MBE CRIM PROCEDURE Flashcards
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BES - EXCLUSIONARY RULE AND EXCEPTIONS
STATE THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE AND ITS EXCEPTIONS.
Illegallyt obtaioned evidence, either physical evidence obtained by an illegal search or a statement obtained through an illegal interrogation is inadmissible at the criminal trila of the person whose rights were violated.
The exclusionary rule applies AT TRIAL, not at pretrial proceedings (i.e. grand jury proceedings)
a. The violation must have been of the d’s rights, and not someone else’s rights.
**EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE 4TH,kn 5TH OR 6TH AMINENDTS CANNOT BE INTRODUCED AT TRIAL TO PROVE A D’S GUILT .
FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE: THE EXCLUSIONARUY RUILE ALSO APPLIES TO EVIDENCE OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF THE INITIAL VIOLATION.
EXCEPTIONS:
- KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE: Officers exceucitng an arrest warrtant at a residence are requirecd to knock and announce they are the police.
**
CRIM PRO MBES - MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
WHAT MUST THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISH TO PREVAIL ON A MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE FOUND DURING A SEARCH OF A THIRD PARTY’S PREMISE?
To prevail on a motion to suppress, the defendant must first establish that he has standing to contest the allegedly unlawful Fourth Amendment search. Standing exists when the defendant has a legitimate expectation of privacy (or an ownership/possessory interest) in the area or item searched at the time of the search. Therefore, a defendant cannot challenge an unlawful search of a third party’s premises because it infringed upon the third party’s right to privacy—not the defendant’s.
CRIM PRO MBES: SEARCH WARRANTS OF A HOME - BASED ON INFO FROM INFORMANT
WHAT MAKES A SEARCH WARRANT VALID WHEN IT IS BASED ON AN INFORMANT’S TIP?
Warrant requirements
Based on probable cause
Supported by oath or affidavit
Issued by neutral & detached magistrate
Particularly describes place to be searched/items to be seized
To be valid, a search warrant must be based on probable cause. Probable cause exists when there is a reasonable belief (more than mere suspicion) that evidence of a crime is located in the place to be searched. Facts supporting probable cause may come from several sources, including information from a reliable, known informant. However, information from an unknown informant must be independently verified by police.
CRIM PRO MBES: EXCEPTIONS TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT
DOES A POLICE OFFICER NEED A WARRANT TO SEARCH THE SUSPECT’S APARTMENT ONCE THE SUSPECT HAS BEEN ARRESTED AND SUBDUED?
motion to suppress should be granted if the contested evidence was seized during an unreasonable Fourth Amendment search. A search is unreasonable if it was conducted without a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement.
One such exception is a search incident to arrest. This exception allows police to conduct a warrantless search of a person who has been lawfully arrested and the immediate surrounding areas for concealed weapons or destructible evidence. Here, after the defendant was lawfully arrested, the police conducted a thorough search of the apartment and found cocaine in his bedroom. Since the search went beyond areas immediately surrounding the defendant, this exception does not apply.
Another exception applies to exigent circumstances, under which police may act without a warrant when there is an immediate threat of harm to police or the public. It allows police to conduct a protective sweep to search for injured persons and continued threats. They also can seize illegal items that are in plain view. But once the emergency ends, the search must end unless the police obtain a warrant or another exception applies.
CRIM PRO MBES: FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF- INCRIMINATION
WHAT ARE THE PARAMETERS OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF- INCRIMINATION?
The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects suspects in criminal proceedings from being compelled to provide self-incriminating evidence that is testimonial in nature—e.g., via a grand jury subpoena (as seen here). However, this privilege does not apply to evidence that might subject a person to civil liability. Therefore, the court should deny the COO’s motion to quash as to the emails that would subject the COO to civil liability for defamation (Choices C & D).
Additionally, the privilege against self-incrimination applies only to individuals—not corporations. This means that when a corporation is the target of an investigation (as seen here), the custodian of corporate records (or other corporate officer) cannot refuse to produce subpoenaed documents by citing this privilege. This is true even if the documents would incriminate the custodian (or officer) personally.
CRIM PRO MBES: SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL
WHEN DOES A DEFENDANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL ATTACH? DOES THAT RIGHT ATTACH TO OFFENSES NOT FORMALLY CHARGED?
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches to offenses that have been formally charged (e.g., by indictment). In Texas v. Cobb, the U.S. Supreme Court held that this right also encompasses offenses that—even if not formally charged—would be considered the same offense as a charged offense. Under the Blockburger test, offenses are not the same if each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not.
CRIM PRO MBES: FIFTH AMENDMENT MIRANDA RIGHTS
WHEN A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION OCCURS AND THE POLICE OFFICER FAILS TO GIVE MIRANDA WARNING PRIOR TO THE QUESTIONING, IS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF THE NON-MIRANDIZED STATEMENT BE EXCLUDED?
The Fifth Amendment requires that police provide a suspect with Miranda warnings prior to a custodial interrogation. A custodial interrogation occurs when a defendant is in custody (e.g., under formal arrest) and subjected to interrogation. When, as here, the police fail to provide Miranda warnings, an incriminating statement made as the result of the custodial interrogation can be suppressed at a subsequent trial. Therefore, the man’s statement about always having a gun will likely be suppressed (Choice A).
