Criminal Procedure AMP - Trial Rights And Sentencing Flashcards
A state ___________ make the death penalty a mandatory sentence ____________.
A May never; for any crime
B May; for certain serious crimes
C May never; except for premeditated first degree murder
A
A state may never make the death penalty a mandatory sentence for any crime. The mandatory imposition of the death penalty is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. A statutory scheme for imposing the death penalty must allow the fact finder to consider all mitigating circumstances (i.e., any aspect of the defendant’s character or any circumstance of his crime as a factor in mitigation). The death penalty cannot be imposed without consideration of mitigating circumstances, even for premeditated first degree murder. QUESTION ID: R0067B Additional Learning
A penalty that is grossly disproportionate to _______ is cruel and unusual punishment.
A either the offense committed or the penalties given in similar cases
B both the offense committed and the penalties given in similar cases
C the offense committed
D the penalties given in similar cases
C
A penalty that is grossly disproportionate to the offense committed is cruel and unusual punishment.There is no right to comparison of penalties in similar cases. The Eighth Amendment does not require state appellate courts to compare the death sentence imposed in a case under appeal with other penalties imposed in similar cases. QUESTION ID: R0066 Additional Learning
If more than _______ months’ imprisonment is authorized, the offense is considered “serious” for determining whether a defendant has a constitutional right to a jury trial.
A three
B nine
C six
D twelve
C
An offense is considered serious, making a jury trial a constitutional right, when more than six months’ imprisonment is authorized. QUESTION ID: R0055 Additional Learning
Under what circumstances may a co-defendant’s confession be admitted against a defendant in a criminal trial?
A If the defendant also gave a statement corroborating that of the co-defendant
B If the co-defendant takes the witness stand and subjects himself to cross-examination about the statement
C If the judge instructs the jury that the statement is evidence of guilt only as to the defendant who made the statement
D If any mention of the defendant’s name is blacked out
B
The right of confrontation generally prohibits the introduction of a co-defendant’s confession because of the inability of the nonconfessing defendant to compel his co-defendant to take the stand for cross-examination. However, a statement of the confessing defendant is admissible if the confessing defendant takes the stand and subjects himself to cross-examination with respect to the truth or falsity of what the statement asserts. The fact that the judge instructs the jury that the statement is to be used as evidence of guilt only as to the defendant who made the statement would not allow admission of the statement. It is still a violation of the right of confrontation. That the other defendant also gave a statement to the police that is admitted into evidence, and the two statements corroborate each other, does not satisfy the Confrontation Clause requirement; the opportunity to cross-examine is the key. A statement may be admitted if all references to the nonconfessing defendant are eliminated. However, merely blacking out any mention of the other defendant is insufficient, as the jury may conclude the blacked out name is that of the defendant. QUESTION ID: R0062A Additional Learning
A statutory scheme for imposing the death penalty __________.
A may make a death sentence mandatory upon showing a particular aggravating circumstance, such as killing of a police officer
B must allow the fact finder to consider mitigating circumstances
C must require consideration of victim impact statements
D may prohibit the judge from giving sentencing instructions on lesser included crimes
B
A statutory scheme for imposing the death penalty must allow the fact finder to consider all mitigating circumstances—any aspect of the defendant’s character or any circumstance of his crime as a factor in mitigation. The mandatory imposition of the death penalty for certain crimes is unconstitutional. The death penalty cannot be imposed without consideration of any mitigating circumstances, even for premeditated first degree murder. A statutory scheme for imposing the death penalty may NOT prohibit the judge from giving sentencing instructions on lesser included crimes. To do so would make the death penalty statute cruel and unusual. It is not true that a death penalty scheme must require consideration of victim impact statements (i.e., an assessment of how the crime affected the victim’s family). A death penalty scheme may allow consideration of victim impact statements—as aggravating circumstances—but consideration of such statements is not required. QUESTION ID: R0067 Additional Learning
In a criminal jury trial, if state law allows a sentence to be increased beyond the statutory maximum sentence on proof of aggravating circumstances, the jury must find those aggravating circumstances proven:
A Beyond a reasonable doubt
B By probable cause
C By a preponderance of the evidence
D By clear and convincing evidence
A
Proof of facts that are used to increase the period of confinement beyond the statutory maximum must be found by the jury to exist beyond a reasonable doubt. Allowing the judge to make the findings violates the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial; in a jury trial, the jury determines the existence of the facts. Note that this generally is true regardless of whether the defendant pleaded guilty. (However, it is constitutionally permissible for a judge to determine whether a sentence runs consecutively or concurrently.) The choices suggesting that the jury must find the existence of the aggravating circumstances by clear and convincing evidence or a preponderance of the evidence are incorrect because these standards are not high enough; the proof must be beyond reasonable doubt. Similarly, probable cause (facts sufficient to make a reasonable person believe a crime has been committed) is far too low a standard. QUESTION ID: R0059A Additional Learning
The Sixth Amendment grants a defendant the right to confront adverse witnesses.
