Criminal Procedure.docx

Criminal Procedure QUICK REFERENCE * = Supreme Court case Prosecutorial Screening Baynes: Prosecutors entitled huge deference re: which defenses and offenses to charge. Decision to charge may only be challenged if it “shocks the conscience”. D must show by clear and convincing evidence that the decision was a “patent and gross” abuse of discretion. Per se rules = abuse of discretion. Arrest Booking First Appearance Bail 8th A: Excessive bail shall not be required. Boyle: Trial court cannot set bail higher than an amount reasonably calculated to fulfill the purpose of ensuring the accused’s presence at trial. Federal Bail Reform Act Pretrial detention McLaughlan: Ds can be held for up to 48 hours before their first appearance, unless the delay was “unreasonable”. Westerman: Court order allowing pre-trial detention of domestic violence offenders OK. Right to bail doesn’t attach immediately after arrest. Judicial determination of reasonable bail must be made as soon as possible, no later than probable cause determination, possible before preliminary hearing. Salerno*: Bail Reform Act and preventive detention constitutional. 1) Due process challenge to preventive detention fails because government’s regulatory interest in community safety can outweigh an individual’s liberty interest, including before conviction. 2) 8th A challenge fails because 8th A says nothing about whether bail will be available at all. Also, although the primary function of bail may be prevent D from absconding, the A does not prohibit government from pursuing other compelling interest through pretrial detention. (Marshall dissents on due process grounds.) Grand Jury Indictment Rule 6 Wilcox: Grand jury = bulwark of individual liberty and a fundamental protection against despotism. However, grand jurors don’t need to hear ALL the evidence or be present at all the hearings. It is only when the prosecution is “seriously tainted” because the prosecutor didn’t share important exculpatory evidence that D is denied due process. Preliminary Hearing Rule 5.1: Is there is prima facie case? (parties can present evidence & call witnesses) There is no preliminary hearing if D is indicted, waives the hearing, etc. Coleman*: Ds have a right to at a preliminary hearing because the State must make prima facie case against D, D can obtain discovery of state’s evidence, etc. Plea Bargaining Rule 11: Ds can plead guilty, not guilty or nolo contendere. A plea of nolo contedere (“I will not contest” the charges) allows the court to impose criminal sanctions, just as a guilty plea would, but the nolo plea cannot be used against the D in any later civil litigation as an admission of guilt. Prosecutor and court usually have to agree before D enters a nolo plea. Martin: Judges may not implement policies to automatically reject all plea agreements of a certain sort without considering whether a stipulated plea agreement is appropriate in light of the circumstances of the case. Individualized consideration is mandatory. Brimage: Prosecutorial guidelines cannot specifically encourage inter-county disparity. The goal is to achieve a coherent prosecutorial policy. Casey: Victims have a right to be heard during plea bargain hearings as part of right to participate in “important criminal justice hearing” under Victims’ Rights Act. Prosecutor’s obligation to provide “assistance” to the victim = victim may submit a request to be heard at a plea hearing to a prosecutor and expect that the request will be forwarded to the court. Lumzy: D was given a harsher sentence than he expected given his guilty plea (charge bargain), and appealed the sentence without first withdrawing the plea. OK given contract law principles – fairness to both parties: Ds must can withdraw a guilty plea if they try to appeal either a sentence or charge to which they agreed to. BUT where there was no agreement btn parties, no problem with leaving bargain intact. Sanchez: D wanted to withdraw plea because at sentencing hearing, an investigating officer recommended a longer sentence than he had agreed to. NO. CCO NOT a party to the plea agreement = NO breach of the plea agreement. Dissent: To allow certain state agents to contract another state agent’s not only APPEARS UNFAIR, but IS UNFAIR. It renders the prosecution’s agreement meaningless, disintegrates the fabric of our criminal justice system and deters future plea agreements. Knowledge Benitez: Judge failed to warn D, as required by Rule 11, that he could not withdraw his plea even if the judge did not accept the recommended sentence. Such a failure to warn = reversible error only if the D can show a reasonable probability that he would not have entered the plea after hearing a proper warning. Ruiz*: 5th and 6th As DO NOT require federal prosecutors to disclose “impeachment information relating to any informants or other witnesses” prior to entering plea agreements. Alford*: The standard for valid guilty plea remains if plea was a VOLUNTARY AND INTELLIGENT CHOICE. Maintaining your innocence doesn’t negate this. Voluntariness Bouie: Although disclosure of freely available info by judges is not inherently coercive, here the judge’s long explanation of Ds prospects undermined D’s realistic choices. Invalid plea. Discovery Prosecution has 2 ongoing and affirmative disclosure duties: 1) info. re perjury by D and 2) evidence materially favorable to D. Rule 16: Defense may obtain “written or recorded” statements of a D and written evidence of “oral statements” made by a D in response to interrogation by a government agent. Brady*: Due process clause requires the prosecution to disclose “evidence favorable to an accused” if that evidence is “MATERIAL either to guilt or to punishment”. TEST for prosecutorial misconduct: Evidence at issue is -- Favorable to the accused; Suppressed by the state, whether willfully or inadvertently; and Prejudice must have ensued. Agurs*: The obligation to disclose all MATERIAL evidence favorable to the accused, the Court said, applies even when the D makes only a general request for exculpatory information or makes no discovery request at all. Includes info. to impeach witnesses. Dretke*: Non disclosure of fact that witness was paid informant = passes Brady test = prosecutorial misconduct. Test for evidence to be considered “material”: D must show a “reasonable probability of a different result.” Trial rights Double Jeopardy 5th A: No person shall be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Multiple sovereigns exception Bartkus*: Prosecution by Illinois & Federal Government = double jeopardy challenge fails. Dissent (Justice Black): Combined operation of 2 governments should not obliterate individuals rights!! No reason why retrial less offensive when it includes 1 trial by the state and 1 by the federal government. If double punishment is what is feared, it hurts no less for two “sovereigns” to inflict it than for one. In each case, a man is forced to face danger twice for the same conduct. Lanza: Ds were tried under state law for making and selling liquor and then the Feds brought criminal charges for what D argued was the same offence. No double jeopardy. “We have here two sovereigns, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject-matter within the same territory. Federal Petite Policy: DOJ issued policy limiting federal prosecution to only when necessary to advance compelling interests of federal law enforcement. PRESUMPTION against retrial can only be overcome if 1) Matter involves a substantial federal interest; 2) Prior prosecution left that interest demonstrably unvindicated; and 3 D’s conduct constitutes a federal offense. Application: Substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) between state/federal prosecutions. Same offenses Blockburger*: If the two offenses EACH have at least one distinct element, they are not treated as the same offense. Dissent (Justice Breyer): The simple-sounding Blockburger test is extraordinarily difficult to administer in practice. The Blockburger test is the criminal law equivalent of Milton’s ‘Serbonian Bog… Where Armies whole have sunk.’” Melissa Nutt: Same transaction test requires the gov to join at one trial all the charges against a D arising out of a continuous time sequence, when the offenses shared a single intent and goal. The Double Jeopardy Clause is meant to protect people from government zeal and prevent the trial process from being transformed into a punishment. Yet, the same elements test permits multiple prosecutions stemming from a single incident. Collateral Estoppel Swenson: Different victim = different offense = not double jeopardy. Taylor: Prosecutor may bring new prosecution on a different theory of culpability. Depends on whether 1) What facts were “necessarily decided” in the first proceeding? 2) Did those “necessarily decided” facts constitute essential elements of the offense in the second trial? Good faith of the State in bringing successive prosecutions irrelevant. Joinder of offenses Rule 8(a): Prosecutors or judges can join offenses for trial, whether they are “related” charges (“based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts connected to a common plan”) or similar but “unrelated” charges (having similar “character”). Long. No compulsory joinder in Federal system EXCEPT for the double jeopardy clause – if you don’t join the offense at the same trial, you’re foreclosed from bringing it at a new trial. Double jeopardy is actually a rule of COMPULSORY JOINDER. Rule 14: relief for prejudicial joinder – severance of offenses and/or trials. Joinder of Ds Rule 8(b): The indictment or information may charge 2 or more Ds if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction, or in the same series of acts or transactions, constituting an offense or offenses. Assistance of counsel 6th A: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. Rule 44: D who is unable to obtain counsel is entitled to have counsel appointed to represent D at EVEYR stage of the proceeding from first appearance through appeal, unless D waives this right. Gideon*: The obvious truth is that lawyers are necessities, not luxuries. Right to counsel is fundamental and unmistakable. Argersinger*, Blanton*, Scott*: Offenses resulting in “actual imprisonment” require appointed counsel. Danger of "assembly-line justice." Shelton*: Ds have a right to counsel when given suspended jail sentences that may ultimately deprive them of their liberty based on convictions not subjected to “crucible of meaningful adversarial testing”. Self-representation Faretta*: Right to “assistance of counsel” logically implies a D’s right to represent himself at trial without counsel. Spencer: If D allows counsel to fully represent him = WAIVER of Faretta rights. Reversal for denial of right to self-representation reqs showing that D would have done something difference than appointed counsel. Effective assistance of counsel Strickland*: Cause and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel: 1) counsel’s performance falls below an “objective standard of reasonableness”; 2) BUT FOR lawyer’s errors there is a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different. (Marshall dissents on two grounds.) Boria (2nd C): Lawyers are constitutionally required to inform D of plea bargain offer. Purdy (2nd C): No duty to explicitly instruct client as to whether or not to accept plea bargain as long as lawyer informs D of strengths and weaknesses of his case (prospects at trial). Balance between duty to give adequate advice and not to coerce a guilty plea. Peart: Reasonably effective assistance of counsel means that the lawyer not only possesses adequate skill and knowledge but also that he has the time and resources to apply them to each D’s defense. Rebuttable presumption that indigents represented by Tessier were denied assistance of counsel. Adrian Citizen: The fact that the Louisiana Legislature hasn’t funded the defense programs that it created to meet its constitutional mandate doesn’t make the statutes themselves unconstitutional. Lynch: Oklahoma statutes limiting attorney compensation not unconstitutional for denying lawyers right to adequate and certain compensation. Tie hourly rate of defense to that of prosecution. Duvall: Denial of continuance to lawyer laboring under a conflict of interest violated right to effective assistance of counsel. Prof. Responsibility Andrade: Allowing D to present testimony in narrative form when lawyer thought D would commit perjury was proper; lawyer balanced his duties as advocate and officer of the court. Presumption of innocence In Re Winship*: Due Process Clause, 14th protects an accused “against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” No need to define reasonable doubt any particular way. Victor*: TEST for constitutionality of jury instructions “is not whether the instruction ‘could have’ been applied in an unconstitutional manner, but whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury did so apply it.” TEST for unconstitutional jury instructions re reasonable doubt is whether “taken as a whole, the instructions correctly conveyed the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury.” Winegeart: Jury instructions re: reasonable doubt used words “actual”, “fair” and “moral certainty”. D argued that this was a degree of proof below “proof beyond reasonable doubt” as mandated by Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. However, challenged instruction wasn’t so deficient as to be constitutionally defective. No reversible error. John Deal (Washington): Jury instruction that a person “intends the natural and probable consequences of their actions” violates D’s presumption of innocence because it creates an unlawful mandatory presumption. Such jury instructions relieve the Prosecution of its duty to prove D’s intent, shifting burden to D to show he lacked the requisite intent for the crime. Test for mandatory presumption: Whether a reasonable juror would interpret the presumption as mandatory (looking at jury instructions as a whole). ERROR NOT reversible however. HARMLESS. Speedy trial 6th A: guarantees a “speedy and public trial” and most states have similar provisions. Barker*: Test for unreasonable delay: Length of delay; (benefit of doubt is given to D, only move on to other factors if length is sufficient) Reason for delay; Whether D asserted right to speedy trial; Whether D was prejudiced by the delay. 