Crim pro rule statements Flashcards
Valid arrest
A proper arrest is one that is based on probable cause
Facts supporting probable cause
Facts supporting probable cause may come from a number of different sources including a police officer’s personal observations
Validity of a warrantless search incident to arrest
A warrantless search is valid if it is reasonable in scope and if it is made incident to a lawful arrest
Plain view doctrine
Under the plain view doctrine, if an item is in public view it may be seized without a warrant since there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for such an item
Automobile exception
The fourth amendment does not require police to obtain a warrant to search a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity
Custodial interrogation
Custodial interrogation is questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody
Custody
And arrest
A perosn under arrest is, by definition, in custody and any police questioning of the person under arrest would thus be custodial interrogation
Questioning of a suspect before Miranda
Questioning of a suspect by a police officer subsequent to an arrest must be preceded by Miranda warnings and a waiver of the suspect’s Miranda rights or those rights are violated
Exclusionary rule
fruit of the poisonous tree
The Supreme Court has indicated that violations of Miranda do not necessarily support the fruit of the poisonous tre doctrine, at least with respect to subsequent statemnts by the defendant
Effect of invoking 5A right to counsel
Interrogation of an arrestee must stop once the arrestee invokes the right to counsel under the 5th Amendment. The interrogation must stop until counsel is present.
Double jeopardy and the states
The fifth amendment protection against double jeopardy applies to the states through the due process clause of the 14th amendment and protects against multiple punishments for the same offense
Blockburger test
If a defendant’s conduct may be prosecuted as two or more crimes, then the blockburger test is applied to determine whether the crimes constitute the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.
Under this test, each crime must require the proof of an element that the other does not in order for each to be considered as a separate offense.
What the double jeopardy clause prohibits
The double jeopardy clause generally bars successive prosecutions for greater and lesser included offenses.
A lesser included offense is one that does not require proof of an element beyond those required by the greater offense.
Requirements of prosecution from due process clause
standard of proof
The due process clause requires that the prosecution prove all of the elements of a case beyond a reasoable doubt
Mandatory presumptions and DP
A mandatory presumption regarding an element of an offense violates the due proces requirement. This could include either a conclusive presumption that cannot be reubtted or a rebuttable mandatory presumption
Why conclusive presumptions that cannot be rebutted are bad
These kinds of presumptions would relieve the prosecution from having to prove an element of their case
Why rebuttable mandatory presumptions are bad for DP purposes
These presumptions shift the burden of proof regarding an element of an offense
Procedure for sentence enhancement
generally
Any fact, other than a prior conviction, that can be used to incrase a sentence beyond the statutorily prescribed maximum must be charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and established beyond a reasonable doubt
Elements of crime vs. sentencing enhancements
A fact is considered an element of a crime, rather than a sentencing enhancement, when it can increase the maximum sentence imposed.
Failure to abide by proper sentencing enhancing procedures
The failure to abide by the [sentencing procedure on another card] is a violation of the defendant’s due proess rights under the 5th amendment and 6th amendment rights to notice and a jury trial, both of which are incorporated against the states through the 14th amendment
Miranda v. Arizona
In Miranda v. Arizona, the US Supreme Court held that a suspect had a constitutional right under the 5th Amendment not to be compelled to make incriminating statements in the police interrogation process.
What can be done with incriminating statements in violation of Miranda
Any 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 by informing the suspect of their Miranda rights
Invoking right to counsel under Miranda
To invoke the right to counsel under the 5th Amendment, a suspect must make a specific, unambiguous statement asserting her desire to have counsel present. If a suspect makes an ambiguous statement regarding her right to counsel, the police are not required to end the interrogation or clarify whether the suspect wants to invoke that right.
Effect of invoking right to counsel
Once the right to counsel is invoked, all interrogation must stop until counsel is present
Incarceration and custody
Imprisonment alone does not necessarily create a custodial situation within the meaning of Miranda. The questioning of a prisoner who is removed from the genral prison population, about events that took place outside the prison, is not categorically custodial for Miranda purposes
Determining whether interrogation of an inmate is custodial
A standard, objective totality of the circumstances analysis applies when an inmate is interviewed, including consideration of the language that is used in summoning the prisoner to the interview and the manner in which the interrogation is conducted.
Reinterrogating a suspect who invoked their right to counsel
The police may reopen interrogation of a suspect who has asserted his 5th Amendment right to counsel if there has been a 14 day or more break in custody, such as the release back into the general prison population for a suspect who has been incarcerated for another crime.
Remirandizing after a break in custody
In [reinterrogating] circumstances, the officers must give fresh Miranda warnings and get a valid waiver before beginning questioning.
Discussions before being mirandized
Once a custodial interrogation begins, anything the defendant says is inadmissible until the defendant is informed of their Miranda rights and the defendant waives those rights.
Requirements of Miranda warnings
content and verbatim repetition
The warnings, which must be given before interrogation begins, need not be a verbatim repetition of the language used in the Miranda decision, but simply must reasonably convey the rights required by Miranda
What if a suspect makes an ambiguous invocation of right to an attorney
If a suspect makes an ambiguous statement regarding the right to counsel, the police are not required to end the interrogation or clarify whether the suspect wants to invoke the right. However, once that right to counsel is invoked, all interrogation must stop until counsel is present.
