Pretrial Procedures Flashcards
Preliminary Hearing to Determine Probable Cause
- can’t restrict def’s liberty w/o probable cause
- instances in which probable cause already established + hearing not necessary: arrest was pursuant to a warrant or grand jury indictment
- if probable cause not already determined + there are significant restraints on liberty, preliminary hearing to determine probable cause must be held w/in reasonable time (ex: 48 hrs)
- hearing = informal, nonadversarial proceeding
- no real remedy for denial of hearing, but ev discovered as result of unlawful detention can be excluded under exclusionary rule
Pretrial Detention - Bail
- most state constitutions create right to be released on bail unless charge = a capital one
- generally, bail can’t be set higher than necessary to assure def’s appearance at trial
Refusal to Grant Bail
- can appeal immediately (as well as excessive bail)
- BUT SCOTUS has upheld parts of fed Bail Reform Act that allow arrestees to be held w/o bail if they pose a danger or would fail to appear at trial
- 8th Am has provision re bail, but SCOTUS has never applied this to the states -> better arg in response to denial of bail is to contend it’s arbitrary (if state generally provides for bail, arbitrary denials violate due process)
Defendant Incompetent to Stand Trial - Standard
- to avoid equal protection issue, standards for commitment + subsequent release of defs incompetent to stand trial must be essential identical w/ those for commitment of persons not charged w/ a crime
Use of Grand Juries
- 5th Am right to indictment by grand jury has NOT been incorporated into 14th Am
- BUT some state constitutions require grand jury indictment
Grand Jury Proceedings - Features to Note
- secrecy + def’s lack of access
- no right to counsel or to Miranda warnings
- no right to have evidence excluded
- no right to challenge subpoena to call a witness for questioning
Grand Jury Proceedings - Secrecy
Def has no right to:
- notice that grand jury is considering an indictment
- be present + confront witnesses at the proceeding
- introduce ev before the grand jury
Differences Between Grand Jury Proceeding + Criminal Trials
- def (grand jury witness) has no right to have counsel present during their grand jury testimony
- grand jury may consider evidence that would be excluded at the criminal trial
- defendant (grand jury witness) must appear if called, although can refuse to answer specific q’s on the grounds that they may incriminate them
Grand Juries - Effect of Exclusion of Minorities
- conviction resulting from an indictment issued by a grand jury from which members of a minority group have been excluded will be reversed w/o regard to harmlessness of error
- book notes that for exam purposes, exclusion of minorities is likely the only defect you’d see sufficient to quash grand jury indictment
Speedy Trial - Standard
- determination of whether def’s 6th Am right to speedy trial has been violated is made by an eval of totality of circumstances
- factors considered = length of delay, reason for delay, whether def asserted their right, + prejudice to def
- remedy for violation of right to speedy trial = dismissal w/o prejudice
Speedy Trial - When Right Attaches
- right doesn’t attach until def arrested or charged
- if def is charged + is incarcerated in another jurisdiction, reasonable efforts must be used to obtain presence of def
- violates right to speedy trial for prosecution to indefinitely suspend charges
- def does not need to know of the charges for the right to attach
Exculpatory Evidence
- gov (prosecution) has duty to disclose material, exculpatory ev to def
- failure to disclose such ev (whether willful or inadvertent) violates due process
- failure to disclose = grounds for reversing conviction if def can prove: 1) the ev is favorable to def b/c either impeaches or is exculpatory, and 2) prejudice has resulted (i.e. reasonable probability that result of case would’ve been different if undisclosed ev had been presented at trial)
Notice of Alibi and Intent to Present Insanity Defense
- if def is going to use alibi or insanity defense, must notify prosecution
-> alibi - must give prosecution list of witnesses, + prosecution needs to give rebuttal list - prosecutor can’t comment at trial on def’s failure to present a witness named as supporting the alibi or on failure to present the alibi itself
Competency vs. Insanity
- insanity = defense to crim charge based on def’s mental condition at time of commission of crime
-> if acquitted by reason of insanity, can’t be retried + convicted (though could be hospitalized) - vs incompetency is a bar to trial (NOT defense) -> based on def’s condition at time of trial, + CAN later be tried if regain competency
Competency - Standard
Def = incompetent to stand trial if they either:
1) lack a rational as well as factual understanding of charges + proceedings OR
2) lack sufficient present ability to consult with their lawyer w/ a reasonable degree of understanding
- state may place on def burden of proving incompetency by preponderance of ev, but requiring def to show incompetency by clear + convincing ev = unconstitutional