However, in United States v. Patane, the U.S. Supreme Court held that physical evidence obtained as a result of a non-Mirandized statement is admissible so long as that statement was voluntary (i.e., not coerced). A statement was coerced if it was the product of physical force, threats, or psychological pressure by police.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MBES - OPEN FIELDS DOCTRINE
HOW DOES THE “OPEN FIELDS” DOCTRINE AFFECT FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION?
Private property that lies outside the curtilage of a home, such as a farmer’s field, is not protected by the home’s umbrella of Fourth Amendment protection. Under the “open fields” doctrine, governmental intrusion on such property is not a search.
Note: The owner does not have a reasonable (i.e., objective) expectation of privacy, even though the owner may have a subjective expectation of privacy based on the fact that the land is fenced, protected from public view, and “no trespassing” signs are posted.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MBES - STANDING OF D ON A MOTION TO SUPPRESS
WHAT DOES A DEFENDANT NEED TO SHOW WHEN HE FILES A MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCEN ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF HIS 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS?
A defendant has standing to challenge a Fourth Amendment search if he/she had a legitimate expectation of privacy (or an ownership/possessory interest) in the area or item searched at the time of the search. Therefore, a defendant cannot challenge an unlawful search of a home that was conducted after the defendant moved out.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MBES - WARRANT REQS AND PROBABLE CAUSE
TO CONDUCT A VALID SEARCH OF A PERSON’S PREMISES, THE GOVT MUST HAVE A WARRANT IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES.
WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR A VALID WARRANT?
HOW DOES THE PARTY SUBMITTING THE AFFIDAVIT FOR A SEARCH WARRANT ESTABLISH THE PROBABLE CAUSE NECESSARY TO MAKE THE WARRANT VALID?
Warrant requirements
- Based on probable cause
- Supported by oath or affidavit
- Issued by neutral & detached magistrate
- Particularly describes place to be searched/items to be seized
To be valid, a search warrant must be based on probable cause. Probable cause exists when there is a reasonable belief (more than mere suspicion) that evidence of a crime is located in the place to be searched. Facts supporting probable cause may come from several sources, including information from a reliable, known informant. However, information from an unknown informant must be independently verified by police.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MBES - SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL
WHEN DOES A DEFENDAN’TS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL ATTACH?
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel automatically attaches once formal judicial proceedings have commenced (e.g., at an arraignment). Once the right has attached, it applies to all critical stages of the prosecution.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MBES - GRAND JURY INDICTMENTS
IS A PROSECUTOR OBLIGED TO TURN OVER EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE REGARDING A POSSIBLE DEFENDANT WHEN DETERMINING IF THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO BRING A CRIMINAL CHARGE?
In United States v. Williams, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a prosecutor is not required to present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. That is because the grand jury’s function is merely to determine whether enough evidence exists to bring a criminal charge—not to determine guilt or innocence. Accordingly, the grand jury need only hear evidence that supports the prosecutor’s side.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MBES - FAILURE TO GIVE MIRANDA WARNINGS
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE POLICE FAIL GIVE PROVIDE MIRANDA WARNINGS? IF THERE IS ANY INCRIMINATING STATEMENT MADE AS A RESULT WOULD THE STATEMENT BE ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL?
WHAT ABOUT ANY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF A NON-MIRANDIZED STATEMENT? WOULD THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE BE ADMISSIBLE?
The Fifth Amendment requires that police provide a suspect with Miranda warnings prior to a custodial interrogation. A custodial interrogation occurs when a defendant is in custody (e.g., under formal arrest) and subjected to interrogation. When, as here, the police fail to provide Miranda warnings, an incriminating statement made as the result of the custodial interrogation can be suppressed at a subsequent trial. Therefore, the man’s statement about always having a gun will likely be suppressed (Choice A).
However, in United States v. Patane, the U.S. Supreme Court held that physical evidence obtained as a result of a non-Mirandized statement is admissible so long as that statement was voluntary (i.e., not coerced). A statement was coerced if it was the product of physical force, threats, or psychological pressure by police.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MBES - SENTENCING AND RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL JURY
EXPLAIN THE APPRENDI DOCTRINE (SIXTH AMENDMENT) AND THE RIGHT OF A DEFENDANT TO A JURY TRIAL.
**The due process clause guarantees a criminal defendant’s right to have an impartial jury determine whether the defendant is guilty of every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. ** Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Apprendi v. New Jersey that any fact that exposes a criminal defendant to a greater punishment than authorized by the jury’s guilty verdict is an element that must be submitted to and found by the jury.
This holding has been applied to state capital-murder sentencing schemes that require a finding of at least one aggravating circumstance at either the guilt or penalty phase before the death penalty can be imposed. Therefore, **a capital-sentencing scheme (as seen here) violates Apprendi if it:
allows a jury to render an advisory sentence recommending the death penalty without specifically finding an aggravating circumstance and
permits the judge to then make that finding independently **(Choices C & D).