Testimonial communications
under Miranda
To be testimonial, the communication must relate to a factual assertion or disclose information.
When is someone in custody for Miranda
test
Custody can only be established if a reasonable person under similar circumstances would believe they were in custody
Reinitiating interrogation after invoking right to counsel
If a suspect voluntarily initiates communication with the police after invoking their right to counsel, a statement made by the suspect that is not made in response to the interrogation may be admissible.
what kind of statements reinitiate interrogation
Initiating communication does not include comments relating to routine incidents of custody
Statements that clearly indicate a willingness to speak about matters relating to the investigation are deemed to initiate communication
Respecting invocation of right to counsel after release from custody
The obligation for the police to honor the invocation of the Miranda right to counsel terminates 14 days after the suspect is released from custody
6th Amendment right to counsel
The 6th Amendment, as applied to the states through the 14th Amendment, provides the accused with the right to counsel in criminal prosecutions
When does 6A right to counsel attach
The right attaches at all critical stages of a prosecution after formal proceedings have begun, such as an indictment or a formal charge.
Right specificity of 6A
The 6th Amendment right to counsel does not attach before the accused is formally charged, and the right is offense specific, so it only applies to the specific offense at issue in formal proceedings
5th amendment
The 5th Amendment, as applied to the states through the 14th Amendment, provides the accused with the right to consult with an attorney and have an attorney present during a custodial interrogation.
Effect of miranda warnings
Once a custodial interrogation begins, anything the defendant says is inadmissible until the defendant is informed of his miranda rights and the defendant waives those rights.
Invoking right to counsel
The defendant must invoke the right to counsel by making a specific, unambiguous statement asserting his right to have counsel present
Effect of invoking right to counsel
Once the right to counsel is invoked, all interrogation must stop until counsel is present
What if invocation of counsel is ambiguous
If the defendant’s statement is ambiguous, police are not required to end interrogation
Waivign right to counsel after invoking it
Even if the right to counsel is successfully invoked, the defendant waives his right if he voluntarily initiates communication with the police after the right is invoked
Right to remain silent
The 5th amendment provides the accused with the right not to be compelled to make incriminating statements during custodial interrogation.
Invoking right to remain silent
The defendant must make a specific, unambiguous statement asserting his right to remain silent. Merely remaining silent does not invoke the privilege
Effect of invoking right to remain silent
If a defendant invokes his right to remain silent, the interrogator must honor that request.
Waiving invoked rights
Once a miranda right is invoked, a defendant may knowingly and voluntarily waive their right to remain silent
Burden of proof for miranda waivers
The burden is on the government to show that the waiver was both knowing and voluntary based on the totality of the circumstances.
When is a confession involuntary
A confession is involuntary only if the police coerced the defendant into making a confession.
Waiving right to silence
A suspect waives his right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police.
Do cops have to let you know your lawyer is coming?
Once the right to remain silent has been waived, the police are under no obligation to inform the defendant that defense counsel is trying to reach him
unintentional homicide
An unintentional homicide committed by the defendant’s criminal negligence is involuntary manslaughter
criminal negligence
Criminal negligence is grossly negligent conduct that puts another person at a significant risk of injury or death.
standard of care to constitute criminal negligence
Criminal negligence is a substantial deviation from ordinary negligence – i.e., the standard of care a reasonable person would have used. BUT criminal negliegnce is less than the extremely reckless conduct required for depraved heart murder
MPC requirements for involuntary manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter in some jurisdictions and under the model penal code only requires the defendant’s conduct to have been reckless
reckless under MPC
reckless conduct is defined as a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation
Awareness of risk and MPC involuntary manslaughter
This approach to involuntary manslaughter requires a defendant to be actually aware of the risk their conduct poses.
connection between act and death for involuntary manslaughter
For a finding of involuntary manslaughter, there must be a causal connection between the defendant’s criminally negligent or unlawful act and the death.
When does a criminal D act recklessly
A defendant acts recklessly by acting with a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a material element of a crime exists or will result from his conduct
Causation for homicide
To prove homicide, the prosecution must show that the defendant caused the victim’s death. The prosecution must prove that the defendant’s act was both the actual and proximate cause of death
Setting in motion forces that lead to death
When a defendant sets in motion forces that lead to the death of the victim, the defendant is the actual cause of death
When is a death foreseeable
Death is foreseeable when it is the natural and probable result of a defendant’s conduct.
Foreseeability of 3rd party actions
Actions by a third party are generally foreseeable
Unforseeable intervening events
An unforeseeable event that led to the death breaks the chain of causation and relieves the defendant from liability
Majority/MPC rule on accomplices
Under the majority and MPC rule, a person is an accomplice in the commission of an offense if he intentionally assists with the crime and acts with the purpose of promorting or facilitating the commission of the offense. Mere knowledge that another itnends to commit a crime is not enough. The accomplice must intend that his acts will assist or encourage criminal aim
accomplice liability for reckless/negligent crimes
When a crime committed by the principal only requires the principal to act recklessly or negligently, a person may be an accomplice to that crime if they merely act recklessly or negligently with regard to the principal’s commission of the crime, rather than purposefuly or intentionally.