3 types of prejudice speedy trials avoid: “oppressive pretrial incarceration”; “anxiety and concern of the accused”; “the possibility that the defense will be impaired”. MOST SERIOUS. Marion: Speedy trial clause (which speaks of a speedy trial for the “accused”) only attaches with “a formal indictment or information or else the actual restraints imposed by the arrest and holding to answer a criminal charge”. Scher: Duck shooting, infidelity case. Test – totality of circumstances = delay was prejudicial and unreasonable? NO. Defense didn’t lose access to any witnesses or exculpating evidence, and prosecutorial delay was not in bad faith. Only where the state intentionally delayed in order to get tactical advantage or acted recklessly to such a degree as to shock one’s conscience = deprivation of due process. Magnusen: 500 days D’s arrest and his preliminary hearing. NO denial of right to speedy trial considering the TOTALITY of the circumstances. Delay was not intentional. Brillon: D arrested for felony domestic assault and tried 3 years later, convicted and sentenced to 12-20. Barker requires weighing both the prosecution and the D’s conduct. No violation of right to speedy trial because D deliberately attempted to disrupt proceedings. This rule is not absolute. Delay resulting from a systematic breakdown in the public defender system could be charged to the State. Trial by jury 6th A: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” Rule 23: D has right to trial by jury unless he WAIVES it, gov approves and court consents. Bowers: Abortion protestors were denied jury trial by judge who promised no jail time but nevertheless imposed suspended jail sentences. But 1 year probation NOT denial of right. Dunne: Court can decide whether or not to grant a D’s waiver of right to a jury. Court must consider all the circumstances of the case, BUT the more serious the crime, the greater the burden on the D to show why there should be a non-jury trial. Removals for cause Duren*: TEST to challenge a venire under the 6th A. First, the D must show that: The group allegedly excluded is a “distinctive group” in the community; This under-representation is a result of “systematic” exclusion of the group (not necessarily intentional discrimination) Second, the burden of proof shifts to the government to show a “significant state interest” that justifies use of the method that systematically excludes a group. Hill*: IF there is a “reasonable possibility that the jury will be influenced by racial prejudice, judges must ask specific voir dire questions about it. Peremptory strikes Batson*: Prosecutor used all peremptory challenges to strike the only 4 black jurors from venire. Denial of equal protection of the laws AND trial by jury? NO. TEST: person must be a member of a cognizable racial group; if there is a prima facie case of racial discrimination, prosecutor must offer racially neutral reasons for peremptory strikes. (Marshall dissented.) Lingo: Prosecutor struck all African American jurors. Peremptory strikes survived, racially neutral. Deadlock Bailey: If jury is deadlocked, judge should re-read ALL jury instructions, not only one. Broad spectrum antibiotic when source of infection is unknown. Tucker*: Rule of juror anonymity violated D’s presumption of innocence. If a court withholds juror information, it must 1) Find that a jury need protection and 2) Take reasonable precautions to avoid prejudicing D. Public trial 6th A and 1st A Waller:* Closing hearing must only be exercised sparingly, and court must find adequate support for closure. State must show: 1) A compelling interest to close part a particular part of the trial; 2) Closure no broader than necessary to protect that interest; 3) No reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding. Garcia: Right to a “speedy and public trial” under the 6th A violated by media exclusion? NO. Power to exclude the public from a criminal trial should be exercised sparingly BUT— So long as the court HEARS both sides, it can decide to clear the courtroom. Confrontation Crawford*: Confrontation clause doesn’t bar admission of an unavailable witness’s statement IF it bears “adequate indicia of reliability”. NEW TEST: Where testimonial evidence is at issue, the 6th A requires unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination. The Clause applies to prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial; and to police interrogations. Bruton*: A D’s confession incriminated the other D. The trial judge issued limiting instruction, telling the jury that it should consider the confession as evidence only against he Co-D who had confessed. NOT ENOUGH. Constitution forbids the use of such a confession in the joint trial. Gray*: Redactions that simply replace a name with an obvious blank space leave statements that resemble Bruton’s confession. Romero: Witness testified in disguise. Violation of confrontation right? YES. Confrontation has 4 elements: Presence, Oath, Cross examination, Demeanor. Disguise undermined jury and D’s ability to observe witness’s demeanor. TEST: Encroachment upon face to face confrontation is only permitted if: 1) NECESSARY to further an important public interest and 2) Reliability of the testimony s otherwise assured. Carroll: Witnesses can be cross examined re pending criminal charges. Self incrimination 5th A Griffin*: Judge told the jury that failure to testify “tends to indicate the truth” of evidence against D. Comment on the refusal to testify = violation of 5th A = penalty for exercising a constitutional privilege. Sentencing 8th A: Rule 32: Ewing*: 8th A doesn’t require strict proportionality between the crime and sentence. 8th A only forbids extreme sentences that are “grossly disproportionate” to the crime. Apprendi*: ANY FACT other than a prior conviction that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory max must be 1) submitted to a JURY and 2) proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The truth of any accusation against a D should be confirmed by the unanimous suffrage of 12 equals and neighbors. Booker*: Sentencing Guideline violate 6th A right to a jury trial + right to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on EVERY element of the crime charged. Scalia: “Every D has the right to insist that the prosecutor prove to a jury all facts legally essential to the punishment.” Blakely*: Juries not judges must find any facts that authorize INCREASING range of sentences. All facts that are essentially accusations must be proven to the jury of D’s peers beyond a reasonable doubt. The right to a jury trial is not a procedural formality but a fundamental reservation of power in our constitutional structure. Williams: D NOT denied due process of law by being denied an opportunity to confront authors of “other sources” that the judge considered in sentencing. The punishment should fit both the CRIME and the D. Dissent: Ds must be accorded a fair hearing through ALL stages of proceedings against him. (Williams overruled w/ re to capital sentencing.) Factors at sentencing Criminal history McAlpin: Trial court improperly relied on unproven or uncharged crimes as a reason for imposing an exceptional sentence Tunstill: Trial court enhanced a sentence for murder by 10 years based on the facts that 1) D was on probation at the time of the crime and 2) D’s criminal history, consisting of 3 prior ARRESTS. NO Denial of due process. On the one hand, sentencing judges cannot INFER the commission of a crime by D by an arrest; On the other hand, a RECORD of arrests CAN aggravate a sentence if the judge considers it in the context of assessing D’s character and propensity to commit future crimes. Substantial Assistance Parrish: D provided substantial assistance/ cooperation with police, but since policy was to only reward Ds whose assistance led to ARRESTS, Ds got super stiff sentence, no benefit. NO. Judge can’t blindly defer to police policy, especially whether or not the police RELIED on the information that D gave. Police misconduct Claypool: Can the sentencing judge consider misconduct of POLICE at the sentencing stage? Not directly. Police misconduct, standing alone, tells us nothing about the D. However, if the D had an ENHANCED intent that was the PRODUCT of police conduct, and the enhanced intent can be shown in a manner that satisfies the requirements for a sentencing departure, it is permissible for a court to consider that enhanced intent in making a departure. Dissent: Entrapment and police misconduct are defenses raised during the CASE IN CHIEF to nullify an element of the crime. Remorse Race McCleskey*: Is the death penalty a denial of due process and equal protection given evidence of its racially discriminatory application? NO. 1) D must show intentional discrimination in HIS SPECIFIC case. Statistical evidence not enough, unless the evidence “compels a conclusion that purposeful discrimination can be presumed to permeate the system.” 2) Discretion – on the part of the Prosecutor, Jury and Judge – offers substantial benefits to the D.3) The study only indicates a discrepancy that appears to correlate with race. Stephens: app of McCleskey Appeals Anders: Appointed counsel must advise the appellate court of any colorable issue EVEN if they think D could only raise frivolous issues. Robbins: California’s appeal procedure for indigent Ds = constitutional. No merits brief with citations of the record + factual and procedural history of case. Test: If procedure reasonably ensures that an indigent’s appeal will be resolved in a way that is related to the merit of that appeal = adequate and effective. Balance between right to counsel for non frivolous claims / needless public spending. Medrano: Prosecutor can appeal a pre-trial ruling on a motion to suppress evidence. If the trial court can rule upon a pretrial motion to suppress evidence, the State can appeal it. A motion for the goose is a motion for the gander. Factual sufficiency Jackson v. Virginia*: Federal court, when reviewing a state court conviction during post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings, must confirm that there was sufficient evidence to support a “reasonable trier of fact” in concluding that the government had proven guilty beyond reasonably doubt. Clewis: Test for reversal of factual findings: verdict must be so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. High threshold because appellate courts MUST NOT substitute their judgment for that of the factfinder. Usurpation of jury function!! Reversible error Rule 52: Budzyn*: Jurors were given Malcolm X to watch during a recess at the end of a trial. Harmless error w/ re to one D, and reversible error w/ re to another D. Test for harmless error: HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Since evidence for one D was not overwhelming, the movie may have affected the verdict. Retroactivity Art. 1 Constitution: No state shall pass any ex post facto law. Stogner*: California’s new SOL law for sex abuse offenses violates non-retroactivity bar in Art. 1 of Constitution. The State’s interest in prosecuting child abuse cases is important but doesn’t trump constitutional interest in forbidding States from reviving long-forbidden prosecutions. Post conviction Review Federal Habeas Art. 1 Constitution: Suspension clause Fay v. Noia*: Deliberate bypass standard. At issue is state post conviction relief. Question is whether a D who bypassed an issue on appeal (failed to raise an issue on appeal) can be held to have forfeited an issue. Warren Court says no: bypass must be DELIBERATE, intentional. Rationale: The goal of habeas has always been to remedy ANY KIND of governmental restraint contrary to fundamental law. Habeas jurisprudence created a method additional to Supreme Court review of state decisions for the vindication of constitutional guarantees. Wainwright v. Sykes*: Rejected the sweeping language of Fay v. Noia, which would make federal habeas review generally available to state convicts absent a knowing and deliberate waiver of the federal constitutional contention. In a collateral attack upon a conviction, the petitioner must show: 1) Cause for not bringing up issue in direct review, and 2) Actual prejudice. Kurtis v. Washington: D was sentenced to 25 years in prison for murder, and a key witness came forth years later. Question: Can new evidence be raised in an habeas petition to entitle D to a new trial? Decision: Only if a constitutional right – whether Illinois or federal – is implicated. Precedent: Herrera: A free-standing claim of innocence is not cognizable as a 14th A due process claim. So, D’s effort to state a federal constitutional due process claim fails. However, as a matter of Illinois constitutional jurisprudence, a claim of newly discovered evidence showing a D to be actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted is cognizable as a matter of due process. This means that there is footing in the Illinois Constitution for asserting free-standing innocence claims based upon NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. Substantively, relief has been held to require that the supporting evidence be NEW, MATERIAL, NONCUMULATIVE AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, OF SUCH CONCLUSIVE CHARACTER AS WOULD PROBABLY CHANGE THE RESULT ON RETRIAL. Retroactivity Teague v. Lane*: As a preliminary matter in a habeas petition, would a ruling in favor of D have to be applied retroactively? If so, the issue cannot be heard on habeas review. Rationale: New constitutional rights cannot be promulgated on habeas. They must be promulgated on DIRECT REVIEW by the Supreme Court. Ineffective assistance Herrera*: There is nothing unconstitutional about an unjust conviction because the Constitution doesn’t protect you against being wrongfully convicted. The Constitution protects you against not being able to confront witnesses and having a neutral fact-finder, but there is no constitutional right against wrongful conviction. Grant: Ds can wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel until collateral review. Thus, any ineffectiveness claim will be waived only after a D has had the opportunity to raise that claim on collateral review. Rationale: Deferring review of trial counsel ineffectiveness claims until the collateral review stage of the proceedings offers a P the best avenue to effect his 6th A right to counsel. Executive Clemency INTRODUCTION ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM Justice is best served by giving the prosecutor and defense counsel primary responsibility for the development and presentation of their own cases. JUDGE’s ROLE Judge is a neutral and detached magistrate whose function is to mediate and resolve the opposing parties’ inevitable conflicts. Responsibility for safeguarding both the rights of the accused and the interests of the public in the administration of criminal justice. The adversary nature of the proceedings doesn’t relieve the trial judge of the to promote a just determination of trial. BALANCE between MAKING the record and PROTECTING the record. When opposing parties fail to play their own roles effectively, judges can intervene. They are not treated as “automatons” or potted plants. But neither can judges can’t assume the aggressive role assigned them in the inquisitorial model. INQUISITORIAL MODEL (French and German criminal justice systems) Judge has primary responsibility not only for determining the relevant facts, but also for gathering and eliciting those facts. The parties assist the judge in this task, but their role is only secondary and supportive. Plea bargaining: Philosophical differences between the inquisitorial and adversarial models are evident in their attitude toward the disposal of cases without trial. At least as a theoretical matter, the inquisitorial model requires that every case receive a full judicial inquiry and doesn’t permit a compromise that substitutes for a trial. By contrast, the adversarial model places upon the PARTIES the duty to protect and advance their respective positions and allows mutually beneficial agreements. GOALS of CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Achieve greatest