Term
|
Definition
| Scottsboro Boys RTC in all capital cases state/fed |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| In federal crimes, rtc in all cases |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| refused to expand rtc to states |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| juvenile cases where juvenile may lose freedom, due process 14th requires appointment of counsel |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Constitutional right to counsel in any case where you stand the chance of being imprisoned if convicted. |
|
|
Term
| The 6th Amendment guarantees lawyer at what stages of trial |
|
Definition
| Interrogation phase, trial, sentencing, initial appeal |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| pleas, waiver of trial, testify, whether to appeal |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| witnesses, cross, voir dire, motions, evidence |
|
|
Term
Buis v. State (2011)
Is decision not to aks for evidence qualify as inefecctive asistance of counsel, Why? |
|
Definition
| trial counsel's failure to ask for certain evidence does not equal ineffective assistance. Decisions of trial strategy up to attorney. |
|
|
Term
Faretta v. California (1975)
What right does a defendant have to represent himself? |
|
Definition
| state cannot force attorney upon someone when they knowingly intelligently waive the right to counsel. |
|
|
Term
McKaskle v. Wiggins (1984)
Does defendant have the right to refuse stand-by counsel |
|
Definition
| appointment of stand-by counsel over the objection of the defendant does not violate right to self-representaion |
|
|
Term
. Iowa v. Tovar (2004)
Do pro se defendants have access to ineffective assitance of counsel appeals? |
|
Definition
| self representation is at def. own risk; 6th amendment doesn't require the trial court to give a thorough admonishment of regarding the usefulness of an attorney |
|
|
Term
| Ga. Code. Ann. 17-6-1. Court can make bail when |
|
Definition
defendant
poses no significant risk of flight, threat to community, committing another felony, or intimidating witnesses/obstructing justice. |
|
|
Term
Coffin v. United States (1895
Presumption of innocence bearing on determination of rights of a pretrial detainee |
|
Definition
| presumption of innocence lies in favor of the accused but has no bearing on the determination of rights of pretrial detainee |
|
|
Term
. Bell v. Wolfish (1979
Are jailhouse practices during pretrial detentiona denial of due process rights? |
|
Definition
| jailhouse practices during pretrial detention did not deny due process99 |
|
|
Term
Gernstein v. Pugh (1975)
Bearing of presumption of innocence on pretrial detainments? |
|
Definition
| presumption of innocence has no bearing on rights of pretrial detainee; pretrial probable cause hearing is not a guarantee |
|
|
Term
. Iowa v. Tovar (2004)
What requirement is there for the judge to admonish the defendant for the usefulness of the jury? |
|
Definition
| self representation is at def. own risk; 6th amendment doesn't require the trial court to give a thorough admonishment of regarding the usefulness of an attorney |
|
|
Term
| Ga. Code. Ann. 17-6-1. Court can make bail when |
|
Definition
defendant
poses no significant risk of flight, threat to community, committing another felony, or intimidating witnesses/obstructing justice. |
|
|
Term
. Bell v. Wolfish (1979)
Are jailhouse practices a denial of due Process? |
|
Definition
| jailhouse practices during pretrial detention did not deny due process99 |
|
|
Term
U.S. v. Salerno (1987)
Must jury verdicts be unanimous? |
|
Definition
| pretrial detention is not considered punishment |
|
|
Term
Berger v. United States (1935),
Restraint on prosecutors methods |
|
Definition
| no prosecutor foul play. It is his duty to refrain from methods that will produce wrongful convictions. |
|
|
Term
Inmates of Attica Correctional facility v. Rockefeller (1973)-
When can a citizen contest policies of a prosecuting attorney? |
|
Definition
| a citizen lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting authority when he himself is neither prosecuted or threatened with prosecution. It is the discretion of the State Attorney to investgate or prosecution |
|
|
Term
United States v. Armstrong, (1996)
What authority does the judge have to review choice of charges? |
|
Definition
| judiciary has no authority to review the governments choice of charge. To establish discrimination, defendant must show that similarly situated individuals of a different race were not prosecuted |
|
|
Term
Hurtado v. California (1884)
Does the 14th amendment require grand juries |
|
Definition
| federal constitution does not require the state to adopt grand juries |
|
|
Term
Coleman v. Alabama, (1970)
Does the 14th Amendment require preliminary hearings at the state level? |
|
Definition
| A preliminary hearing is not a required step in state prosecution, the prosecutor may seek an indictment without a preliminary hearing. |
|
|
Term
State v. Clark (2001)
Standard for evidence at a perliminary hearing |
|
Definition
| the standard for evidence at a prelim. hearing is probable cause |
|
|
Term
Wood v. Georgia - (1962 U.S.)
