences
death penalty only in cases where victim dies
can’t be imposed on D under 18 when crime was committed
can’t be imposed on D with cognitve impairment
can’t be imposed on D who are insane at time of execution
states need a bifurcated trial process, oppy to present mitigating evidence, process that sufficinetly narrows the class of death sentence eligible offenses
sentencing / Cruel + Unusual (8th)
when does 8th Amend apply?
you must have been convicted of a crime
sentencing / Double Jeopardy (5th)
what protections are under Double Jeopardy clause?
- protection against prosecution for same offense after acquittal
- protection against prosecution for same offense after conviction
- protection against multiple prosectuions or punishments for same offense
sentencing / Double Jeopardy (5th)
what is the “same offense”?
- Blockburger test: ask whether each statutory provision requires proof of an element that the other doesn’t
- like if offense 1 requires A + B and offense 2 requires A + B + C –> can’t be convicted of both
- offenses with diff victims are separate offenses for double jeopardy
sentencing / Double Jeopardy (5th)
for “same offense” - what is the rule for different jurisdictions / sovereigns?
if two diff sovereigns have juris over the crime committed, both can try D separately
ex. state + fed govt OR two different states
sentencing / Double Jeopardy (5th)
charged vs. punished distinction
D can be charged and tried for an offense + lesser-included offense at same trial
BUT can only be punished for one offense
sentencing / Double Jeopardy (5th)
when does jeopardy attach?
when jury is sworn in OR first witness is sworn in (for bench trial)
sentencing / Double Jeopardy (5th)
what happens if D is acquitted?
if D is acquitted, end of the case + can’t be retired by same jurisdiction for same offense, prosecution can’t appeal
sentencing / Double Jeopardy (5th)
what happens if D is convicted?
if D convicted + doesn’t appeal or conviction is affirmed –> end of jeopardy, can’t be retired by same juris for same offense
if appeals and gets conviction reversed, can’t be retried UNLESS reversal was based on a finding of insufficient evidence
sentencing / Double Jeopardy (5th)
types of mistrials
- manifest necessity - D can be retried (ex. jury is deadlocked, defense counsel engaged in misconduct)
- no manifest necessity - D cannot be retried by that juris
sentencing / Apprendi Doctrine (6th)
what is the Apprendi Doctrine under 6th?
6th right to jury trial prohibits judges from enhancing sentences beyond statutory maximums based on facts other than those decided by jury beyond a resonable doubt
BUT this doesn’t apply to sentence enhancement based on prior criminal convictions (don’t need to be found by a jury)
ALSO judge is allowed to determine whether offenses are consecutive or concurrent (MBE Practice Exam #4)
probable cause for a search warrant - what is required for an informant who provides the info for the warrant?
PQs Set 1, Crim Pro
if info is from a reliable, known informant –> okay for probable cause
if from an unknown informant –> police must independently verify the info
does 5th amend privilege against self-incrimination apply to civil liability?
PQs Set 1, Crim Pro
nope, only criminal
does 5th amend privilege against self-incrimination apply to corporations?
PQs Set 1, Crim Pro
nope, custodian of corporate records or other corporate officer can NOT refuse to produce corp docs under this privilege
even if the docs would incriminate them personally
function of a grand jury
PQs Set 1, Crim Pro
merely to determine whether enough evidence exists to bring a criminal charge (not determine guilt or innocence)
can physical evidence obtained from a non-Miranda statement admissible?
PQs Set 1, Crim Pro
yes as long as the statement was not coerced
can an incriminating statement during a custodial interrogation w/o Miranda be admitted?
PQs Set 1, Crim Pro
nope, cannot be used against suspect at a subsequent trial
is it a violation of double jeopardy (5th) to use a D’s prior convictions to enhance a sentence?
like a three-strikes law
PQs Set 1, Crim Pro
doesn’t violate double jeopardy
if it imposes a stiffer punishment for a new crime (deter repeat offenders) instead of imposing an additional punishment for the first two crimes
Are Miranda warnings require when a suspect doesn’t know that the interrogator is a police officer (they’re undercover)?