number of just outcomes in most efficient way. Uniformity: Punish like crimes alike WEALTH, RACE, GENDER, ETHNICITY, SOCIAL CLASS should not impact operation of criminal justice. ROLE OF PROSECUTOR ABA standards for prosecution: “The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice and not merely to convict.” Ensure that D has adequate counsel. Protect appearance of fairness and legitimacy of the criminal process. Share exculpatory evidence. POLICE AND PROSECUTORIAL SCREENING POLICE SCREENING: Police departments screen cases before and after arrest, whether or not they admit it. PROSECUTORIAL SCREENING – HUGE DISCRETION Prosecutors have enormous discretion re whether to file charges against a suspect and which charges to select. Limited judicial review of prosecutorial screening because: Separation of powers doctrine, the executive branch has the responsibility to enforce the criminal law; Judges are poorly situated to make judgments about allocation of limited prosecutorial resources. Three exceptions to Prosecutor’s discretion. “No drop” statutes: Some jurisdictions have implemented mandatory prosecution policies for some crimes. A few jurisdictions have statutes suggesting that prosecutors have an obligation to prosecute crimes for which they believe probable cause exists. Some jurisdictions provide the state attorney general with varying degrees of supervisory power over all local prosecutors. RATIONALES for PROSECUTORIAL SCREENING Declining to prosecute unmeritorious cases is as much a part of a system of justice prosecuting the guilty. SCARCITY OF RESOURCES: Prosecutors must make resources have the most effect by selecting areas where deterrence is especially important, where the public interest is the greatest, cases of the greatest culpability, cases that prosecutor has a good chance of winning. Right to prosecute can be sacrificed in exchange for valuable information. JUSTICE to Ds: Lack of merit in the prosecution (no evidence to support allegations) Duty to clear Ds falsely accused! Prosecution can be deferred or declined based on personal circumstance of D, i.e. sickness, mental illness, etc. Baynes D bought heroin near a school. First time offender; no violent history. Prosecutor refused to divert D as per a rule to prosecute certain drug offenses. Trial court said this was abuse of discretion because the Prosecutor’s decision “shocked the conscience.” Court of appeals agreed. Even though Prosecutors are entitled to huge deference (D must show through clear and convincing evidence that Prosecutor’s deicion was a “patent and gross” abuse of discretion), Prosecutors must at least consider all the relevant factors. By abandoning his discretion in favor of a per se rule, the prosecutor made a decision unsupported by laws at issue. Criticism Written declination policies put criminals on notice re which levels/types of crimes will not be prosecuted aggressively. There must be uniformity in which cases are declined. Prosecutors amend the law if they only implement laws in certain circumstances, with respect to particular Ds. Therefore, prosecutorial guidelines/ practices be accessible to the public. Prosecutors should have to give REASONS for their decisions and inform victims. “No drop” policies domestic violence Con’s Waste of resources on cases where victims don’t want to prosecute; Discourage victims to come forward if they know they will have no say in whether to ultimately prosecute or not; May have to subpoena victim to testify in court or hold her in contempt of court which could amount to double victimization; When you force a victim to testify they may not be good witnesses on purpose and prevent a conviction anyway. Pro’s Punish abusers for forcefully; Remove victims from pattern of abuse, including other family members. Takes pressure off victim to decide whether or not to prosecute. Send a message that society condemns abusive relationship. DIVERSION OF Ds (“deferred prosecution” agreements) Definition Either the Prosecutor agrees not to file criminal charges if suspect completes a rehabilitative program OR Prosecution is suspended while the D completes the diversion program. If the D succeeds, the prosecutor dismisses the criminal charges. Rationale: Avoid punishing first-time offenders w/out violent criminal records overly severely. Criticism Diversion allows Prosecutors to effectively legislate the appropriate punishments or rehabilitative strategies for particular crimes and/or Ds. Diversion forces Prosecutors into the role of social workers because they have to monitor success of diversion program and decide whether to re-instate prosecution. FIRST APPEARANCE, PRELIMINARY HEARING ARREST BOOKING: Interview, body search, finger prints, picture. Police runs your finger prints against a database to check your identity, social security, address and criminal record. NOTE: Our criminal records are created immediately after ARREST, rather than convictions (Europe). FIRST APPEARANCE: Initial screening by a magistrate or other judicial officer. Functions Did government have probable cause to support an arrest? Will it be necessary to assign defense counsel to the case? Should suspect be released? If so, should D be released on their own recognizance, on bail or electronic monitoring? The release decision can occur at a later proceeding, a preliminary hearing, when a judge determines whether there is enough evidence to hold the D for trial. The later proceeding might also be a “bail hearing”, devoted exclusively to the question of release or detention. McLaughlan: Ds can be held for 48 hours before first appearance, unless there was “unreasonable delay”. PRELIMINARY HEARING/ EXAMINATION Goal: Is there is prima facie case? (parties can present evidence & call witnesses) Rule 5.1: There is no preliminary hearing if D is indicted, waives the hearing, etc. Coleman SUPREME COURT Ds have a right to counsel at a preliminary hearing. RIGHT TO ADEQUATE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL Rule 44: A D who is unable to obtain counsel is entitled to have counsel appointed to represent the D at every stage of the proceeding from initial appearance through appeal, unless the D waives this right. 6th A: in “all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense”. WHO has the right to freely appointed counsel? Indigent Ds: People who are unable to pay for the services of a lawyer (including investigation) without substantial hardship to them or their family. Gideon, 1963 SUPREME COURT The right to counsel is fundamental and unmistakable. In our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. The obvious truth is that lawyers are necessities, not luxuries. Criticism: Indigent Ds should arguably have the same about of choice with respect to their lawyer as persons of means. Voucher system should be instituted that would give Ds such a choice. Do ALL OFFENSES warrant the right to counsel? No, right to appointed defense counsel limited to offenses req imprisonment, even if less than 6 months. (Most states follow the “actual imprisonment” rule.) Scott and Argersinger 2 SUPREME COURT CASES Offenses resulting in “actual imprisonment” require appointed counsel. Danger of "assembly-line justice." No matter how petty the charge, states must provide the accused with counsel if there is the possibility of a jail sentence. But if imprisonment is a possibility, right to counsel attaches. Shelton SUPREME COURT D’s 30 day jail sentence was suspended and he was put on probation. D’s have a right to counsel when given suspended sentences that MAY end up actually depriving them of their liberty. Threatening Ds with incarceration if they violate probation after trial without lawyer is inappropriate. D faced incarceration on a conviction that wasn’t subjected to the crucible of meaningful adversarial testing. Criticism 6th A provides for a right to counsel “in ALL criminal prosecutions”, not only those resulting in imprisonment. Actual incarceration is an arbitrary and unreasonable dividing line. Deportation is often a more severe punishment than a jail sentence. WHEN DOES THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL ATTACH? First, the right attaches only after the initiation of an “adversarial proceedings”, whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information or arraignment. Second, even after the initiation of adversarial proceedings, the government must allow a defense attorney to participate only during a “critical stage” of those proceedings. Coleman SUPREME COURT Preliminary hearing = critical stage of legal proceedings because State must make prima facie case against D, D can obtain discovery of state’s evidence, etc. WAIVER of RIGHT TO COUNSEL? Waiver must be knowing and voluntary: Trial court must inform D about the dangers of self representation OR It otherwise appears from the record that D understood the dangers. If a D invokes his right to self representation under Faretta, the judge must still appoint standby counsel. Faretta The right to “assistance” of counsel logically implies a D’s right to represent himself at trial without counsel. Criticism: Faretta doesn’t square with the notion in Gideon that lawyers are a “necessity, not a luxury”. Spencer If D allows standby counsel to fully represent him = waiver of Faretta right to self representation. In order to get a new trial for denial of self representation rights, D must usually show that he would have done something differently than his lawyer. SYSTEMS FOR PROVIDING COUNSEL Full-time public defender systems Public or private nonprofit organizations hire lawyers on a full-time and salaried basis to cover cases. (20 states - public defender system primary method used to provide indigent counsel for criminal Ds) Advantages: training for young lawyers, lawyers don’t have private practices on the side so totally focused on Ds. Disadvantages: Conflicts of interest for lawyers serving both the D and the state, insufficient funds, excessive caseloads, “burnout”. Assigned counsel systems Courts appoint private attorneys as needed from a list of available attorneys. Contract attorney systems Government strikes agreements with private attorneys to provide indigent services for a specified dollar amount and for a specified time period. Advantage: No monopoly on indigent defense services. Competitive bidding for contracts could ensure better services for less. Disadvantage: Could generate a race to the bottom, w/ competition to provide services as CHEAPLY as possible. Vouncher Model (Schulhofer) “Privatization” of indigent defense. Advantages: Liberty interest; people may choose their own attorneys. Disadvantages: Ds may not know who are the best lawyers to try their cases. PRE-TRIAL RELEASE GENERALLY Rationale for bail: encourage people to cooperate in their own adjudication by appearing in court. 25 states guarantee right to bail except in capital cases. Federal Bail Reform Act: standard criteria in reaching bail decision, including: Nature of offense charged; Weight of evidence against accused; Accused’s family ties; Employement; Mental health; Record of convictions; Length of residence in community; Record of failure to appear at court appearances or of flight to avoid prosecution (upstanding criminal??). Nonfinancial release: usually requires regular contact btn D and pretrial program, plus no contact with victim. Amount of bail 8th A: “excessive bail shall not be imposed”. Judges have a lot of discretion. Boyle: “8th A = trial court can’t set bail higher than an amount reasonably calculated to fulfill the purpose of ensuring the accused’s presence at trial.” Criticism Releasing suspects on bail threatens additional harm. May create perverse incentive for arrestee or his agents to commit further crimes in order to get bail money. PRE-TRIAL DETENTION GENERALLY Rationale: Ensure that Ds to not abscond. Preventative detention: 50% states allow courts to detain D’s before trial to prevent commission of new crimes. Some states LIMIT max time of preventative detention. Most states allow preventive detention only for criminal D’s accused of committing certain violent felonies. Some states only allow for repeat offenders. Question: What is the proper balance between the 1960s reform encouraging presumptive release and the 1980s reform encouraging open detention for those who threaten harm? Westerman, 1994 Court issued a general order providing for pre-trial detention of domestic violence offenders. Violative of 8th A right to bail? NO. Right to bail doesn’t attach immediately following arrest. The right to a judicial determination of reasonable bail or release must be made as soon as possible, no later than the probable cause determination, and as with probable cause, may be determined by a judge prior to the preliminary hearing. Counties should have discretion to set bail schedules. Salerno, 1987 SUPREME COURT 1984 Bail Reform Act allowed fed courts to detain an arrestee pending trial if the Government demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence after an adversary hearing that no release conditions “[would] reasonably assure… the safety of any other person and the community” (preventative detention). Ds argued that detention on the ground that the arrestee is likely to commit future crimes = unconstitutional for 2 reasons: Act exceeded limitations of the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment; Act contravened 8th Amendment’s proscription against excessive bail. Decision: Bail Reform Act and preventive detention constitutional Due process challenge: The Government’s regulatory interest in community safety can outweigh an individual’s liberty interest, including restraining an individual’s liberty prior to or even without criminal trial and conviction. The Act operated only on individuals who have been arrested for a specific category of extremely serious offenses. 