Discretion (in policing & prosecution) Flashcards
Under the Fifth Amendment, must an indictment be dismissed if the grand jury issued the indictment based solely on hearsay evidence?
No.
Under Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245 (1910), the Court refused to quash an indictment based on incompetent evidence. Allowing such considerations would essentially result in an additional trial to assess the validity of the evidence heard by the grand jury before the real trial could begin. Not only is this not necessary under the Fifth Amendment, it would needlessly delay the judicial process. If a facially valid indictment is issued by a lawfully convened grand jury, the defendant may be properly tried. The Court declines to create a rule allowing the challenge of otherwise valid indictments on the grounds of inadequate evidence. Such a rule would be unnecessary and burdensome.
The Fifth Amendment mandates that prosecutions must be initiated by a presentment or an indictment by a grand jury. The Fifth Amendment in no way limits the types of evidence that grand juries may hear.
Does compelled production of a voice sample violate the constitutional protections of the Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution?
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be compelled to bear witness against himself. That protection extends only to the coerced production of incriminating testimony.
The Fourth Amendment protects against the unreasonable search or seizure of a person, the search of a private dwelling, and the seizure of private information.
A voice sample is not the production of forced testimony. It is simply the production of physical evidence used to compare a suspect’s voice characteristics to the voice characteristics of an unidentified individual known or believed to have been involved in the commission of a crime.
Is it error for a court to quash a grand jury subpoena duces tecum in the absence of a determination that there is no possibility the materials sought by the subpoena will produce evidence relevant to the subject of the grand jury investigation?
Yes. The court of appeals quashed two of the grand jury’s subpoenas because it concluded that the government had not demonstrated the requirements of relevancy, admissibility, and specificity set forth in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). The subpoena at issue in Nixon was a trial subpoena as opposed to a grand jury subpoena. A trial subpoena requires a showing of probable cause. By contrast, a grand jury subpoena issues for the purpose of investigating the existence of probable cause and is not subject to the same requirements as a trial subpoena. Imposing the Nixon standards on grand jury subpoenas would invite hearings over the validity of subpoenas and would hinder the grand jury’s investigative functions.
May the grand jury in a state criminal prosecution subpoena a sitting president’s records without a heightened showing of need?
Yes. Article II and the Supremacy Clause neither categorically prevent subpoenaing nor require a heightened showing to subpoena a sitting president’s records in state criminal prosecutions. Under the ancient maxim “the public has a right to every man’s evidence,” the Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused compulsory process to obtain witnesses to prepare a defense.
Does a defendant have a substantive due-process right to be free from criminal prosecution without probable cause?
Substantive due-process protections have historically been limited in scope and the Court is reluctant to expand protection beyond matters of marriage, family, procreation, and bodily integrity.
There are two reasons for the Court’s position.
First, substantive due process is a nebulous concept, and the Court lacks well-defined rules for its application.
Second, the incorporation doctrine makes each amendment in the Bill of Rights applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The Court has therefore historically refused to extend substantive due-process protection if there is a constitutional amendment that offers the specific protection sought by a defendant.