PQs Set 2, Crim Pro
nope, Miranda not required.
tip
what homicides are possible from an intentional killing vs. unintentional killing?
PQs Set 3, Crim Law
- intentional killing –> first degree murder, common law murder based on intent to kill or cause bodily harm, voluntary manslaughter
- unintentional killing –> second degree murder based on felony murder or depraved heart, involuntary manslaughter
mens rea requirement for common law bigamy
PQs Set 3, Crim Law
strict liability crime so proof of the actus reus is sufficient to support a conviction
poor Sister Wives
is an incriminating statement taken after an unlawful arrest admissible?
PQs Set 3, Crim Pro
only if court determines the connection b/t arrest + statement is so attenuated that the statement is considered voluntary
for an anticipatory search warrant, how do you meet the probable cause requirement?
PQs Set 3, Crim Pro
- at time of issuance, there is probable cause to believe the triggering condition will occur AND
- if condition does occur, there is fair probability that contraband or evidence of crime will be found at place to be searched
anticipatory search warrant = warrant that becomes effect only upon occurrence of a triggering condition
ex. once warehouse receives a shipment of stolen goods
does asking for a handwriting exemplar violate 4th, 5th, 6th rights?
PQs Set 3, Crim Pro
- 4th - no b/c no reasonable expectation of privacy of one’s handwriting
- 5th - no protection against self-incrimination for physical evidence (blood, urine, handwriting)
- 6th - not a critical stage of prosecution so right to counsel doesn’t apply
can a conviction be reversed if defendant can’t choose their attorney (non-indigent criminal defendant)?
PQs Set 3, Crim Pro
6th protects non-indigent criminal defendants’ right to choose attorney
erroneous denial of choice of counsel = structural error + requires automatic reversed of conviction
Wharton Rule for conspiracy
PQs Set 4, Crim Law
if a crime requires two or more participants, there is no conspiracy UNLESS more parties than are necessary to complete the crime agree to commit the crime
ex. of incest - both parties agreed, so both have to commit incest for them to be charged with conspiracy to commit incest
test to determine whether an area is part of the curtilage
if curtilage, then protected as part of reasonable expectation of privacy
PQs Set 4, Crim Pro
four-factor test applies
1. the proximity of the area to the home
2. whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home
3. the nature of the uses to which the area is put AND
4. the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by passersby
what happens once 6th right to counsel attaches if there’s a police informant?
PQs Set 4, Crim Pro
- statements that a defendant makes to a police informant are inadmissible WHEN the police intentionally create a situation likely to induce the defendant into making incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel
- Sixth Amendment offense-specific standard, requirement for counsel to be present applies only to interrogations about the offense charged
- Fifth Amendment protections are implicated ONLY in the context of a custodial interrogation, and NOT in the case of questioning by an undercover police officer, AS LONG AS the suspect does not know that the interrogator is a police officer
elements of receiving stolen property
Essay 4986, Crim Law
- D must receive control of the stolen property
- D must know the property is stolen
AND - D must intend to permanently deprive the owner of the property
- property unlawfully obtained through larceny, embezzlement, or false pretense
- some jurisdiction require defendant to have actual, subjective knowledge that property had been stolen
- others allow inference from facts that reasonable person would know
For Miranda warnings, how do you determine if an inmate who is removed from the general population is in “custody” for purposes of Miranda?
Essay 5316, Crim Pro
totality of the circumstances applies
standard, objective analysis (whether reasonable person would feel free to leave)
- consideration of language used in summoning the prisoner to the interview
- manner in which interrogation is conducted
14 days for Miranda warnings to be valid, then need to do again
does opening an unlocked door count as “breaking” under burglary?
UWorld
yes!
does the exclusionary rule apply to grand jury proceedings?