2 conditions for constitutional pre-trial detention: The Government must first of all demonstrate probable cause to believe that the charged crime was committed by the arrestee. In a full-blown adversary hearing, the Government must convince a neutral decision-maker by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the safety of the community or any person. Excessive bail challenge The 8th Addressed pretrial release by providing merely that “excessive bail shall not be required.” Answer: Says nothing about whether bail shall be available at all. Ds contended that the Clause granted them a right to bail calculated solely upon considerations of flight. In D’s view, the Bail Reform Act allowed courts essentially to set bail for reasons not related to the risk of flight (preventing future crime), so it was unconstitutional. Answer: Although the primary function of bail is to safeguard the courts’ role in adjudicating the guilt or innocence of D’s, the 8th Adoesn’t categorically prohibit the government from pursuing other admittedly compelling interest through regulation of pretrial release. Right to bail is not absolute Courts can refuse bail in capital cases, as well as when the D presents a threat to the judicial process by intimidation of witnesses. Dissent (Justice Marshall) Majority’s argument is an “exercise in obfuscation”. Government cannot hold a D in detention only on a showing that he is “dangerous” on the basis of “proof” not beyond a reasonable doubt. Under the Bail Reform Act, an untried indictment somehow acts to permit a detention, based on other charges, which after an acquittal would be unconstitutional. Pre-trial detention – criticism Detaining those who have not yet been tried violates the presumption of innocence. (Answer: presumption of innocence is an evidentiary tool that only applies in adversarial TRIALS.) Pre-trial detention of almost 1/3 of those charged with felonies is too high. Arrestee can still commit crimes or harm witnesses through his AGENTS. Vera Institute of Justice findings Detainees are more likely to be convicted than persons free on bail. Also, if convicted, detainees are more likely to receive tougher sentences. Detainees lose income while they are away from their jobs, suffer dislocation and sometimes even permanent rupture in their family lives. Detainees suffer social stigmatization and loss of self respect because of their confinement – even though they have not been convicted of anything and must be presumed innocent, and may eventually be acquitted. Release is better than detention through unrealistically high bail requirements in states where there is no legal authority for preventive detention. GRAND JURY SCREENING Rule 6: In 50% of states, prosecutor must obtain an indictment after the first appearance from a minimum number of grand jurors stating that there is probable cause for the prosecution. Criticism: Not an effective screening system. Grand juries indict in virtually all cases when a prosecutor requests the indictment. Review standard is low: only whether there is probably cause to believe that the accused has committed the crime that the prosecutor has specified. Grand jury proceedings are not adversarial. Only the prosecutor presents evidence. What crimes require indictments? In almost half of states, a grand jury indictment rather than a prosecutor’s information is necessary for at least some charges. In some jurisdictions, like NY, the constitution requires a grand jury indictment. For the most part, the indictment states have retained the traditional requirement embodied in the 5th A to the federal constitution: Indictment must occur in all capital and ‘infamous’ cases; i.e. felonies. In most cases and for most charges, the grand jury is optional. Prosecutors can decide whether to proceed under an information or a grand jury indictment. Indictments have become one weapon in the prosecutor’s arsenal of ways to investigate and charge crimes. Indictment v. information – reasons why an information may be preferable to indictment Grand juries indict in virtually all case where the Prosecutor requests an indictment for 2 main reasons: Low review standard: Prosecutor must only show “probable cause” to believe that D committed the crime. Grand jury proceedings are not adversarial. Judges might evaluate the evidence more skeptically than the grand jury: Have far more experience in evaluating sufficiency of evidence BOTH parties can present evidence and call witnesses at the preliminary hearing/ examination. NO right to a preliminary hearing if the Prosecutor seeks a grand jury indictment. Wilcox, 2002 D objected to absence of some grand jurors. Not improper. Grand jury = bulwark of individual liberty and a fundamental protection against despotism. However, grand jurors don’t need to hear ALL the evidence or be present at all the hearings. It is only when the prosecution is “seriously tainted” because the prosecutor didn’t share important exculpatory evidence that D is denied due process. PLEA BARGAINING Ds can plea not guilty, guity or nolo contedere. Nolo Contendere Plea. A plea of nolo contedere (“I will not contest” the charges) allows the court to impose criminal sanctions, just as a guilty plea would, but the nolo plea cannot be used against the D in any later civil litigation as an admission of guilt. The court must agree before D enters a nolo plea, based on the parties' views and the public interest in the effective administration of justice. MOST criminal charges are resolved through guilty pleas. 3 kinds of guilty plea bargains Charge bargains: prosecutor agrees to reduce charges or to drop some counts entirely. The prosecutor might agree not to file charges against third party. 30 states - prosecutors need consent of the court to dismiss a charge. Sentence bargains: Prosecutor agrees to ask the sentencing judge for a certain outcome, or to refrain from asking for a certain outcome, or to make no sentencing recommendation at all. Conditional plea: D pleads guilty while reserving the right to appeal on a defined pretrial issue, such as the voluntariness of a confession. (QUESTIONABLE) Fact bargaining: The sentencing guidelines begin with a base offense level for each crime and instruct the judge to adjust that number up or down in specified amounts, based on specific characteristics of the case. Because these particular factual findings can have such a clear impact on the sentence, the guidelines have spawned a new kind of bargaining – fact bargaining – in which the parties agree to the presence or absence of these relevant sentencing facts in a given case. Waivers as part of plea bargains Most state and federal courts have concluded that a D may explicitly limit the right to appeal a conviction as part of a plea agreement. BUT some say appellate review of certain claims cannot be waived, such as a D’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at sentencing, that he was sentenced on the basis of his race, or that his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. PRO’s Conserves judicial and private RESOURCES. Plea bargains are preferable to mandatory litigation because compromise is better than conflict. Settlements in criminal cases make both sides better off. Ds have many procedural and substantive rights. By pleading guilty, they sell these rights to the prosecutor, receiving concessions they esteem more highly than the rights surrendered. Ds can use or exchange their rights, which makes them better off. Forcing them to use their rights at trial means compelling them to take the risk of conviction; Ds get the process over sooner and solvent ones save the expense of trial. LIBERTY! The choice of whether or not to plea bargain should be left to the D whose life is at stake. Avoid re-traumatization of victims/ witnesses. CON’s Makes figure-heads of judges whose power over the administration of criminal justice is transferred to people who are unelected, have less experience and partisan duties, TARRIF on exercise of trial rights: Plea bargaining punishes assertion of constitutional right to put the state to its proof. Creates opportunities for lazy lawyers whose primary goal is to cut corners and get on to the next case; Almost certainly increases the number of innocent Ds who are convicted. Great defense lawyers = better plea bargains = unfair criminal justice system. Paternalistic: Ds know their interests better than courts. RESTRICTIONS ON BARGAINING LEGISLATIVE LIMITS Legislatures control plea bargaining in various ways: Prohibit category (type of crime) Mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes Price control (New York imposes a 30% maximum concession) Indeterminate sentence (prosecutors have more power to recommend any sentence he deems appropriate) JUDICIAL RULES Tension Plea bargaining as extension of the prosecutor’s charging decision, judges are reluctant to undermine discretion. Plea bargaining is a key determinant in sentencing, and judges have customarily considered sentencing to be a judicial function. Result: Judges prefer charge bargains; skeptical of sentence bargains. Judges have a lot of discretion to approve/ disapprove plea agreements. Martin, 1995 Judges may not implement policies to automatically reject all plea agreements of a certain sort without considering whether a stipulated plea agreement is appropriate in light of the circumstances of the case. Individualized consideration is mandatory. PROSECUTORIAL GUIDELINES Brimage, 1998 Prosecutorial guidelines cannot specifically encourage inter-county disparity. The goal is to achieve a coherent prosecutorial policy. VICTIM CONSULTATION Most states – prosecutor must inform a victim of intention to accept plea agreement. A few states – prosecution must “consult” w victim before rec plea agreement. Casey, 2002 Victims have a right to be heard during plea bargain hearings as part of right to participate in “important criminal justice hearing” under Victims’ Rights Act. Prosecutor’s obligation to provide “assistance” to the victim = victim may submit a request to be heard at a plea hearing to a prosecutor and expect that the request will be forwarded to the court. VALIDITY OF PLEA BARGAINS CONTRACT MODEL to assess constitutionality of individual plea bargains. RULE 11: 3 essential ingredients for a valid plea of guilty (“open” or “negotiated”): Plea must reflect a knowing waiver of trial rights; The D must waive those rights voluntarily; and There must be an adequate “factual basis” to support the charges to which the D pleads guilty. ACCEPTING/ WITHDRAWING PLEA BARGAIN Rule 11(c) Procedure If the Court rejects a charge plea bargain or a plea bargain where the parties agreed on the appropriate sentence, Court must allow D to withdraw the plea. However, if the plea bargain involved a recommendation of a sentence by the Prosecutor, Court need only inform D before it accepts the plea that D has no right to withdraw the plea if the Court does not accept it. FOR – Contract is complete when two private parties agree, plus agreement is supported by consideration. A plea bargain requires the approval of a third party – the court – to become enforceable. Also, Prosecutors can withdraw a plea bargain any time before it is accepted by a court. AGAINST – In most courts, plea agreements can be binding if, before entry of the formal guilty plea, the D acts in detrimental reliance on the bargain. Unclear whether detrimental reliance requires some harm to the D, some benefit to the government, or both? Lumzy, 2000 D was given a harsher sentence than he expected given his guilty plea (charge bargain), and appealed the sentence without first withdrawing the plea. OK given contract law principles – fairness to both parties: Ds must only withdraw a guilty plea if they try to appeal either a sentence or charge to which they agreed to. BUT where there was no agreement btn parties, no problem with leaving bargain intact. WHO IS BOUND BY PLEA AGREEMENTS? Many states have found that plea agreements bind ONLY the D and the prosecutor but not other state agents. Others have found that basic fairness mandates that no agent of the state compromise the persuasive effect of the state’s recommendations. Federal courts hold that a plea agreement by the US Attorney binds other agents of the federal government. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure: “Once a plea bargain based on a prosecutor’s promise that the state will recommend a certain sentence is struck, basic fairness mandates that no agent of the state make any utterance that would tend to compromise the effectiveness of the state’s recommendation.” Sanchez, 2002 D wanted to withdraw plea because at sentencing hearing, an investigating officer recommended a longer sentence than he had agreed to. D argued that plea agreements bind not only the individual prosecutor but also any other employee of the State. Besides, even if the plea agreement didn’t formally bind all state agents, sentencing recommendations by government agents contrary to the plea bargain created the appearance of unfairness. State argued that plea agreements are made not between the “State” and the D, but between the prosecutor and the defense attorney. Thus, the plea agreement did not bind either the investigating officer or the CCO. Decision: CCO NOT a party to the plea agreement = NO breach of the plea agreement. Dissent: To allow certain state agents to contract another state agent’s not only APPEARS UNFAIR, but IS UNFAIR. It renders the prosecution’s agreement meaningless, disintegrates the fabric of our criminal justice system and deters future plea agreements. Remedies for breach: 2 standard remedies for breaches of plea agreements: Rescission, in which the parties return to their positions before the agreements, and Specific enforcement, in which the court orders government officials to carry out the terms of the agreement. ELEMENTS OF VALID PLEA BARGAINS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE D must understand the nature of the charges before pleading guilty to them, as well as the trial rights they are waiving – right to assistance of counsel, trial by jury, self incrimination, etc. (RULE 11). D must understand the “direct” consequences of the conviction but not the “collateral” consequences: Maximum sentence; Prison term; Restitution payments NOT possible deportation of a resident alien after completion of a prison term. (collateral consequence) Benitez SUPREME COURT Judge failed to warn D, as required by Rule 11, that he could not withdraw his plea even if the judge did not accept the recommended sentence. Such a failure to warn = reversible error only if the D can show a reasonable probability that he would not have entered the plea after hearing a proper warning. Ruiz, 2002 SUPREME COURT 5th and 6th As DO NOT require federal prosecutors to disclose “impeachment information relating to any informants or other witnesses” prior to entering plea agreements. The constitutional question = D’s waiver of the right to receive from prosecutors exculpatory impeachment material. When D’s plead guilty, they not only forgo a fair trial, but also other accompanying constitutional guarantees. (privilege against self-incrimination, the 6th A right to confront one’s accusers, and the 6th A right to trial by jury) Constitution doesn’t require D’s COMPLETE knowledge of circumstances. Obligation to provide impeachment information during plea bargaining could seriously interfere with the Government’s interest in securing those guilty pleas. INVOLUNTARY PLEAS (Alford pleas) Most states allow Ds to plead guilty despite claims of innocence, so long as the Prosecution has a strong factual basis to support the conviction. (live issue) Criticism: Accepting Alford pleas = implicitly admitting that trials often fail to uncover the truth. Undermines appearance of justice. Alford, 1970 SUPREME COURT The standard for valid guilty plea remains if plea was a VOLUNTARY AND INTELLIGENT CHOICE. Maintaining your innocence doesn’t negate this. JUDICIAL OVER-INVOLVEMENT Rule 11: Court can’t participate in the [plea bargain] discussions. FINE LINE between judge’s attempts to insure that D understands that a guilty plea might serve his best interest and undermining D’s freedom to choose to go to trial. Judges are meant to be neutral arbiters rather than adversaries. Info. re the max and min punishment for certain charges, as well as stats on success of similar cases, are widely available. JUDGE’s DELIVERY of this info. = coercive. Bouie, 2002 D argued that the plea agreement was not voluntary because Prosecution threatened 25 yrs of hard labor and judge warned that he only saw 2 acquittals in 20 years. Although disclosure of freely available info by judges is not inherently coercive, here the