Criminal Procedure Flashcards
Handwriting Samples
- no reasonable expectation of privacy in fingerprints
- no search warrant required
- does not constitute testimonial evidence.
- not a critical stage of the criminal proceedings that requires the presence of counsel
- even after indictment
Grand Jury
5th Amendment requires indictment by a grand jury for federal crimes
- A witness in a grand jury hearing has no right to be informed that he is under investigation.
5th Amendment Rights to Counsel
Defendant must make a specific, unambiguous statement asserting his desire to have counsel present. The police’s actions therefore did not violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to counsel.
- not automatic; police don’t have to offer
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Burden on claimant to prove two-part test:
- representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
- not required to advance every nonfrivolous claim urged by the defendant (professional judgment)
- failure to produce mitigating evidence usually not enough
- deficient performance prejudiced defendant, resulting in unreliable or fundamentally unfair outcome
Conflict of Interest/Separate Counsel
If an attorney representing co-defendants makes a timely motion for appointment of separate counsel based on a potential conflict of interest, the trial judge must either grant the motion or at least conduct a hearing to determine whether appointment of separate counsel is warranted under the circumstances.
- failure of the judge to do so requires automatic reversal of a subsequent conviction.
- if issue not raised, on appeal defendant must show that there was actual conflict and that it **adversely affected **counsel’s performance
Alternative Probable Cause
If the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect for a crime, the arrest is not constitutionally unreasonable simply because the police inform the suspect that he has been arrested for another crime for which the police lack probable cause.
6th Amendment Right to Counsel
Where **sentenced to incarceration **(even if suspended), defendant is entitled to be represented by a qualified attorney for critical stages of trial from charging to sentencing
-
entitled to choose his attorney (where not provided by state)
- court may decline if it determines there is a possible conflict of interest, and is not required to accept waiver
- denial merits automatic reversal of conviction
- no need to establish prejudice or incompetence
- Harmless error standard applies in non-trial proceedings.
- voluntary confessions gained in mere violation may be used to impeach
- crime-specific
- attached on charging
Expired Arrest Warrent
Evidence seized in the course of an arrest pursuant to an expired warrant must be excluded
- Good faith reliance on an expired arrest warrant that is due to isolated negligence creates an exception.
- not if deliberate misconduct is involved
Double Jeopardy
The 5th Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause provides three protections:
1) protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal
2) protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction
3) protection against multiple punishments for the same offense.
Right to Counsel - Critical Stages
- post-indictment line-ups and IDs
- post-indictment interrogations (custodial & non-custodial)
- arraignment and preliminary probable cause hearings
- plea bargaining, guilty pleas, and sentencing
- appeals as a matter of right
Non-critical stages (no right to counsel):
- blood samples, fingerprints, exemplars, photo viewing, pre-charge line-ups
- probable cause detainment hearings
- discretionary appeals,post-conviction hearings (parole, habeas)
Anticipatory Warrants***
An anticipatory warrant is not unconstitutional simply because the items to be seized are not located on the premises to be searched at the time that the warrant is issued. The probable cause requirement is satisfied where, at the time that the warrant is issued, there is probable cause to believe that the triggering condition will occur and, if that condition does occur, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. A warrant need not state any condition that is precedent to its validity. The warrant requirement generally does apply to the search of a business, particularly where the search is made in regard to criminal activity rather than for administrative purposes.
Right Against Self Incrimination
First, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies only to individuals, not to corporations. The privilege does not extend to the custodian of corporate records, even if the records would incriminate the custodian personally. Additionally, the privilege applies only to testimonial evidence, not to voluntarily prepared business papers. As such, the business papers are not protected by the privilege. Further, the Fifth Amendment privilege extends only to evidence that might incriminate the defendant in future criminal proceedings, not civil.
Jury Composition - Race
The Equal Protection Clause prohibits racial discrimination in the selection of juries. A jury must be selected from a representative cross-section of the community. To establish a prima facie case for non-representative jury selection, a defendant must show that: (i) the group excluded is a distinctive group in the community; (ii) the group was not fairly represented in the venire from which the jury was selected; and (iii) the underrepresentation resulted from a systematic exclusion of the group.
Invalid Warrant - False Affidavit
The defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the false information was knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless regard for its truthfulness included by the affiant in the affidavit and that the information was necessary to a finding of probable cause by the magistrate.
Extrinsic Evidence
The use of extrinsic evidence cannot be used to impeach a witness’s character for truthfulness. However, there is a split of authority regarding the definition of “extrinsic evidence.” With respect to documents, one approach holds that a document is extrinsic evidence in all circumstances. A more lenient approach holds that a document is not extrinsic evidence and might be admissible to impeach the witness’s character for truthfulness if the foundation for the document is established through the witness being impeached.
Testimony by another witness represents extrinsic evidence of the prior bad act and therefore is not admissible to impeach another witness.
