CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE Flashcards
Fourth Amendment Rights - State Action
SAI PPLE + PIADOLE
Rule Statement:
State actors include publicly paid law enforcement and private individuals acting at the direction of law enforcement.
Publicly Paid Law Enforcement:
State actors include government officials such as police officers who are paid by public funds.
Private Individuals Acting:
Private individuals can be considered state actors if they are acting under the direction of law enforcement.
Direction of Law Enforcement:
Private individuals must be acting under the specific direction or control of law enforcement to be considered state actors.
Law Enforcement:
The involvement of law enforcement officers in directing or controlling the actions of private individuals establishes state action.
Common Tricks on the Exam:
Misidentifying State Actors:
Questions might incorrectly suggest that private individuals acting independently are state actors. Verify if they were directed by law enforcement.
Overlooking Law Enforcement Involvement:
Fact patterns may ignore the necessity of law enforcement direction for private individuals to be considered state actors. Ensure there is clear direction from law enforcement.
Confusing Private Actions:
Scenarios might confuse private actions with state actions. Confirm the involvement of publicly paid law enforcement or private individuals acting under their direction.
Fourth Amendment Rights - General
4A2S14 PAUSOS BSA
Rule Statement:
The Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects against unreasonable searches and/or seizures by state actors.
Through the Fourteenth Amendment: The Fourth Amendment is applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.
Unreasonable Searches and/or Seizures: Protection against government actions that violate privacy without proper justification.
State Actors: Government officials or agents acting on behalf of the state.
Common Tricks on the Exam:
Misapplying the Amendment: Questions might suggest that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to states. Remember the incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Overlooking Reasonableness: Fact patterns may ignore the requirement for searches and seizures to be reasonable. Ensure proper justification is provided.
Confusing State Actors: Scenarios might misidentify private individuals as state actors. Confirm the involvement of government officials or agents.
Fourth Amendment Rights - Standing
PMHREOP IPSOIS BOTOC
Rule Statement:
A person must have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the places searched and/or items seized based on the totality of the circumstances.
Reasonable Expectation:
A person must demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy to claim Fourth Amendment protection.
Privacy:
The expectation of privacy must be legitimate and recognized by society.
Places Searched:
Standing requires a reasonable expectation of privacy in the specific places that were searched.
Items Seized:
Standing also requires a reasonable expectation of privacy in the specific items that were seized.
Totality of the Circumstances:
The assessment of standing is based on the overall context and circumstances surrounding the search and seizure.
Common Tricks on the Exam:
Overlooking Privacy Expectation:
Questions might suggest standing without establishing a reasonable expectation of privacy. Verify the legitimacy of the privacy claim.
Confusing Standing with Ownership:
Fact patterns may imply ownership alone establishes standing. Ensure a reasonable expectation of privacy is demonstrated.
Ignoring Totality of the Circumstances:
Scenarios might ignore the context of the search and seizure. Consider the full circumstances when assessing standing.
Exclusionary Rule
ETRFISOS IAE
Rule Statement:
Evidence that results from an illegal search and/or seizure is inadmissible as evidence.
Illegal Search and/or Seizure:
Evidence obtained through methods that violate the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Inadmissible as Evidence:
Such evidence cannot be used in court to prove guilt or any other point in the prosecution’s case.
Common Tricks on the Exam:
Good Faith Exception:
Questions might ignore exceptions like the good faith exception. Remember that evidence may be admissible if law enforcement acted with an objectively reasonable belief that they were following legal procedures.
Attenuation Doctrine:
Fact patterns may overlook the attenuation doctrine, which allows evidence if the connection between illegal search and evidence discovery is sufficiently remote.
Independent Source Doctrine:
Scenarios might disregard the independent source doctrine, which permits evidence if it was obtained from a separate, independent source untainted by the illegal search.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
ASEDFIOE IAE UEA
Rule Statement:
Any secondary evidence that is derived from illegally obtained evidence is also inadmissible as evidence unless an exception applies.
Secondary Evidence:
Evidence that is indirectly obtained from a primary source of evidence.
Derived:
This secondary evidence is obtained as a result of the initial illegal search or seizure.