judge’s long explanation of Ds prospects undermined D’s realistic choices. Criticism: Ds better off knowing the judge’s views on their case before accepting or rejecting a plea bargain. NEW OPTION: more effective prosecutorial screening? Some take the system as it is. They accept negotiated please in the ordinary course of events, either because such a system produces good results or because it is inevitable. Most cases must be resolved with a heavy dose of plea bargains and a sprinkling of trials. Others argue that our system’s reliance on negotiated guilty pleas is fundamentally mistaken. Some call for a complete ban on negotiated guilty pleas. Others, doubting that an outright ban is feasibly, still encourage a clear shift to more short trials to resolve criminal charges. Restoring the criminal trial to its rightful place at the center of the criminal justice system might require major changes in public spending, and it might take a lifetime, but these critics say the monstrosity of the current system demands such a change. This dilemma – take it or leave it – is a false one. An alternative is greater prosecutorial screening. All prosecutors screen before making a charging decision. But prosecutors should institute a structured and reasoned charge selection process with 3 key features: More detailed assessment of cases; Prosecutors only file appropriate charges; Severely restrict plea bargains, especially charge bargaining. DISCOVERY 1. PROSECUTION DISCLOSURES Affirmative and ongoing duty to disclose 2 types of info. to defense: Evidence of perjury by prosecution witnesses (false testimony) and Evidence “materially” favorable to the D. D’s statements: All jurisdictions allow defense counsel at least some access to the govt’s evidence of D’s statements re alleged crime. Rule 16: Defense may obtain “written or recorded” statements of a D and written evidence of “oral statements” made by a D in response to interrogation by a government agent. Expert evidence: Rule 16 reqs disclosure of expert’s opinions, the bases and the reasons for the opinions and qualifications. NO prosecutorial duty to create/compile evidence, only to SHARE it. NO prosecutorial duty to preserve evidence, only not to destroy it in BAD FAITH. (probably extends to evidence police has too, because judges can treat prosecution/police as a TEAM) Remedies: Discovery rules typically leave courts with a great deal of discretion in selecting a remedy for a violation of the law. The most common remedies are Continuances (to allow the party time to develop a response to the evidence); Exclusion of the evidence that the party should have disclosed. Brady, 1963 SUPREME COURT Defense lawyers asked to review all statements of a co-conspirator, but prosecutor withheld coconspirator’s confession. Due process clause requires the prosecution to disclose “evidence favorable to an accused” if that evidence is “MATERIAL either to guilt or to punishment”. TEST for prosecutorial misconduct: Evidence at issue is -- Favorable to the accused; Suppressed by the state, whether willfully or inadvertently; and Prejudice must have ensued. Agurs, 1976 SUPREME COURT The obligation to disclose all MATERIAL evidence favorable to the accused, the Court said, applies even when the D makes only a general request for exculpatory information or makes no discovery request at all. Includes info. to impeach witnesses. Dretke, 2004 SUPREME COURT Non disclosure of fact that witness was paid informant = passes Brady test = prosecutorial misconduct. Test for evidence to be considered “material”: D must show a “reasonable probability of a different result.” 2. DEFENSE DISCLOSURES Ds’ duty to disclose is always subject to the D’s rights against compulsory self-incrimination. 3. Discovery Ethics Majority rule re incriminating testimony: If the defense lawyer receives incriminating testimony from a client, the attorney-client privilege and the self-incrimination clause combine to prevent the attorney from revealing that information to the government. But if the defense lawyer receives incriminating physical evidence, lawyer can’t do anything that would obstruct prosecution’s access to it or constitute tampering with evidence. DOUBLE JEOPARDY 5th Amendment: “No person shall be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb”. Rationale Prevent the unfairness of multiple prosecutions; Criminal process should not be a punishment in and of itself. Avoid unnecessary use of state resources to prosecute cases already adequately prosecuted in federal courts. Criticism: he constitutional bar against “double jeopardy” embodied in the 5th Aof the US Constitution and in most state constitutions, puts pressure on the prosecutor to include more charges and more conduct within a single prosecution, because double jeopardy might bar any later attempt to pursue the related charges. RETRIAL FOR ERROR? (mistrial) = double jeopardy? Not usually. Mistrial AT trial (defense lawyer dies or jury is patently prejudiced) Test applied on a case-by-case basis: “Manifest necessity” Mistrial AFTER trial (hung jury) Case CAN be retried. Blackletter law. (J clearly thinks this is double jeopardy. If jury can’t vote to convict, Prosecution arguably hasn’t met its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, D shouldn’t be forced to run the gauntlet again and no more resources should be wasted.) APPEALS Generally, mid-trial appeals are NOT allowed (expedience). Neither party can appeal a verdict of not guilty. Both both can appeal the sentence imposed. MULTIPLE SOVEREIGNS EXCEPTION MOST states hold that the constitutional double jeopardy bar doesn’t prohibit a second prosecution by a different sovereign, even for an offense defined by identical elements that would be considered the “same offense” within one jurisdiction. 15 states reject the dual sovereignty doctrine by statute. “Whenever on the trial of an accused person it appears that upon a criminal prosecution under the laws of another State, Government or country, founded upon the act or omission in respect to which he is on trial, he has been acquitted or convicted, it is a sufficient defense.” Lanza Ds were tried under state law for making and selling liquor and then the Feds brought criminal charges for what D argued was the same offence. No double jeopardy. “We have here two sovereigns, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject-matter within the same territory. Bartkus, 1959 SUPREME COURT D was acquitted in a Fed Court of robbery, but then convicted in Illinois state court. FBI and state authorities cooperated and shared information, which is conventional practice. This doesn’t mean that the state prosecution was a “tool” of the federal authorities, who thereby avoided the prohibition of the 5th A against retrial of a federal prosecution after an acquittal. Since the new prosecution was by Illinois, and not by the Federal Government, double jeopardy challenge fails. Dissent (Justice Black): The combined operation of 2 governments should not obliterate individuals rights!! No reason why retrial less offensive when it includes 1 trial by the state and 1 by the federal government. If double punishment is what is feared, it hurts no less for two “sovereigns” to inflict it than for one. In each case, a man is forced to face danger twice for the same conduct. Dissent (Justice Brennan): Retrial was a second federal prosecution in the GUISE of a state prosecution!! PROSECUTORIAL GUIDELINES/ POLICIES Some states that don’t have constitutional or statutory limitations on filing cases already prosecuted in other places nonetheless have INTERNAL prosecutorial rules or guidelines limiting successive prosecutions. Ex: Federal Petite Policy. One week after Bartkus was decided, the DOJ issued a policy limiting federal prosecution to only when necessary to advance compelling interests of federal law enforcement. The Petite Policy created a -- PRESUMPTION against retrial that can only be overcome if 3 requirements are satisfied. Matter involves a substantial federal interest; Prior prosecution left that interest demonstrably unvindicated; and D’s conduct constitutes a federal offense. Application: Substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) between state/federal prosecutions. SAME OFFENSE The limitations on double jeopardy apply only when a person is placed twice in jeopardy for the “same offense”. Multiple v. same proceeding: Looser limits when a prosecutor files multiple charges in a SINGLE proceeding, and the D claims that the charges are actually an attempt to impose multiple punishments for what is really a single offense. Blockburger, 1993 SUPREME COURT + Taylor If the two offenses EACH have at least one distinct element, they are not treated as the same offense. Hence multiple trials or multiple punishments based on these offenses do not violate the protection against double jeopardy. Dissent (Justice Breyer): “The simple-sounding Blockburger test has proved extraordinarily difficult to administer in practice. The Blockburger test is the criminal law equivalent of Milton’s ‘Serbonian Bog… Where Armies whole have sunk.’” Melissa Nutt, 2004 NEW TEST. “Same transaction”: In contrast to the same elements Blockburger test, the same transaction test requires the government to join at one trial all the charges against a D arising out of a continuous time sequence, when the offenses shared a single intent and goal. Rationale The Double Jeopardy Clause is meant to protect people from government zeal and prevent the trial process from being transformed into a punishment. Yet, the same elements test permits multiple prosecutions stemming from a single incident. Current statutes are very complex and prosecution can normally show that an offense has a different element to be proven. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL Double jeopardy includes concept of collateral estoppel: “when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.” Swenson, 1970 SUPREME COURT Various Ds were convicted of robber Victim 1 but one D was acquitted b/c misidentification. Prosecutor then charged him with robbery against Victim 2. No double jeopardy; not the same offense since it’s a different victim. (J thinks this is double jeopardy because it’s the same transaction) Prosecution cannot assert collateral estoppel (most courts have this rule). Taylor, 2002 D was acquitted for intoxicated manslaughter (alcohol) but then the State brought a new prosecution for intoxicated manslaughter by either alcohol and pot or just pot. Question: Can Prosecutor bring new prosecution on a different theory of culpability? Maybe. No hard and fast rules; the entire record must be re examined. 2 questions: What facts were “necessarily decided” in the first proceeding? Did those “necessarily decided” facts constitute essential elements of the offense in the second trial? Good faith of the State in bringing successive prosecutions irrelevant. JOINDER of OFFENSES and DEFENDANTS 1. DISCRETIONARY JOINDER / SEVERANCE OF OFFENSES Most states track Rule 8(a) and allow prosecutors or judges to join offenses for trial, whether they are “related” charges (“based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts connected to a common plan”) or similar but “unrelated” charges (having similar “character”). Long No compulsory joinder in Federal system EXCEPT for the double jeopardy clause – if you don’t join the offense at the same trial, you’re foreclosed from bringing it at a new trial. Double jeopardy is actually a rule of COMPULSORY JOINDER. Criticism: Joinder create prejudice for Ds!!!! Ds who face multiple counts are 10% more likely to be convicted of the most serious charge than a D who stands trial on a single count. D can’t pursue separate and inconsistent defenses to the different charges. “Other crimes” evidence: The rules of evidence limit the prosecutor’s ability to introduce evidence of one crime during the trial of another crime, because the jury might infer that a person who committed one crime is more likely to have committed a second crime. Joinder of offenses may allow a prosecutor to overcome this evidentiary rule. Relief from Prejudicial Joinder (Rule 14) = severance of offenses and trials. 2. JOINT TRIALS OF Ds Rule 8(b): Joinder of Ds. The indictment or information may charge 2 or more Ds if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction, or in the same series of acts or transactions, constituting an offense or offenses. Severance from a co-D warranted when: Evidence admitted against one D incriminates or is unduly prejudicial to other D, Significant disparity in the amount of evidence against each D; Co-Ds’ defenses are mutually exclusive. Generally, strong preference for joint trials & trial judge has lots of discretion. Remedies Instructions for the jury to be cautious; Try evidence for each D separately. CORE RIGHTS AT TRIAL RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL Strickland, 1984 SUPREME COURT D’s lawyer failed to request a psychiatric report, investigate witnesses, investigate the medical examiner’s reports, etc… Decision (O’Connor): The standard for ineffective counsel is grounded on 2 components: Counsel’s performance must be “reasonably effective” and cannot fall below an “objective standard” of reasonableness; The Defendant must show a reasonable probability that the outcome in the proceedings changed because of the attorney’s deficient performance. BUT FOR the lawyer’s errors, THERE IS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY that the result would have been different. Dissent (Justice Marshall) 1st prong: “Reasonableness” test for what constitutes effective assistance of counsel Is unhelpful, says nothing. ABDICATION of the Court’s responsibility. 2nd prong First, difficult to PROVE that D would have fared better w/ competent lawyer. Second, prejudice requirement assumes that the only purpose of the constitutional guarantee of effective assistance of counsel is to prevent innocent persons from conviction. 