Crim Pro Flashcards
retrial with harsher sentence for appeal.
The Due Process Clause prohibits the imposition of a harsher sentence upon retrial of a defendant who successfully appeals a conviction, when the harsher sentence constitutes a penalty imposed on the defendant for the exercise of her right to appeal her conviction
statement taken in violation of Miranda
may be used to impeach the credibility of a criminal defendant if he takes the witness stand and gives testimony at variance with his previous admissions.
can officer order the passenger to exit the vehicle
As part of the stop, the police officer could order the passenger to exit the vehicle.
(verify stop was first legit)
A defendant was in jail for an aggravated assault charge after his attorney was unable to post bail for that offense. The police believed that the defendant had also been involved with other criminals in executing an unrelated series of bank robberies, and they placed an undercover officer in the jail to pose as the defendant’s cellmate. They hoped to acquire information that might prevent further robberies from occurring. One afternoon, the undercover officer mentioned that he knew the victim of the assault with which the defendant had been charged. The defendant said that the victim had a beating coming to him, and that he was glad he had been the one to complete that task. The next day, the undercover officer mentioned the bank robberies. The defendant began bragging that he had a substantial amount of cash waiting for him once he got out of jail, noting that “all those bankers would hardly miss it.” Which of the defendant’s statements to the undercover officer are admissible against him at trial?
Once the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, 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. In this case, the police created a situation likely to induce the defendant into making a statement about the assault without the presence of counsel; that statement would thus be inadmissible. That protection would not apply to the statement about the robbery, however. Under the Sixth Amendment offense-specific standard, the requirement for counsel to be present applies only to interrogations about the offense charged. In this case, the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not apply to questioning about the bank robberies.
depraved heart & intoxication
MURDER: A defendant can be guilty of murder even when the defendant lacked the intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm. An unintentional killing that results from reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life is a depraved-heart murder. Here, the mother was recklessly indifferent to her child’s fate in leaving the six-month-old child unattended for five days. Although there is a split among jurisdictions as to whether the requisite depravity exists when a defendant is actually unaware of the risk involved in the conduct, and although the majority of states and the MPC impose liability only when the defendant actually realizes the danger, even states following the majority rule allow a conviction if the reason the defendant failed to appreciate the risk was due to voluntary intoxication. Consequently, even though the mother did not appreciate the unjustifiably high risk of death that her inattention posed for her child, because her failure to appreciate the objective risk was due to her voluntary intoxication, she can be convicted of depraved-heart murder.
is 6A offense specific or carte blanc?
The Sixth Amendment is offense-specific, meaning that the interrogation that is the subject of the Sixth Amendment inquiry must relate to the crime for which criminal proceedings have commenced. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach to other crimes for which the accused may be under investigation but which are unrelated to the pending prosecution.
A contractor was indicted by a state grand jury for bribery of a public official. The suspect was tried and convicted of the crime. The contractor, who is a member of one racial group, sought to reverse her conviction on grounds that members of another racial group were intentionally excluded from service on the grand jury on the basis of their race. The appellate court found that the exclusion was harmless error with respect to the contractor’s conviction. Should the appellate court reverse the contractor’s conviction?
Correct Answer: Yes, because the rights of the members of the excluded racial group were violated under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
a defendant who is indicted by a grand jury from which members of a racial group have been deliberately excluded has standing to raise Equal Protection claims of the excluded racial group, even though the defendant is not a member of the excluded racial group.
warrantless search of an automobile incident to arrest
In order to justify a warrantless search of an automobile incident to arrest, the Fourth Amendment requires that law enforcement demonstrate either
(i) that the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search and, as a result, may pose an actual and continuing threat to the officer’s safety or a need to preserve evidence from being tampered with by the arrestee or
(ii) that it is reasonable that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle.
Two police officers responded to a call about a domestic disturbance. When they arrived at the home in question, they found a man and woman screaming at each other. One officer handcuffed the man and took him outside, while the other officer spoke with the woman inside the house. Without reading the man his Miranda rights, the officer asked the man to explain what happened. The man stated that the woman had tried to find the gun he had hidden in the bedroom closet. The officer retrieved the gun. The man, who was a convicted felon, was later charged with possession of a firearm as a felon. At trial, the man moved to suppress his statement about the gun and the gun itself, arguing that he did not receive Miranda warnings prior to being questioned by the officer. Is the defendant likely to succeed in having the evidence suppressed for Fifth Amendment reasons?
Correct Answer: Yes, as to the statement only.
Supreme Court has ruled that derivative physical evidence (e.g., a gun) that has been obtained as a result of a voluntary, uncoerced confession that itself is inadmissible due to the failure by police to give Miranda warnings is admissible. In this case, the man’s statement was obtained during a custodial interrogation, and the man was not provided with Miranda warnings. Thus, the man’s statement about hiding a gun in the closet is inadmissible. Nevertheless, the gun that was found as a result of that statement is admissible despite being derivative physical evidence.
can accomplice recieve death penalty?
In felony-murder cases, the death penalty may not be imposed if the defendant, acting as an accomplice, did not kill, attempt to kill, or intend to kill, unless the defendant significantly participated in the commission of the felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.
can one strip search at a school?
A search conducted by local public school personnel of a student must be based on REASONABLE SUSPICION that the search will produce evidence that the student is or has violated SCHOOL RULES. It must also be reasonable in its scope in light of the student’s age and gender and the nature of the infraction. This standard applies to strip searches as well as other less intrusive types of searches.
Independent justification for search
Independent justification is needed to search persons not named in a search warrant; mere proximity to a named person does not supply such justification.
denied use of attorney of choice
A defendant is constitutionally entitled to be represented at trial by a qualified attorney of the defendant’s choice, where that attorney is not provided by the state. The sanction for violation of this Sixth Amendment right is reversal of the defendant’s conviction.
suggestive identification also requires what?
Even if an out-of-court identification procedure is unnecessarily suggestive, which this one plainly was, suppression of in-court testimony is not required if the eyewitness’s identification is shown to be reliable under a multi-factor inquiry.
A defendant is being tried for the murder of a woman who disappeared 10 years ago and has not been heard from since. Her body has never been found. The prosecutor has presented strong circumstantial evidence that she was murdered by the defendant. To help establish the fact of her death, the prosecutor has requested that the judge give the following instruction, based on a recognized presumption in the jurisdiction: “A person missing and not heard from in the last seven years shall be presumed to be deceased.” Is the instruction proper?
Correct Answer: No, because mandatory presumptions are not allowed against a criminal defendant on an element of the charged crime.
Supreme Court has held it to be a violation of due process for a judge to give a mandatory jury instruction in a criminal case on an element of the charged crime. The instruction is unconstitutional because the phrase “shall be presumed” could be interpreted by the jury as shifting the burden of proof to the defendant or as requiring the jury to find an element of the charged crime, neither of which is permissible.
