Test 2 Flashcards
What is impeachment evidence?
Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual who is testifying in a trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence contain the rules governing impeachment in federal courts.
What is exculpatory evidence?
Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt. It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to prove guilt.
What is assembly line justice?
Goal to moves cases fast
Example: McDonald’s getting orders out quickly
Hydraulic model of discretion
Displacements
Example: water snake
If you tamper discretion it’s going to move else where
Who selects Federal selection of head prosecutors?
State prosecutor?
President chooses federal term is 4 years
State prosecutor is elected 4-6 years
Vertical vs horizontal
VERTICAL- one DA follows the whole case from beginning to end
HORIZONTAL - one DA for each phase
3 elements
- Dangerousness/protect community
- capability/blameworthy ness
- Conviction ability -jury verdict
Prosecutors misconduct
Faking evidence, can’t make statements about defense, misleading info… Etc
Assigned Counsel
private lawyers designated by the courts to handle particular cases
Contract systems
State will ask for bids on law firm - # of cases/period of time - quality won’t be as great on lower bids
Public defender programs
Own budget own bar more time, it is privately owned assigned & contracts are public
Self representation
Being your own lawyer -pro say (spell check)
If not competent judge might provide stand by counsel
Brady v. Maryland (1963)
exculpatory evidence that prosecutor must disclose to defense
Powell v. Alabama (1932)
right to counsel in all capital cases
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
right to counsel in all felony cases
Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972)
right to counsel in any case facing imprisonment (includes misdemeanors)
Strickland v. Washington (1984)
determination of “effective counsel”; two-pronged test
Crawford v. Washington (2004)
hearsay rule & confrontation clause; changes exceptions to hearsay so that only non-testimonial statements are allowed without the witness present in court
Baldwin v. New York (1970)
right to jury trial if statute punishment is imprisonment of 6 months or greater
Taylor v. Louisiana (1975)
jury should be impartial drawing of a cross-section of the community (replaces the old “key man” system in states; means random selection from community)
Effective counsel
To contest so deviant that a lawyer would not have done it, greatly injured defendant
Defense counsel misconduct
Perjury , getting witnesses to lie …. Etc.
Judges duties pre-trial
Warrants- deny requests or grant them
Initial appearances- bail decisions appoint counsel
Preliminary hearing- determines probable cause
Arraignment- read charges
Evidentiary hearings- responds to motion
What can a judge do if the jury convicts on insufficient evidence?
They can change the conviction based on not enough evidence
“Key-man System”
A clerk and jury commissioner communicate with suggesters throughout the district by mail and request that they recommend persons as prospective grand jurors
What is the jury able to do to determine guilt?
Consider evidence, credibility of witnesses and what’s presented in court.
What the jury is not suppose to consider to determine guilt?
Media reports, that the defendant didn’t testify, things that the judge sustains