6th A guarantee also ensures the convictions are obtained only through fundamentally fair procedures. Every D is entitled to a trial in which his interests are vigorously and conscientiously advocated by an able lawyer. PROPER TEST: If the performance of a D’s lawyer departed from constitutionally prescribed standards, he is entitled to a new trial regardless of whether the D suffered demonstrable prejudice thereby. Boria, 1996 Lawyers are constitutionally required to discuss a PLEA BARGAIN with D. Decision to plead guilty = most important in any criminal case… Counsel must give the client the benefit of counsel’s professional advice on this crucial decision. Purdy, 2000 Lawyer doesn’t have to tell D explicitly whether or not to accept a plea bargain. Communicating all negotiations with Prosecutor, followed by conducting a mock cross examination to highlight the strengths of the government’s case is fine. Counsel successfully steered a course between the Scylla of inadequate advice and the Charbodis of coercing a plea. Criticism Standard of “reasonableness” for effective lawyering is rather low, despite improvement on “farce and mockery” test. Also it is applied deferentially. Strickland’s treatment of ineffective assistance of counsel on a case-by-case basis assumes that it is unusual rather than systemic. Peart, 1993 [1 approach of state court] Peart’s lawyer was on 70 felony cases; no funds for witnesses or investigative support. Reasonably effective assistance of counsel means that the lawyer not only possesses adequate skill and knowledge, but also that he has the time and resources to apply his skill and knowledge to the task of defending each of his individual clients. Rebuttable presumption that indigents represented by Tessier denied assistance of counsel sufficiently effective to meet constitutionally required standards If indigent defense reform doesn’t take place, Court may employ specific measures to ensure that indigent Ds receive reasonably effective assistance of counsel. Adrian Citizen, 2005 The fact that the Louisiana legislature hasn’t funded the defense programs it created to meet its constitutional mandate doesn’t make the statutes themselves unconstitutional. Lynch, 1990 Oklahoma limited attorney compensation far below the lawyers’ fees and expenses, which lawyers claimed denied them right to adequate, speedy and certain compensation. Not unconstitutional. Balance between the lawyer’s professional obligations and right to counsel. A lawyer’s skills and services are his/her only means of livelihood. The taking thereof, without adequate compensation, is analogous to requiring free services of architects, engineers, etc. Solution: Tie hourly rate of appointed defense to that of prosecutors. (15-20 dollars per hour) Duvall, 2007 D’s lawyer was denied continuance prior to trial to resolve CONFLICT OF INTEREST = ineffective assistance of counsel. Forcing defense counsel to go to trial while laboring under a conflict of interest prevented her from zealously representing her client. TEST (modified Strickland): IF the court was not advised of the conflict, D must show that a conflict of interest actually affected the adequacy of his representation. IF D advised the trial court of conflict and court failed to take “adequate steps”, reversal is AUTOMATIC. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Andrades, 2005 Lawyer properly balanced his duties to his client and the court. Lawyers w/ a client who intends to commit perjury must: Try to dissuade client, or Withdraw from the case, or Allow D to present testimony in narrative form. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE Presumption of innocence = state must prove to a factfinder that D committed a crime “beyond reasonable doubt”. “A defendant’s friends may forsake him, but the presumption of innocence, never.” Forcing D to wear prison clothes or be accompanied by guards into courtroom may violate presumption of innocence. In re Winship SUPREME COURT Due Process Clause, 14th protects an accused “against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” No need to define reasonable doubt any particular way. JURY INSTRUCTIONS re “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” Beyond reasonable doubt suggested definition: Firmly convinced in D’s guilt; Doubt must be based on a valid reason. Danger: Attempts to define “beyond a reasonable doubt” can lower the Prosecutor’s burden of proof and confuse the jury rather than clarify the concept. IT MAY be appropriate for the judge to issue instructions on the meaning of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if the prosecutor implies that a D’s status as a person CHARGED with a crime tends to establish guilt. Victor, 1994 SUPREME COURT TEST for constitutionality of jury instructions “is not whether the instruction ‘could have’ been applied in an unconstitutional manner, but whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury did so apply it.” TEST for unconstitutional jury instructions re reasonable doubt is whether “taken as a whole, the instructions correctly conveyed the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury.” Winegeart, 1996 Jury instructions re: reasonable doubt used words “actual”, “fair” and “moral certainty”. D argued that this was a degree of proof below “proof beyond reasonable doubt” as mandated by Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Challenged instruction wasn’t so deficient as to be constitutionally defective. No reversible error. JURY INSTRUCTIONS re “person intends the natural and probable consequences of their actions” John Deal (Washington case) Jury instruction that a person “intends the natural and probable consequences of their actions” violates D’s presumption of innocence because it creates an unlawful mandatory presumption. Such jury instructions relieve the Prosecution of its duty to prove D’s intent, shifting burden to D to show he lacked the requisite intent for the crime. Prosecutors can use 2 key evidentiary devices: mandatory presumptions and permissive inferences. Permissive inferences are acceptable because the Prosecution must still persuade the jury that the inference follows from the facts. Prosecution cannot create mandatory presumptions, however. Test for mandatory presumption: Whether a reasonable juror would interpret the presumption as mandatory (looking at jury instructions as a whole). ERROR NOT reversible however. HARMLESS. SPEEDY TRIAL RATIONALE The 6th A guarantees a “speedy and public trial” and most states have similar provisions. Prosecution interest in speed Evidence becomes less reliable with time (BUT may need time to turn witnesses, and D more likely to plead guilty if in pre-trial detention.) Defense interest in speed Justice delayed is justice denied. STIGMA of uncertain criminal charges. If D in pre-trial detention, wants to get out. Right of repose. Public interest in speed Victims may want to move on with their lives. PRE-ACCUSATION DELAY No duty of “reasonable diligence” for Prosecutor to bring charges in a timely manner. TEST for unconstitutional pre-accusation delay between the date of an alleged crime and the time of the indictment or information Did delay cause prejudice to defense? Was delay reasonable? Some states req defense to show intentional prosecutorial delay; Some states req prosecution to give a valid reason for delay. Marion, 1971 SUPREME COURT Speedy trial clause (which speaks of a speedy trial for the “accused”) only attaches with “a formal indictment or information or else the actual restraints imposed by the arrest and holding to answer a criminal charge”. Scher, 2002 D was convicted of murder 20 years after crime. Test – totality of circumstances = delay was prejudicial and unreasonable? NO. Defense didn’t lose access to any witnesses or exculpating evidence, and prosecutorial delay was not in bad faith. Only where the state intentionally delayed in order to get tactical advantage or acted recklessly to such a degree as to shock one’s conscience = deprivation of due process. Should DNA evidence be excluded from SOL since its value/reliability doesn’t diminish with time? POST ACCUSATION DELAY Federal Speedy Trial Act: Government must process all criminal trials within 70 days of the indictment or information. Most states apply 4-part test from Barker. Length of delay; (benefit of doubt is given to D, only move on to other factors if length is sufficient) Reason for delay; Whether D asserted right to speedy trial; Whether D was prejudiced by the delay. 3 types of prejudice speedy trials avoid: “oppressive pretrial incarceration”; “anxiety and concern of the accused”; “the possibility that the defense will be impaired”. MOST SERIOUS. Courts rarely find a speedy trial violation of the 6th A – Magnusen, Brillon. Normally need prosecutorial BAD FAITH – a “deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense” (prosecutorial negligence/ lack of resources not as bad). Remedy for violation of speedy trial right: According to Strunk, dismissal of the charges with prejudice is the only proper remedy for a violation of the 6th Aspeedy trial rights. Magnusen, 1994 500 days D’s arrest and his preliminary hearing. NO denial of right to speedy trial considering the TOTALITY of the circumstances. Delay was not intentional. Brillon, 2009 D arrested for felony domestic assault and tried 3 years later, convicted and sentenced to 12-20. Barker requires weighing both the prosecution and the D’s conduct. Deliberate delay to hamper the defense weighs heavily against the prosecution. More neutral reasons such as negligence or overcrowded courts weigh less heavily but nevertheless should be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government rather than with the D. Delay caused by the defense weighs against the D: if delay is attributable to the D, then his waiver may be given effect under standard waiver doctrine. (Ds may have incentives to employ delay as a defense tactic.) No violation of right to speedy trial because D deliberately attempted to disrupt proceedings. This rule is not absolute. Delay resulting from a systematic breakdown in the public defender system could be charged to the State. RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY GENERALLY 6th A: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” Rule 23: D has right to trial by jury unless he WAIVES it, gov approves and court consents. Serious v. petty offenses. Despite the absolute language of the A (“all criminal prosecutions”), the right is not absolute. Most states treat the constitutional guaranty of a jury trial as limited to “serious offenses”, which under Blanton = penalty is jail for more than 6 months. Most states allow judges to deny waiver of jury trial. Unanimity: The Supreme Court has held that the unanimity requirement is not constitutionally required, although it is mandatory in federal cases. Two or three states also allow 9-3 and 10-2 verdicts, but most states have been very reluctant to abandon the unanimity requirement. Bowers, 1993 Abortion protestors were denied jury trial by judge who promised no jail time but nevertheless imposed suspended jail sentences. But 1 year probation NOT denial of right. Dunne, 1991 Court can decide whether or not to grant a D’s waiver of right to a jury. Court must consider all the circumstances of the case, BUT the more serious the crime, the greater the burden on the D to show why there should be a non-jury trial. VOIR DIRE: from venire to petite jury. Two ways to remove a potential juror from the box. Removals “for cause”. Jremoves any jurors NOT qualified to serve or are not capable of performing their duties. Literacy, residency reqs. No felons or conflicts of interest. More generally, the judge must dismiss a juror for cause whenever it appears that the juror cannot keep an open mind about the evidence and apply the relevant law. Judge can excuse jurors if serving will cause them undue “hardship.” Removal of qualified jurors through “peremptory” challenges. Rule 24: 20 peremptory challenges in capital cases. Duren, 1979 SUPREME COURT TEST to challenge a venire under the 6th A First, the D must show that: The group allegedly excluded is a “distinctive group” in the community; This under-representation is a result of “systematic” exclusion of the group (not necessarily intentional discrimination) Second, the burden of proof shifts to the government to show a “significant state interest” that justifies use of the method that systematically excludes a group. “Distinctive” = “cognizable” = shared attitudes/ experiences of the group (race, gender) DISMISSAL FOR CAUSE Hill, 1995 SUPREME COURT Did the trial court’s refusal to ask about venire’s racial bias constitute reversible error? YES. IF there is a “reasonable possibility that the jury will be influenced by racial prejudice, judges must ask specific voir dire questions about it. Criticism Jury duty = TAX. No law requiring that jurors continue to be paid by their employers while they serve. The government is effectively taxing everyone roughly 1 week her year or more. Although the venire may or may not be widely represntative, petite juries very often are not a “cross section” of the community, as the drafters envisioned. PEREMPTORY STRIKES 2 principal functions. Margin of protection for challenges for cause. Difficult to show bias, likelihood of error = peremptory challenge essential fallback for use when a challenge for cause is rejected. Allow parties to participate in construction of the decision-making body, thereby enlisting their confidence in its decision. Peremptory challenges to judges? Most jurisdictions typically allow parties to challenge judges for cause. In addition, about 20 states allow Ds to have on automatic strike – a kind of peremptory challenge – to the trial judge. Some statutes that appear to require evidence of bias in fact operate as essentially automatic challenge provisions; others, including several federal statutes, that appear to allow peremptory challenges to judges in fact require some evidence of bias. Batson SUPREME COURT Prosecutor used all peremptory challenges to strike the only 4 black jurors from venire. Denial of equal protection of the laws AND trial by jury? GOAL: Strauder v. West Virginia = right to a jury chosen on the basis of non-discriminatory criteria. TEST: person must be a member of a cognizable racial group; if there is a prima facie case of racial discrimination, prosecutor must offer racially neutral reasons for peremptory strikes. “In my experience, black jurors rule a certain way” NOT racially neutral. Broad denials of prejudice NOT sufficient either. Other “cognizable groups” recognized in cases since Batson: Latinos, women, Irish, but NOT Johovahs Witnesses. Dissent (Justice Marshall - FAMOUS): In order to end the racial discrimination that peremptories inject into the jury-selection process, peremptory challenges should be eliminated entirely. Any prosecutor can easily assert facially neutral reasons for striking a juror and trial courts are ill equipped to second guess those reasons. Outright prevarication by prosecutors the ONLY danger here. A prosecutor’s own conscious or unconscious racism may lead him easily to the conclusion that a prospective black juror is “sullen” or “distant”, a characterization that would not have come to his mind if a white juror had acted identically. Rehnquist (Dissent) Peremptories are based upon seat-of-the-pants instincts, which are undoubtedly crudely stereotypical and may in many cases be hopelessly mistaken. But as long as they are applied across the board to jurors of all races and nationalities, no violation of Equal Protection Clause. Lingo, 1993 Prosecutor struck all African American jurors. Peremptory strikes survived, racially neutral. Batson challenges usually fail!!!! Dissent: Racially neutral reasons for overwhelming pattern of discrimination? NO! Prosecutor’s supposed reasons for striking black jurors were not applied to white jurors. JURY DELIBERATIONS Classic structure of jury: 12 members, unanimous decision Jury nullification: power of jurors to ignore the law or to interpret the law themselves. Most states/courts agree that juries technically have the power to nullify but prohibit jury instructions or counsel statements to that effect. (no impact anyway!) ABA standards: If deadlocked jury, judges can repeat instructions for jury delivered before their deliberations. Allen charges: When a jury hasn’t come to a consensus, the minority jurors are told that they should be open to reassess their position, but not feel pressured to change their minds. 