Purpose of Grand Jury |
|
Definition
| Grand jury is a security against hasty prosec. |
|
|
Term
d. U.S. v. Breslin (1996)
How may the prosecutory curry favor with the jurors? |
|
Definition
| No snacks. Grand jury is to determine if PC exists the prosecutor has an obligation not to get favor with grand jurors |
|
|
Term
Hobby v. United States (1984)
Discrimination of a jury foreperson |
|
Definition
| Discrimination in the selection of the foreperson is distinguished from selection of grand jury. Discrimination in the selection of a jury foreperson does not threaten interests of defendant protected by due process clause because his job is clerical in nature. |
|
|
Term
. Campbell v. Louisiana (1998)
Do excluded jurors have right to challenge make up of the jury? |
|
Definition
| Juror foreperson case/3rd party standing to challenge jurors. 1) jury is tainted by race discrim. 2) relation to excluded jurors such that both have an interest in grand jury selection process 3) interest in the outcome (excluded can rarely challenge) |
|
|
Term
Rose v. Mitchell (1979)
To show violation in selection of grand jury foreman? |
|
Definition
| - In order to show an equal protection violation has occurred in the context of grand jury foreman selection, defendant must show that the procedure employed resulted in substantial under representation of his race or of the identifiable group to which he belongs. |
|
|
Term
Beck v. Washington (1962)
Requirements of a State Grand Jury System |
|
Definition
| If a state chooses to use a grand jury system, it must provide an unbiased grand jury |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Formal accusation with hearing |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Formal charge w/o hearing. |
|
|
Term
| The basic functions of the charging document |
|
Definition
Protect defendant's right against double jeopardy
2. Provide notice to defendant of charges
3. 6th amendment right to be informed
4. Providing a basis for judicial review
5. Providing a jurisdictional basis
6. Protecting the guarantee of grand jury review of accusations |
|
|
Term
General Demurrer challenges
Test for sufficiency of substance of indictment |
|
Definition
| 1. The test for sufficiency is whether it contains the elements of the offense charged, apprises the accused of what he must be prepared to defend against, and protects against double jeopardy. 2. If the defendant can admit everything charged in the indictment and be innocent of a crime, the indictment is insufficient. |
|
|
Term
E. Special Demurrer challenges
What is test for the sufficiency of the form of indictment |
|
Definition
| 1. Attacking whether the indictment is strictly sufficient. 2. An allegation that an indictment is deficient because it does not contain all essential elements of the crime, for example, is a special dem. |
|
|
Term
a. Croft v. State
When must a demurrer seeking additional information be filed? |
|
Definition
| failure to file demurrer seeking additional information before pleading not guilty to the indictment constitutes a waiver to be tried on a perfect indictment |
|
|
Term
Peters v. State -
Do the exact words of the indictment need to be proven? |
|
Definition
| The exact words of the indictment do not need to be proved "god damn all white people ought to be killed" "damn you and your wife and children too." |
|
|
Term
c. Black v. State (GA 1979) -
Test for Sufficiency of Indictment |
|
Definition
| The test for sufficiency is whether it contains the elements of the offense charged, apprises the accused of what he must be prepared to defend against, and protects against double jeopardy. |
|
|
Term
United States v. Carll (1881)
When is it sufficient to use the words of the statute as the indictment? |
|
Definition
| It's not enough to copy+paste the statute into the indictment unless the words of the statute fully sets forth all elements. |
|
|
Term
Roscoe v. State, (GA 2011)
What is the fatal variance test |
|
Definition
| fatal variance test narrowed, gives birth to "such a variance as to affect the substantial rights of the accused." |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| State: Same county, Fed: Same state, as offense. |
|
|
Term
| Change of venue up to the discretion of the trial judge, absent abuse of discretion. Standard: |
|
Definition
| prejudice against the defendant so great as to render the trial unfair. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| guy who blew up a bunch of judges in Albama, entire north district recused itself. Transferred venue to Minnesota. |
|
|
Term
King v. State (GA 2005)
Burden of proof of Venue |
|
Definition
| Venue must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, GA const. requires that |
|
|
Term
Jones v. State (GA 1991)
When will trial courts order a change of venue in death penalty trials? |
|
Definition
| Trial courts will order a change of venue for death penalty trials in those cases in which a defendant can make a substantive showing of the likelihood of prejudice by reason of extensive publicity. Trial court can reserve ruling until voir dire responses. |
|
|
Term
US v Anderson
Is there a constitutional right to be tried in a particular division? |
|
Definition
| No constitutional right to a particular division. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the indictment my charge a defendant in separate counts with two or more offenses if the offenses charged...are of the same and similar character, based on the same act or transaction, or are connected in a common plan. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the indictment may charge 2 defendants if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction constituting an offense |
|
|
Term
Drew v. United States
Justification for Joinder?
