crim pro Flashcards
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is applicable to the states through
the Fourteenth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials.
An unreasonable search occurs when the government
(i) invades a place protected by a reasonable expectation of privacy, or
(ii) physically intrudes upon a constitutionally protected area to gather information.
A person may not search any place, thing, or person without
a properly issued warrant that reasonably describes the place to be search and the items to be seized.
An exception to the search warrant requirement permits the seizure of an item found in
plain view even though not named in the search warrant.
for the plain view exception to apply a police officer may seize an item in plain view as long as
(i) the officer is lawfully on the premises,
(ii) the incriminating character of the item is immediately apparent, and
(iii) the officer has lawful access to the item.
A search warrant grants officers authority to search only
the places and persons named in it.
The right to have a jury trial extends to felonies, and the ability to have a bench trial can occur with the consent of
the defendant, the Commonwealth, and the judge.
The defendant may waive his right to a jury trial upon the advice of his counsel, as long as
1) the Commonwealth attorney and the judge agree and
2) the court determines before trial that the waiver was voluntarily and intelligently given.
waiver of the defendants right to a jury trial, by all parties, must be
on the record
A jury trial is bifurcated to allow for both a guilt and sentencing phase, where the same jury will decide punishment, but the Judge upon consent of the defendant and the Commonwealth, can be allowed to
determine the sentence.
The Fifth Amendment protects against
compelled self-incrimination and preserves the right to remain silent during custodial interrogation.
In Virginia, the Commonwealth bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a confession was made after
(i) a waiver of the Miranda warnings, and
(ii) that the confession was voluntary.
voluntariness of a confession will be negated by
Any promises, threats or coercion
factors in determining the coercive nature of a confession
The defendant’s age, state of health, education, and intoxication
A review of voluntariness of a confession is based on
the totality of the circumstances, including the time, length, place, and presence of others.
Under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant has the right to
1) directly encounter and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
2) to be present at any stage of the trial that would enable the defendant to effectively cross-examine adverse witnesses.
A denial of the opportunity to cross-examine a prosecution witness with regard to bias
violates the Confrontation Clause.
If a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense is charged with an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, the availability of transfer from juvenile court to circuit court is based on
the defendant’s age and the nature of the felony.
For any felony by juveniles 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense, the circuit court may
adjudicate guilt and impose a sentence.
For Juveniles 14 years or older, charged with a felony, upon the Commonwealth’s motion before a hearing on the merits, the court may hold a transfer hearing to determine whether to
retain jurisdiction or transfer the proceedings to the circuit court.
If requested by written notice by the Commonwealth, the JDR court also must conduct a preliminary hearing if
a juvenile who was 16 years of age or older at the time of the offense is charged with certain violent crimes, including malicious wounding.
if probable cause found at a preliminary hearing for juvenile 16 or older, for certain violent crimes, the case must be
certified to the circuit court for trial.
In no scenario does the General District Court have jurisdiction over
a juvenile defendant.
A search occurs when government conduct violates
a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Under the exclusionary rule
evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment may not be introduced at trial to prove guilt.
The general warrant requirement is applicable to homes, but is not applicable if
voluntary consent is given, even if by an occupant other than the defendant.
In Virginia, in a criminal case, a spouse may be compelled to
testify on behalf of the other spouse.
neither spouse may be compelled to testify against the other, except in the prosecution for
(i) an offense committed by one spouse against the person or property of the other spouse or against the minor child of either,
(ii) the forgery by one spouse of the other spouse’s signature, or
(iii) sexual assault.
The privilege against testifying belongs with
the witness spouse, not the defendant spouse.
Because Wife’s testimony concerns her observations of Husband’s actions and not private conversations between Husband and Wife during their marriage, the privileged marital communications doctrine
does not apply.
The Commonwealth must provide the defendant 14-days notice prior to trial of its intention to introduce copies of
final orders evidencing the defendant’s prior criminal history, and must provide copies of any such final order evidence it intends to introduce at sentencing
at sentencing phase, The Commonwealth may present
victim impact testimony and the defendant’s prior criminal history (adult or juvenile).
at sentencing after commonwealth’s evidence, the defendant may
introduce any relevant, admissible evidence related to punishment.
at sentencing after defendants evidence, the commonwealth may
rebut with similar evidence.
A criminal defendant can appeal a final verdict or decision from the circuit court to the Virginia Court of Appeals
as of right.
file a Notice of Appeal within
30 days from the date of the order being appealed.
A copy of the Notice of Appeal must also be sent to
the Court of Appeals’ clerk’s office, as well.
Under the Fifth Amendment, an incriminating statement obtained as the result of custodial interrogation may not be used against the suspect at a subsequent trial unless
the police provided procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination (i.e., informed the suspect of his Miranda rights).
a Miranda violation does not automatically require
the suppression of incriminating statements made by the defendant after receiving Miranda warnings.
the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a second confession may be suppressed when
the circumstances indicate that the substance of Miranda has been drained away.
objective miranda
a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would not have understood the Miranda warnings to convey a message that the suspect retained a choice about whether to remain silent.
subjective miranda
did the police act with an intent to circumvent the purpose of the Miranda warnings.
police trickery, such as the “good cop, bad cop” routine, does not
necessarily prevent the use of a defendant’s statement