UWorld
no
grand jury only has power to charge, not convict
can statements taken in violation of Miranda be used at trial?
UWorld
yes to impeach the criminal defendant for inconsistent testimony
BUT NOT for deciding ultimate issue of guilt or innocence
larceny by trick vs. false pretenses
MBE Practice Exam #2
- false pretenses - person obtained title to the property
- larceny by trick - obtained mere possession of property and converted it
larceny by false pretenses
Essay 280
- obtaining title to the property
- of another person
- through the reliance of that person
- on a known false representation of a material past or present fact AND
- the representation is made with the intent to defraud
at what point do you measure the amount of the embezzlement?
UWorld
value of the property at the time of conversion
dangerous proximity test for attempt
UWorld
act occurs when D is so close to completing the target crime that it is essentially unstoppable
what does immunity protect a defendant from?
MBE Practice Exam #3
- does NOT protect from use in a civil suit
- Derivative-use immunity protects a witness from the use of the witness’s own testimony, or any evidence derived from that testimony, against the witness in a subsequent prosecution
imperfect self-defense
MBE Practice Exam #3
- D uses deadly force as self-defense
- belief was unreasonable but honest
- can reduce charge from murder to voluntary manslaughter
adding sale sticker to something not on sale then buying it at the store
what crime is this?
MBE Practice Exam #3
false pretenses
false representation to get title (you have a receipt)
how to determine if a confession was voluntary
Crim Pro MEE 282
- voluntary confessions are not protected by Miranda
- involuntary ONLY IF police coerced D into making it
- based on totality of circumstances - conduct of police, characteristics of D, time of the statement
how can an accomplice legally withdraw from a crime (so they’re not liable for the substantive crime)?
MBE Mixed Set
MUST
1. repudiate prior aid
2. do all that is possible to countermand prior assistance AND
3. do so before the chain of events is in motion and unstoppable
mere change of heart isn’t enough
are duress and necessity a defense to murder?
UWorld
nope
if police have an arrest warrant, when can they use forcible entry at person’s home?
NCBE Simulated #2
ONLY if thought they were home at the time
“Under 4th, the arrest warrant would have authorized forcible entry only if the officers had reason to believe that the woman was at home at the time of the entry.”
this house was boarded up and looked abandoned
witness cannot be compelled to provide potentially incriminating info unless they’re given what type of immunity?
NCBE Simulated #2
use and derivative-use immunity (grant the woman immunity from any future use against her of her grand jury testimony or any evidence derived from it)
not if transactional immunity (grant the woman immunity from any future prosecution for any crime she might disclose in the course of her testimony)
pulled from the question
how to show ineffective assistance of counsel
UWorld Assessment #2
- deficient performance - atty’s representation fell below an objective professional standard of reasonableness
- prejudice - reasonable probability that outcome would have been different but for the deficiency
if officer asks parolee to answer questions, does this count as custody for Miranda?
UWorld Assessment #2
- parolee has general obligation to appear and answer questions truthfully when summoned by parole officer
- parolee is NOT in custody in that situation UNLESS arrested or restrained
do all known charges against a defendant have to be brought in the same prosecution?
UWorld Assessment #2
nope, not a requirement under Double Jeopardy
grounds to dismiss an indictment
UWorld
- defective grand jury proceedings
- deficiencies in indictment
- violations of certain constitutional rights (5th double jeopardy, 6th speedy trial, and 5th/14th DP ONLY)
note how 4th violations are NOT included as a ground to dismiss indictment
which party has the burden to establish that a D waived their Miranda rights?
MBE Practice Exam #4
prosecution bears the burden
by a preponderance of evidence
use and derivative use immunity
UWorld
prevents govt from using self-incriminating testimonial communications + any evidence derived from them against the suspect in any way that could lead to a criminal prosecution
transactional immunity
UWorld
protects the suspect from being prosecuted for any crimes associated with self-incriminating testimonial communications