Illegally Obtained Evidence:
Evidence acquired in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Inadmissible as Evidence:
Such derived evidence cannot be used in court unless an exception applies.
Common Tricks on the Exam:
Good Faith Exception:
Questions might ignore the good faith exception, which can allow the use of evidence obtained by officers acting under the reasonable belief that they were following legal procedures.
Attenuation Doctrine:
Fact patterns may overlook the attenuation doctrine, which allows evidence if the connection between the illegal search and the evidence discovery is sufficiently remote.
Independent Source Doctrine:
Scenarios might disregard the independent source doctrine, which permits evidence if it was obtained from a separate, independent source untainted by the illegal search.
Inevitable Discovery Doctrine:
Situations may ignore the inevitable discovery doctrine, which allows evidence if it would have been eventually discovered by lawful means.
Fifth Amendment Rights
5ATS14 P RASI
Rule Statement:
The Fifth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects the right against self-incrimination.
Through the Fourteenth Amendment:
The Fifth Amendment is applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.
Right Against Self-Incrimination:
This right ensures that individuals cannot be compelled to testify against themselves in a criminal case, protecting them from being forced to provide incriminating evidence.
Common Tricks on the Exam:
Misapplying the Amendment:
Questions might suggest that the Fifth Amendment does not apply to the states. Remember the incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Voluntary Statements:
Fact patterns may imply that voluntary statements given without coercion are not protected. Ensure that the right against self-incrimination applies even in non-coercive situations unless a valid waiver is given.
Custodial Interrogation:
Scenarios might overlook that the right against self-incrimination primarily applies during custodial interrogation. Confirm if the individual was in custody and subject to interrogation.
Miranda Rights
COAROCI BSA I U PWIOMRKAI WMR
Rule Statement:
Confessions obtained as a result of custodial interrogation by a state actor will be inadmissible unless the person was informed of Miranda rights and knowingly and intelligently waived those rights.
Custodial Interrogation:
Refers to questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of their freedom in a significant way.
State Actor:
A government official, such as a police officer, who conducts the interrogation.
Inadmissible:
Confessions obtained without proper Miranda warnings are generally not allowed as evidence in court.
Informed of Miranda Rights:
The person must be advised of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning.
Knowingly and Intelligently:
The waiver of Miranda rights must be made with full awareness of the nature of the rights being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon them.
Rights:
The protections provided under the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination.
Common Tricks on the Exam:
Non-Custodial Situations:
Questions might suggest that Miranda rights apply outside of custodial settings. Ensure the context involves custodial interrogation.
Improper Waiver:
Fact patterns may imply that a waiver was valid without showing it was knowingly and intelligently made. Confirm the validity of the waiver.
State Actor Requirement:
Scenarios might ignore the requirement that the interrogation must be conducted by a state actor. Verify the involvement of law enforcement or other government officials.
Murder
KWMA (I2K O IGBH O RI2UHR2HL O ITCIDF)
Rule Statement:
A killing of another human being with malice aforethought, which is the intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, or reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life, or intent to commit an inherently dangerous felony.
Malice Aforethought:
The mental state of intent to cause death or serious harm or to act with extreme recklessness.
Intent to Kill:
A deliberate and premeditated intention to cause the death of another person.
Inflict Great Bodily Harm:
The intention to cause significant physical injury to another person.
Reckless Indifference:
A callous disregard for the substantial and unjustifiable risk to human life.
Unjustifiably High Risk:
Engaging in actions that pose a severe risk to the life of others without a justifiable reason.
Human Life:
The victim is a living person at the time of the killing.
Intent to Commit an Inherently Dangerous Felony:
The intention to carry out a felony that, by its nature, poses a high risk of death or serious injury (e.g., robbery, arson).
Common Tricks on the Exam:
Malice Aforethought:
Questions might obscure the requirement for malice aforethought. Ensure this mental state is present.
Reckless Indifference:
Fact patterns may downplay reckless indifference. Verify if the actions showed a blatant disregard for human life.
Felony-Murder Rule:
Scenarios might confuse felony-murder principles. Confirm the killing occurred during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony.