50% states forbid Allen charges = inherently coercive; assumes that the reason why the jury is hung is because there is a minority of stubborn jurors. Juror misbehavior: “Our present system enlists reluctant amateurs to perform a demanding and unfamiliar job, in secret, with little accountability. In such a scheme, some degree of misconduct is inevitable.” Misconduct BEFORE proceedings (lying during voir dire) = removal. Misconduct comes to light AFTER verdict = prosecution for jury tampering. Bailey, 1996 If jury is deadlocked, judge should re-read ALL jury instructions, not only one. Broad spectrum antibiotic when source of infection is unknown. Tucker, 2003 SUPREME COURT Did Judge’s decision to refer to juries by number w/out individualized determination that jury needed protection and w/out precautionary instructions violate presumption of innocence? YES. If a court withholds juror information, it must Find that a jury need protection and Take reasonable precautions to avoid prejudicing D. PUBLIC TRIAL 6th A and 1st A rights of both the D and the press. Courts MOST sympathetic to victim and witness concerns (children, rape victims) What if publicity = no possibility of fair trial? Possible cures: First line of defense: change venue (but could inconvenience D and witnesses) A ask for a bench trial. Sequester the jury (happens very rarely) Precautionary jury instructions.  Waller SUPREME COURT Closing hearing must only be exercised sparingly, and court must find adequate support for closure. State must show: A compelling interest to close part a particular part of the trial; Closure no broader than necessary to protect that interest; No reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding. Garcia Right to a “speedy and public trial” under the 6th A violated by media exclusion? NO. Power to exclude the public from a criminal trial should be exercised sparingly BUT— So long as the court HEARS both sides, it can decide to clear the courtroom. CONFRONTATION 6th A: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. Crawford, 2004 SUPREME COURT Old Roberts test: Confrontation clause doesn’t bar admission of an unavailable witness’s statement IF it bears “adequate indicia of reliability”. NEW TEST: Where testimonial evidence is at issue, the 6th A requires unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination. The Clause applies to prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial; and to police interrogations. Gray – REDACTED statement by Co-D SUPREME COURT Victim was beaten to death by 3 men. In a joint trial, a judge admitted into evidence one of a D’s (Bell) confessions, although REDACTED. Reversed. Admitting the redacted confession was unduly prejudicial to Gray. Bruton. A D’s confession incriminated the other D. The trial judge issued limiting instruction, telling the jury that it should consider the confession as evidence only against he Co-D who had confessed. NOT ENOUGH. Constitution forbids the use of such a confession in the joint trial. Redactions that simply replace a name with an obvious blank space leave statements that resemble Bruton’s confession. Redactions may even OVERemphasize the importance of the confession’s accusation. Romero, 2005 – DISGUISE Witness testified in disguise. Violation of confrontation right? YES. Confrontation has 4 elements: Presence Oath Cross examination Demeanor Disguise undermined jury and D’s ability to observe witness’s demeanor. TEST: Encroachment upon face to face confrontation is only permitted if: NECESSARY to further an important public interest and Reliability of the testimony s otherwise assured. Carroll, 1996 – PENDING CHARGES Can a witness be cross examined re pending criminal charges? YES. Right to confrontation is violated when cross examination is overly limited. This broad scope necessarily includes cross-examination concerning criminal charges pending against a witness and over which those in need of the witness’ testimony might be empowered to exercise control. A witness’ pecuniary interest in the outcome of the trial is also an appropriate area of cross-examination. PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION RULE: Prosecutor may not DRAW ATTENTION to a D’s silence at trial, whether by direct questioning, witnesses, etc. NO veiled references to a D’s failure to testify. Griffin, 1965 SUPREME COURT Judge told the jury that failure to testify “tends to indicate the truth” of evidence against D. Comment on the refusal to testify = violation of 5th A = penalty for exercising a constitutional privilege. SENTENCING Rationale: Intricate procedures for police and prosecutors – before and during trial – are useless if the last step in the system ignores those procedural protections. GOALS of sentencing: Incapacitation: Rehabilitation Deterrence For both punishment imposed by law or judge, ask if it proportional as per 8th A. Ewing SUPREME COURT 8th A doesn’t require strict proportionality between the crime and sentence. 8th A only forbids extreme sentences that are “grossly disproportionate” to the crime. Legislative sentencing Pro’s Fairness and uniformity. Ensure that Ds convicted of similar offense receive penalties that at least being at the same minimal point. Inducement of plea bargains. Mandatory minimum sentences can be valuable tools in obtaining guilty pleas, saving scarce enforcement resources and increasing the certainty of at least some measure of punishment. Deterrence. Deterrence is more effective if people know ahead of time exactly how offenses are punished. Con’s By removing all discretion from judges, structured sentencing imposes identical punishments on people who committed their crimes in very different ways. Virtue of treating like cases alike, but fails to treat different cases differently. Gives prosecutors too much power to manipulate sentences through their choice of charges. Prosecutors can simply charge, or threaten to charge, Ds with crimes bearing higher mandatory sentences. Indeterminate sentencing In 1950 - “indeterminate” sentencing systems. Legislature prescribed very broad sentencing ranges and trial judges sentenced without much guidance and without explaining their sentences. Pro’s INDIVIDUALIZED SENTENCES. Judges consider: Harm caused by the crime; Blameworthiness of D; Consequences of punishment - Deterrence? Well-being of D’s family? Con’s Too much discretion = unjustifiable discrepancies. Unduly lenient sentences for some, undue harshness for others. A second option is an indeterminate sentencing system. When such systems were in vogue, they were criticized for producing unfair disparities, including race-based disparities, in the punishment of similarly situated Ds. The judge could vary the sentence GREATLY based upon his findings about how the D had committed the crime, findings that might not have been made by a preponderance of the evidence, much less beyond a reasonable doubt. Alternative: sentencing Commission model GOAL: SENTENCES ARE UNIFORM AND PROPORTIONAL TO CRIMES. 4 components: Sentencing commission sets ranges of permissible deviation from fixed sentences; Commissions creates reasons for departure from guidelines to a limited degree based on combinations of offender and offense characteristics; Judges must give reasons for sentences departing from guidelines; State or defense can appeal a disproportionate sentence. Rule 32 Judge must tell parties of intention to deviate from sentencing range. Out of court info: Parties must have access to pre-sentence report and opportunity to comment/object with witnesses. Right to speak Parties: both have a right to speak; D can intro mitigating evidence. Victims have a right to be “reasonably” heard at sentencing. FACTORS JUDGES CAN CONSIDER AT SENTENCING RELEVANT CONDUCT Generally, judges have broad discretion: Judges have always had the power to consider any conduct of the D, whether charged or uncharged. Combined with a recognition of the need for individualized sentencing, this means that judges conduct very BROAD inquiry. Uncharged criminal conduct can be used to ENHANCE D’s sentence within the range authorized by statute. BUT – any FACT necessary to prove an ELEMENT of the crime must be found by a JURY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. (Apprendi, Blakely ) Apprendi SUPREME COURT NY hate crime statute authorized 20 year sentence despite usual 10 year max IF the judge found the crime to have been committed with the “intent to intimidate because of race, gender, religion, ethnicity and/or sexual orientation.” Unconstitutional. ANY FACT other than a prior conviction that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory max must be 1) submitted to a JURY and 2) proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Rationale: The truth of any accusation against a D should be confirmed by the unanimous suffrage of 12 equals and neighbors. Booker, 2005 SUPREME COURT – application of Apprendi to Federal Sentencing Guidelines Sentencing Guideline violate 6th A right to a jury trial + right to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on EVERY element of the crime charged. “Every D has the right to insist that the prosecutor prove to a jury all facts legally essential to the punishment.” Blakely SUPREME COURT Juries not judges must find any facts that authorize INCREASING range of sentences. (Blakely applies only to facts that INCREASE sentences.) Judge increased D’s sentence by 3 years bc he acted with “deliberate cruelty”. Violation of right to trial by jury determining beyond a reasonable doubt all FACTS legally essential to his sentence. All facts that are essentially accusations must be proven to the jury of D’s peers beyond a reasonable doubt. The right to a jury trial is not a procedural formality but a fundamental reservation of power in our constitutional structure. Criticism Constitutional problems: punishment of persons for conduct not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Double jeopardy: When criminal conduct gives a sentencing judge the basis for increasing a sentence against a D charged with some separate crime, a later sentence for the original crime arguably constitutes a “multiple punishment”. Williams, 1949 – No confrontation problem created by judge’s reliance on “other sources” D NOT denied due process of law by being denied an opportunity to confront authors of “other sources” that the judge considered in sentencing. Task of judges at sentencing is not to determine guilt, but the type of punishment. It is essential to know about Ds life and personal characteristics in order to choose an appropriate punishment. The punishment should fit both the CRIME and the D. It would be unwise to change the age-old practice of allowing judges to rely on OUT OF COURT sources to guide their choice of an enlightened and individualized sentence. Dissent: Ds must be accorded a fair hearing through ALL stages of proceedings against him. NOTE – Williams overruled w/ re to capital sentencing. CRIMINAL HISTORY Prior convictions always used. In all US sentencing systems, prior convictions of an offender are among the most important determinations of the sentence imposed. 3 strikes you’re out. Many states punish habitual offenders more severely. McAlpin, 1987 15 year old boy received an “exceptional” sentence greater than that established under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 because the judge took into account his record of juvenile crime, including arrests and other antisocial behavior. Denial of due process? YES. Trial court improperly relied on unproven or uncharged crimes as a reason for imposing an exceptional sentence. Tunstill, 1991 Trial court enhanced a sentence for murder by 10 years based on the facts that 1) D was on probation at the time of the crime and 2) D’s criminal history, consisting of 3 prior ARRESTS. NO Denial of due process. On the one hand, sentencing judges cannot INFER the commission of a crime by D by an arrest; On the other hand, a RECORD of arrests CAN aggravate a sentence if the judge considers it in the context of assessing D’s character and propensity to commit future crimes. SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE Sentencing guidelines: Reduction depends on 5 factors: Court’s evaluation of significance and usefulness of D’s assistance; Truthfulness and reliability of info. provided; Nature of assistance; Injury suffered or risk of injury to D or D’s family resulting from assistance; Timeliness of D’s assistance. Parrish, 2000 D provided substantial assistance/ cooperation with police, but since policy was to only reward Ds whose assistance led to ARRESTS, Ds got super stiff sentence, no benefit. NO. Judge can’t blindly defer to police policy, especially whether or not the police RELIED on the information that D gave. POLICE MISCONDUCT Most states ALLOW judges to consider the behavior of government agents in sentencing, such as when they created an opportunity for D to do something that enhanced the sentence. Claypool, 2004 D argued that the undercover police officer persuaded him to sell more crack cocaine. Can the sentencing judge consider misconduct of POLICE at the sentencing stage? Not directly. Police misconduct, standing alone, tells us nothing about the D. However, if the D had an ENHANCED intent that was the PRODUCT of police conduct, and the enhanced intent can be shown in a manner that satisfies the requirements for a sentencing departure, it is permissible for a court to consider that enhanced intent in making a departure. Dissent: Entrapment and police misconduct are defenses raised during the CASE IN CHIEF to nullify an element of the crime. To review evidence of entrapment and the D’s subjective intent at the sentencing phase is effectively to nullify or change the results of a trial without procedural protections. REMORSE The Sentencing Guidelines allow judges to reduce sentences if Ds “accept responsibility” for their crimes and COOPERATE with the Prosecution. Courts also treat an agreement to plead guilty as an appropriate reason for imposing a less severe sentence. Criticism: Penalizes Ds who maintain their INNOCENCE. Difficult to discern genuine remorse/ contrition from feigned remorse. SENTENCING & RACE McCleskey, 1987 SUPREME COURT Is the death penalty a denial of due process and equal protection given evidence of its racially discriminatory application? NO. 3 arguments D must show intentional discrimination in HIS SPECIFIC case. Statistical evidence not enough. When a party relies on statistical patterns of discrimination, it must show such large racial disparities that the evidence “compels a conclusion that purposeful discrimination can be presumed to permeate the system.” Discretion – on the part of the Prosecutor, Jury and Judge – offers substantial benefits to the D. The study only indicates a discrepancy that appears to correlate with race. Creation / application/ impact of a law: Several distinct forms of discrimination. A law can be discriminatory in INTENT, either at the point of creation or when it is applied. A criminal sanction could also be discriminatory in effect because of uneven application of the law. But these are not the only dynamics that create racial differences in criminal punishments. Some laws have racially discriminatory EFFECTS, even though the people who create and enforce the law do not intend to burden one