In a criminal trial, the confession of one co-defendant is __________ as evidence against another defendant.
A Generally inadmissible
B Never admissible
C Always admissible
A
A co-defendant’s statement is generally inadmissible against another defendant. The right of confrontation generally prohibits the introduction of a co-defendant’s confession because of the inability of the nonconfessing defendant to compel his co-defendant to take the stand for cross-examination. Thus, the choice “always admissible” is incorrect. Despite the general rule above, a statement of the confessing defendant may be admitted if the confessing defendant takes the stand and subjects himself to cross-examination with respect to the truth or falsity of what the statement asserts. Thus, the confession is sometimes admissible, and the choice “never admissible” is incorrect. QUESTION ID: R0062B Additional Learning
In a criminal trial, what is the minimum number of jurors allowed under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?
A Twelve
B Nine
C Six
D Seven
C
There must be at least six jurors to satisfy the right to a jury trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. QUESTION ID: R0056 Additional Learning
When exercising a peremptory challenge in a criminal prosecution, under the Equal Protection Clause __________.
A neither the prosecutor nor the defendant is prohibited from excluding a potential juror based on the potential juror’s race or sex
B neither the prosecutor nor the defendant may exclude a potential juror based on the potential juror’s race or sex
C the defendant may exclude a potential juror for any rational or irrational reason
D only the prosecutor is prohibited from excluding a potential juror based on the potential juror’s race or sex
B
In exercising a peremptory challenge, neither the prosecutor nor the defendant may exclude a juror based on the potential juror’s race or sex. A peremptory challenge to a juror is the right to strike a juror without cause. Most states allow each side in a prosecution a specific number of peremptory strikes. As a general rule, a peremptory strike may be based on any rational or irrational factor. However, because such strikes require enforcement by the court, they involve state action. And because the Equal Protection Clause prohibits the government from discriminating on the basis of race or sex, neither the prosecutor nor the defendant can base a peremptory challenge on the potential juror’s race or sex. The choice limiting the exclusion to the prosecutor (i.e., “only the prosecutor is prohibited . . .”) is incorrect because, as explained above, the limitation applies to both the prosecutor and the defendant. Similarly, the choice stating that neither the prosecutor nor the defendant is prohibited from excluding a potential juror based on the potential juror’s race or sex is incorrect because, as discussed above, both are. The choice that the defendant may exclude a potential juror for any rational or irrational reason states the general rule, but it does not take into account the limitation on challenges based on race or sex. QUESTION ID: R0057 Additional Learning
Which of the following is not a prerequisite to a judge’s accepting a guilty plea?
A Evidence that the defendant is aware of his right to a trial and the consequences of waiving that right
B Evidence on the record of the defendant’s actual guilt
C Defendant’s acknowledgment on the record that he understands the nature of the charge, elements of the crime, and possible penalties involved
D Judge’s determination that the defendant’s decision to plead guilty was made voluntarily and intelligently
B
There is no general requirement that the record contain evidence of the defendant’s guilt or other factual basis for the plea. All of the other statements are correct: The judge must ensure that the defendant knows and understands the nature of the charge and the crucial elements of the crime, along with the maximum penalty and any mandatory minimum penalty. The judge also must ensure that the defendant understands his right to plead not guilty and that he waives the right to trial if he does plead guilty. The judge must determine that the plea is voluntary and intelligent. QUESTION ID: R0064A Additional Learning
Under the Equal Protection Clause, __________ can use a discretionary peremptory challenge to strike a juror based on race or gender.