Voluntary Manslaughter
KCWAP S2APOOP + PIFPWNCOP + DNCO
Rule Statement:
A killing committed with adequate provocation sufficient to arouse the passions of an ordinary person, and the person was in fact provoked with no cooling off period, and the person did not in fact cool off.
Adequate Provocation:
Provocation that would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control.
Arouse the Passions:
The provocation must be strong enough to provoke an intense emotional response.
Ordinary Person:
A standard by which the provocation is measured; how an average person would react under the circumstances.
In Fact Provoked:
The defendant must have been actually provoked by the situation.
Cooling Off Period:
There must not be sufficient time for the defendant to calm down after being provoked.
In Fact Cool Off:
The defendant must not have regained self-control before the killing.
Common Tricks on the Exam:
Adequate Provocation:
Questions might suggest inadequate provocation. Ensure the provocation meets the standard of arousing the passions of an ordinary person.
Cooling Off Period:
Fact patterns may imply there was sufficient time to cool off. Verify the immediacy of the response to the provocation.
Ordinary Person Standard:
Scenarios might confuse subjective feelings with the objective standard. Confirm the reaction is compared to that of an ordinary person.
Attempt
IC PCOABMP + SI2CC + F2CC
Rule Statement:
Inchoate crime in which a person commits an overt act beyond mere preparation with the specific intent to commit a crime, and fails to complete the crime.
Overt Act:
An act that goes beyond planning or preparation and demonstrates an effort to commit the crime.
Mere Preparation:
Initial steps or planning that do not amount to an attempt.
Specific Intent:
The deliberate and purposeful intention to commit a particular crime.
Commit:
The objective to carry out the criminal offense.
Crime:
The illegal act that the person intends to execute.
Fails:
The attempt is unsuccessful; the crime is not completed.
Complete:
The crime is not brought to fruition.
Common Tricks on the Exam:
Overt Act vs. Mere Preparation:
Questions might blur the line between mere preparation and an overt act. Ensure the act goes beyond planning.
Specific Intent Requirement:
Fact patterns may ignore the necessity of specific intent. Confirm that the intent to commit the crime is clear.
Failure to Complete:
Scenarios might overlook the failure to complete the crime. Verify that the attempt did not result in the successful commission of the crime.
Conspiracy
AB2OMP 2PIAWI2A + I2COIA
Rule Statement:
An agreement between two or more people to perform an illicit act with the intent to agree and with the intent to carry out the illicit act.
Agreement Between Two or More People:
There must be a mutual understanding or plan between at least two individuals.
Perform:
The objective is to execute the planned act.
Illicit Act:
The act planned is illegal.
Intent to Agree:
Each conspirator must have the intention to enter into the agreement.
Intent to Carry Out:
Each conspirator must also have the intention to accomplish the illegal objective.
Common Tricks on the Exam:
Agreement Requirement:
Questions might suggest a conspiracy without a clear agreement. Ensure there is evidence of mutual understanding.
Dual Intent:
Fact patterns may overlook the need for both intents (to agree and to carry out). Verify both are present.
Nature of the Act:
Scenarios might confuse legal acts with illicit ones. Confirm the planned act is illegal.
Self-Defense
MURFPN2PDOSBI INA + CWIH
Rule Statement:
May use force that is reasonably and proportionally necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury if not the aggressor, and confronted with imminent, unlawful and imminent, unlawful harm.
Reasonably and Proportionally Necessary:
The force used must be appropriate and not excessive given the circumstances.
Prevent Death:
The primary goal is to avoid fatal harm.
Serious Bodily Injury:
The force may also be used to prevent significant physical harm.
Not the Aggressor:
The individual claiming self-defense must not have initiated the conflict.
Confronted:
The threat must be immediate and direct.
Imminent, Unlawful Harm:
The threat of harm must be immediate and illegal.
Common Tricks on the Exam:
Proportionality of Force:
Questions might ignore the need for force to be proportionate. Ensure the response is appropriate to the threat.
Aggressor Role:
Fact patterns may overlook whether the person claiming self-defense was the initial aggressor. Verify they were not.
Imminence and Unlawfulness:
Scenarios might misinterpret the requirement for the threat to be both imminent and unlawful. Confirm both conditions are met.