racial group more than another and even though they apply the law evenhandedly. Stephens, 1995 Was a Georgia status providing for life imprisonment on 2nd conviction of the sale/possession with intent to distribute constitutional? D argued that 100% of persons serving a life sentence under the statute were African American, even though they made up less than 10% of country population. Besides, the law was being applied very unevenly, with Prosecutors seeking life imprisonment of African American Ds far more often. YES. Statistical evidence is insufficient to support an equal protection claim. No evidence of purposeful discrimination against D. Many other factors could have caused the disparate impact of the statute other than purposeful discrimination. Georgia’s statute has a rational basis. APPEALS GOALS of appellate system Correct factual and legal errors/conclusions. Minimize inconsistent judgments DEVELOP the law through continuous judicial interpretation ALTERNATIVES Appellate review for ALL findings of fact and law (retry entire case)? NO. Huge administrative costs, undermines legitimacy of first round proceedings. (dress rehearsal?) Appellate review for fundamental failures only. Alternatively, appellate courts might play an extremely limited role in reviewing verdicts, presuming that all judgments of fact and law are correct and reversing only for fundamental failures in process that would undermine confidence in the fairness of the decision-makers or the ability of the D to put on a case (such as failure to provide counsel, evidence bias on the part of the judge, or jury tampering). No appellate review. Trust trial process completely. GENERALLY More deference to factual findings fact-finder at trial (whether jury or judge) is in a better position to view and weigh the evidence. But appellate judges think they have greater competence in assessing legal issues so they tend to review questions of law de novo. No federal constitutional right to appeal. Right for indigents to appeal is grounded in common law cases, Griffin and Douglas. Appeals after guilty pleas Some states allow appeals after guilty pleas ONLY for those issues expressly reserved for appeal in a conditional plea agreement. Others give either the trial court or the appellate court the power to allow the appeal as a completely discretionary matter. Motion for new trial: effectively an appeal to the trial court; denied in the overwhelming majority of cases. Criticism Arguably, we should invest more resources in the trial process and do it well rather than depend on an appellate system to police failings. Better uses of resources, such as investigation for defense. Rather than expand scope of appellate rule, invest more to level the playing field between Defense and Prosecution. There should there be a right to assigned counsel during appeals because legal errors, not factual findings, are usually at issue. Anders SUPREME COURT Appointed counsel must advise the appellate court of any colorable issue EVEN if they think D could only raise frivolous issues. Robbins, 2000 California’s appeal procedure for indigent Ds was constitutional. No merits brief with citations of the record + factual and procedural history of case. Test: If procedure reasonably ensures that an indigent’s appeal will be resolved in a way that is related to the merit of that appeal = adequate and effective. Balance between right to counsel for non frivolous claims / needless public spending. Dissent: California allows lawyer’s to relax their partisan instinct by allowing them to file no merits briefs with no arguable issues and forcing appellate judges to search record instead. INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS Greater discretion for Prosecutor than Ds because Ds can appeal verdict. Most states allow the Prosecutor to appeal certain pretrial rulings re judge’s decision to 1) dismiss charges before trial or 2) to suppress key evidence. Once a trial BEGINS, harder for Prosecutor to seek to correct judge’s error. Most states blocks appeals by government to suspend proceedings after a major error. Medrano, 2002 Prosecutor can appeal a pre-trial ruling on a motion to suppress evidence. If the trial court can rule upon a pretrial motion to suppress evidence, the State can appeal it. A motion for the goose is a motion for the gander. FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY Due process clause requires a minimum level of evidentiary support for a conviction. Jackson v. Virginia SUPREME COURT Federal court, when reviewing a state court conviction during post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings, must confirm that there was sufficient evidence to support a “reasonable trier of fact” in concluding that the government had proven guilty beyond reasonably doubt. Clewis, 1996 Test for reversal of factual findings: verdict must be so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. High threshold because appellate courts MUST NOT substitute their judgment for that of the factfinder. Usurpation of jury function!! HARMLESS ERROR v. REVERSIBLE ERROR Rationale for harmless error doctrine TENSION between desire to provide redress for every injury (Marbury Madison) and need for an efficient system. (Rule 52) Most states limit reversible error to those that affect D’s “substantial rights”. First, was the error structural or a mere trial error? If structural, automatic reversal. If trial error, then – Was the error harmless “beyond a reasonable doubt”? Harmless jury instructions? State generally apply the beyond a reasonable doubt analysis to jury instructions. Procedural forfeiture: Typically, a D must object to an error at trial or raise the objection n a post-trial motion for a new trial. Why? Prevent sand-bagging: i.e. defense counsel that stays silent about the errors they observe in order to have grounds for appeal in the event of a conviction. “Plain errors”, however, do not necessarily have to be raised during trial in order to avoid forfeiture. Budzyn, 1997 Jurors were given Malcolm X to watch during a recess at the end of a trial. Harmless error w/ re to one D, and reversible error w/ re to another D. Test for harmless error: HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Since evidence for one D was not overwhelming, the movie may have affected the verdict. POST CONVICTION REVIEW (COLLATERAL REVIEW) RETROACTIVITY Art. 1 of the Constitution: No state shall pass any ex post facto law. Definition of a retroactive law: Law that criminalizes an action or increases its punishment after it was committed; OR that facilitates conviction by changing elements of crime. Rationale Reliance interest. Avoid costs and disruptive effects of new law. Stogner SUPREME COURT California’s new SOL law for sex abuse offenses violates non-retroactivity bar in Art. 1 of Constitution. The State’s interest in prosecuting child abuse cases is important but doesn’t trump constitutional interest in forbidding States from reviving long-forbidden prosecutions. Dissent: One of the main rationales for the bar on ex post facto laws is that such laws destroy a reliance interest. But it is clearly UNWARRANTED to presume that criminals keep calendars so they can mark the day to discard their records or to place a gloating phone call to the victim. HABEAS CORPUS Constitution Art. 1: “Habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Habeas corpus used to be the primary method for challenging royal power to detain a person. Habeas corpus offered hope that the rule of law could control executive branch tyranny. Post conviction review is available to correct some errors in the criminal process even after that process has reached its final conclusion at the close of a direct appeal. Where do you file an habeas/ collateral relief petition? 2 options Court where you were convicted. Court that has jurisdiction over the facility where you are being held. Pro se clerk: decides which post conviction relief petition has merit. 2 key issues: Cognizable subject matter: is an issue cognizable on post conviction review? (Certain mistakes will go uncorrected for the sake of finality.) Procedural bars: Did D follow the appropriate procedures to keep the issue alive, such as objecting to the error at trial or raising the issue on direct appeal? States vary in their generosity at the post conviction relief stage. Pennsylvania offers post conviction review for many reasons, including sentences resulting from errors that “so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place” and if new exculpatory evidence became available after the trial. In Oklahoma, the only issues that can be raised for post-conviction relief are those that were not and could not have been raised in a direct appeal AND would have changed the outcome of the trial. NO RIGHT TO COUNSEL AT THE POST CONVICTION RELIEF STAGE. This hasn’t been tested yet. Rationale State procedures vary significantly. Federal review creates uniformity and provides an additional guarantee that constitutional rights are not violated. BUT There MUST be a difference between an appeal process and post conviction relief, however. AND finality. FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW OF STATE CONVICTIONS EVOLUTION Fay gave lower federal courts broader authority than ever before to review state convictions and was overruled. Wainwright v. Sykes gave renewed importance to the procedural requirements that state courts place on criminal Ds, and replaced the “deliberate bypass” standard with the “cause and prejudice” standard. COGNIZABLE SUBJECT MATTER = NEW FACTS? Presumption of correctness: For the most part, the federal habeas court must accept the facts as found in the state court proceedings unless there is evidence that they were unreasonably determined. Ds can only develop new facts if they have adequate “cause” for failing to do so in state court. PROCEDURAL BAR If a D fails to raise some claims on direct review, they may be procedurally barred, unless the D provides an adequate reason for that failure. Most states only allow collateral review of issues that a D failed to raise during direct review “for cause”. What constitutes adequate “cause”? Typically, Ineffective assistance of counsel. Exhaustion of state remedies: You can only bring 1 habeas petition and it must be within a YEAR of exhausting local state remedies. Fay v. Noia, 1963 SUPREME COURT Deliberate bypass standard. At issue is state post conviction relief. Question is whether a D who bypassed an issue on appeal (failed to raise an issue on appeal) can be held to have forfeited an issue. Warren Court says no: bypass must be DELIBERATE, intentional. Rationale: The goal of habeas has always been to remedy ANY KIND of governmental restraint contrary to fundamental law. Habeas jurisprudence created a method additional to Supreme Court review of state decisions for the vindication of constitutional guarantees. Dissents: States should be able to regulate their own procedures governing the conduct of litigants in their courts. Wainwright v. Sykes Rejected the sweeping language of Fay v. Noia, which would make federal habeas review generally available to state convicts absent a knowing and deliberate waiver of the federal constitutional contention. In a collateral attack upon a conviction, the petitioner must show: Cause for not bringing up issue in direct review, and Actual prejudice. Prejudice error caused D actual and substantial disadvantage. Jackson – application of Wainwright v. Sykes Even though a D didn’t raise the petit jury issue on appeal, he later brought an habeas petition on that basis. D’s habeas petition was procedurally barred. Test – Wainwright v. Sykes. Kurtis v. Washington, 1995 Facts: D was sentenced to 25 years in prison for murder, and a key witness came forth years later. Question: Can new evidence be raised in an habeas petition to entitle D to a new trial? Decision: Only if a constitutional right – whether Illinois or federal – is implicated. Precedent: Herrera: A free-standing claim of innocence is not cognizable as a 14th A due process claim. So, D’s effort to state a federal constitutional due process claim fails. However, as a matter of Illinois constitutional jurisprudence, a claim of newly discovered evidence showing a D to be actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted is cognizable as a matter of due process. This means that there is footing in the Illinois Constitution for asserting free-standing innocence claims based upon NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. Substantively, relief has been held to require that the supporting evidence be NEW, MATERIAL, NONCUMULATIVE AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, OF SUCH CONCLUSIVE CHARACTER AS WOULD PROBABLY CHANGE THE RESULT ON RETRIAL. PRESENT TEST First there must be an “adequate and independent state ground”. THEN you apply the “cause and prejudice” standard. Ask first: was there an adequate and independent, reasonable rule of state procedure that obligated D to rely on state adjudicatory system? If YES, Ask second: Did you not follow the adequate and independent state rule because you had “cause” (good reason)? Say, for example, ineffective assistance of counsel. You must also show that the result would have been different (prejudice) had the state rule not been applied. This effectively means that you have to how your factual innocence. Teague v. Lane SUPREME COURT (very restrictive ruling on scope of habeas review) Rule: As a preliminary matter in a habeas petition, would a ruling in favor of D have to be applied retroactively? If so, the issue cannot be heard on habeas review. Rationale: It would be unfair to give the benefit of a ruling only to one D, and there is NO pipeline of live cases in habeas. Lower federal courts cannot create new rules that will unsettle all of the convictions obtained years before. New constitutional rights cannot be promulgated on habeas. They must be promulgated on DIRECT REVIEW by the Supreme Court. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE – FEDERAL HABEAS Herrera SUPREME COURT There is nothing unconstitutional about an unjust conviction because the Constitution doesn’t protect you against being wrongfully convicted. The Constitution protects you against not being able to confront witnesses and having a neutral fact-finder, but there is no constitutional right against wrongful conviction. Grant, 2002 Ds can wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel until collateral review. Thus, any ineffectiveness claim will be waived only after a D has had the opportunity to raise that claim on collateral review. Rationale: Deferring review of trial counsel ineffectiveness claims until the collateral review stage of the proceedings offers a P the best avenue to effect his 6th A right to counsel. EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY 3 kinds: pardon, commutation and reprieve President can only pardon FEDERAL crimes, cannot change sentences or grant reprieve to state prisoners. State governors can pardon people punished by the state procedure. Pardon: President nullifies sentence, kills conviction for any reason whatsoever. Reprieve: President gives D more time to fight against sentence. Commutation: President reduces sentence. Conviction still stands, less punishment.