A The prosecutor cannot, but the defendant
B Either the prosecutor or the defendant
C Neither the prosecutor nor the defendant
C
In exercising a discretionary peremptory challenge, neither the prosecutor nor the defendant may exclude a juror based on the potential juror’s race or gender. A peremptory challenge to a juror is the right to strike a juror without cause. Most states allow each side in a criminal prosecution a specific number of peremptory strikes. As a general rule, a peremptory strike may be based on any rational or irrational factor. However, because such strikes require enforcement by the court, they involve state action. And because the Equal Protection Clause prohibits the government from discriminating on the basis of race or gender, neither the prosecutor nor the defendant can base a peremptory challenge on the potential juror’s race or gender. QUESTION ID: R0057B Additional Learning
The minimum number of jurors that can fulfill the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury is:
A Ten
B Six
C Twelve
D Eight
B
The Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the right does not include a right to a jury of 12 as provided in the federal courts. The Supreme Court has held that the right can be satisfied by a jury of as few as six. QUESTION ID: R0056A Additional Learning
If a state allows the death penalty as a possible punishment, it:
A May make the death penalty mandatory for certain serious offenses
B May make the death penalty mandatory, but only for premeditated first degree murder
C Must allow the trier of fact to consider all relevant mitigating circumstances in determining whether death is the appropriate sentence
D Must require the trier of fact to consider victim impact statements in determining whether death is the appropriate sentence
C
A statutory scheme for imposing the death penalty must allow the trier of fact to consider all mitigating circumstances—any aspect of the defendant’s character or any circumstance of his crime as a factor in mitigation. Making the death penalty mandatory is unconstitutional. The death penalty cannot be imposed without consideration of any mitigating circumstances, even for premeditated first degree murder. It is NOT true that a death penalty scheme must require consideration of victim impact statements (i.e., an assessment of how the crime affected the victim’s family). A death penalty scheme may allow consideration of victim impact statements—as aggravating circumstances—but consideration of such statements is not required. QUESTION ID: R0067A Additional Learning
When does a penalty constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment?
A When it is grossly disproportionate to the offense committed
B When it is different from the penalties given for similar offenses
C When it is the death penalty
D When it is different from the penalties given in similar cases
A
A penalty is cruel and unusual when it is grossly disproportionate to the offense committed. There is no Eighth Amendment right to comparison of penalties in similar cases or offenses. For example, the Eighth Amendment does not require state appellate courts to compare the death sentence imposed in a case under appeal with other penalties imposed in similar cases. The Supreme Court has held that the death penalty is not, per se, cruel and unusual punishment. QUESTION ID: R0066A Additional Learning
Before entering a guilty plea, the judge must ensure that the defendant knows and understands:
A The possible penalties involved, the identity of the witnesses against him, and his right to plead not guilty
B The nature of the charge, the possible penalties involved, and his right to plead not guilty
C The nature of the charge, the possible penalties involved, and the identity of the witnesses against him
D The nature of the charge, the identity of the witnesses against him, and his right to plead not guilty
B
The judge must determine that the plea is voluntary and intelligent. This must be done by addressing the defendant personally in open court on the record. Specifically, the judge must be sure that the defendant knows and understands things like: (i) The nature of the charge to which the plea is offered and the crucial elements of the crime charged; (ii) The maximum possible penalty and any mandatory minimum (but the failure to explain special parole terms is not fatal); and (iii) That he has a right not to plead guilty and that, if he does, he waives the right to trial. There is no general requirement that the record contain the identity of the witnesses against the defendant. QUESTION ID: R0064B Additional Learning
