Kaplan Pgs 419-427 Fair Trial Flashcards
If two defendants are tied together, how can they get a right of severance?
If either co-defendant is unfairly prejudiced at any stage of a joint trial
If in a joint trial one co-defendant’s confession implicates the other, what happens?
That gives a right to confrontation that prohibits the use of the confession and demands that the defendants be given separate trials
What does the due process right to an unbiased judge require?
The magistrate cannot be prejudiced against the defendant or financially interested in the outcome of the trial
What is involved in the right to effective counsel?
The law presumes that legal counsel is effective, so the defendant has the duty to demonstrate otherwise by proving:
– that counsel was ineffective and deviated from reasonably prevailing norms
– there’s a reasonable probability that the verdict would not have been guilty if counsel had been effective
What must an indigent be informed of before a waiver of the right to counsel is valid?
His right to free counsel
What are the major critical stages of a proceeding that the right to counsel would attach to?
- custodial interrogation – post indictment lineup – preliminary hearings – arraignments – felony trials - sentencing – appeals as a matter of right
What are stages of a trial that are not deemed to be critical and so no right to counsel exists?
– preliminary identification procedures – preindictment lineups - nonadversarial detention hearings - grand jury proceedings – discretionary appeals – parole revocation - habeas corpus proceedings
What does the defendant need in order to be competent?
- he must be able to understand the nature of the charges
– have the capacity to consult with his lawyer to prepare his defence
– be oriented as to time and place
– have a fair recollection of the events surrounding the charge
When is a defendant’s competency determined?
At the time of trial, not at the time of the crime
If a defendant is found to be incompetent, what usually happens?
He is committed for treatment, and the criminal proceedings are suspended until he regains his competence. Generally he cannot remain indefinitely in a mental health hospital
What are the rules about the government giving drugs to mentally ill defendants?
The government can give antipsychotic drugs to a mentally ill defendant against his will in order to make him competent to stand trial for serious criminal charges
What is the rule for a right to jury trial?
It attaches in any criminal proceeding if the defendant faces a potential sentence of longer than six months
How many jurors are necessary?
- 6 are necessary for non-capital cases: verdict must be unanimous. Five is unconstitutional as a denial of due process
- state criminal trials that have 12 member juries do not have to be unanimous. Super majorities like 10 to 2 or 9 to 3 are OK
- for federal trials there must be a unanimous verdict from 12 jurors
What is the right of a defendant with regard to the make up of a jury?
He has a right to a jury selected from a cross section of the community. But this doesn’t have to include members of all minority groups
Peremptory challenges can be exercised for any rational or irrational reason, except what?
On the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender
How many peremptory challenges do parties get in federal criminal court?
– capital case with the death penalty: 20
– felony case: government has 6 and defendant has 10
– misdemeanor: 3
If peremptory challenges are used to exclude prospective jurors based on race, ethnicity, or gender, what does that violate?
The equal protection clause
If there is a prima facie showing of purposeful racial discrimination in jury selection, where does the burden go?
On the accused party to prove otherwise. A pretext or reason for using a peremptory challenge gives rise to an inference of discriminatory intent
If there is an under representation of a distinct and significant racial group from the members of the jury, that provides grounds of what?
A prima facie showing of discriminatory jury selection
In order for one party to rebut a charge of racial discrimination with regard to jury selection, what do they have to show?
Racially neutral selection procedures
Is it OK to exclude a juror because he has misgivings about imposing capital punishment?
No
In a case, if a prospective juror has views about capital punishment that would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror, what happens?
He is subject to a challenge for cause
If a prospective juror is opposed to capital punishment, is that enough to excuse him for cause?
No. Only if his personal beliefs would substantially limit his ability to follow the court’s instructions or from fairly considering the imposition of a death sentence
What does it mean that the defendant has a right to a public trial for all criminal prosecutions under the sixth amendment?
He has the right for the press and the public to have access to the trial. But he can also choose to waive this right
Members of the press and the general public have a sixth amendment right to be present at all criminal proceedings except a grand jury, unless what?
The judge specifically finds an overriding interest to require a closed trial
The judge has a right to put limitations on the public and the media with regard to a public trial, as long as what?
The exclusions are to protect the defendant’s right to a fair trial
What is the right to confrontation?
The defendant has a fundamental right to confront all witnesses against him in any federal or state criminal prosecution
What is the purpose of the right of confrontation?
To give the defendant an opportunity to cross examine witnesses at trial
What are punishments that the trial judge can mete out on a defendant?
- bind and gag the defendant
– cite him for contempt - remove him from the courtroom for disruptive behaviour
What are the standards for proof in a criminal trial?
– Prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of each element of the claim
– defendant must prove affirmative defences by a preponderance of the evidence
– if the affirmative defence is insanity, that must be proven by clear and convincing evidence