Arguments against Joinder? |
|
Definition
| - justification for liberal rule of joinder is the economy of a single trial. Arguments against joinder are 1. Defendant may become confounded in presenting separate defenses 2. The jury may use the evidence of one crime to infer he'd commit others 3. The jury may cumulate evidence of the various crimes to find guilt |
|
|
Term
U.S. v. Dixon (1993) -
Test for Double Jeopardy |
|
Definition
| "Same elements" test. Whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other. If so, then the offenses are separate and do not violate double jeopardy. Established in Blockburger v. U.S. (1932) |
|
|
Term
Bowe v. State (2005),
A defendant seeking severance must show clearly that he will be prejudice by a joint trial. Factors to consider are: |
|
Definition
| A defendant seeking severance must show clearly that he will be prejudice by a joint trial. Factors to consider are: 1. Whether a joint trial will create confusion as to law and evidence 2. Whether there is a danger that evidence admissible against one def. will be improperly considered against the other 3. Whether the defendants are asserting antagonistic defenses. |
|
|
Term
Bruton v. United States (1968)
When is one codefendants right to confrontation violated in a joint trial? |
|
Definition
| A def.'s 6th amend. confrontation right is violate when 1. Co-defs are tried jointly; and 2. One co-def confession is used to implicate the other; and 3. The co-def. who made the implicating statement employs his 5th, and thus can't be crossed about the statement. |
|
|
Term
Benton v. Maryland (1969)
Is double jeopardy enforcable under the 14th amendment |
|
Definition
| Double jeopardy protection enforceable against states |
|
|
Term
. Ashe v. Swenson
Doctrine of COllateral estoppel |
|
Definition
| 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. This has become federal criminal law as well (5th). |
|
|
Term
Speedy Trial Analysis
Source of right to speedy trial? |
|
Definition
1. Did pretrial delay create presumption of prejudice?
a. Generally, one year is enough to create presumption
2. Four factor test
a. Whether the delay was uncommonly long
b. Whether the govt or the def. was to blame
c. Whether the defendant asserted his speedy trial right
d. Whether the defendant suffered prejudice
i. Oppressive pretrial incarceration
ii. Anxiety and concerns of def.
iii. Defense was impaired. |
|
|
Term
| Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967) |
|
Definition
| Right to speedy trial just as fundamental as other 6th amendment protections |
|
|
Term
. Barker v. Wingo (1972
First step of Speedy Trial Analysis |
|
Definition
| First step of speedy trial analysis is to decide whether the pretrial delay has been sufficiently long to create the presumption of prejudice. If no prejudice is found, the analysis stops there. *For serious crimes that do not involve unusual complexities, one year usually makes it presumptively prejudicial. |
|
|
Term
| Jencks Act and Jencks v. U.S. |
|
Definition
| Jencks act held that in any criminal pros. brought by U.S., no statement or report in possession of the united states which was made by a govt. witness or prospective govt. witness (other than def.) shall be subject of subpoena, discovery, or inspection until said witness has testified on direct. |
|
|
Term
Brady v. Maryland (1963)
What evidence can prosecutor withhold |
|
Definition
| "Hand it over", prosecutor can't withold evidence that tends to exculpate or reduce penalty of def. Violates due process where the evidence is material to guilt or punishment, irrespective of good faith |
|
|
Term
Wardius v. Oregon, (1973)
Must the states adopt federal discovery procedures under the 14th amendment |
|
Definition
| Due process clause does not force states to adopt discovery procedures, just that they adopt fair ones. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Several constitutional rights are involved in a waiver that takes place with a plea of guilty. Privilege against self incrimination, right to jury trial, right of confrontation. |
|
|
Term
Bordinkircher v. Hayes, (1978) -
Why is plea bargaining okay? |
|
Definition
| Plea bargaining constitutionally permissible, levying a greater charge to persuade the defendant to plead guilty is okay. This isn't vindictive punishment because both sides have something to gain. |
|
|
Term
Santobello v. New York, (1971)
When may a plea be revoked after being accepted by prosecution?
|
|
Definition
| Bait 'n switch", Ole Santo took a plea offer, a different prosecutor showed up to the sentencing hearing and recommended |
|
|
Term
Newnan v. United States (1967)
Must co-defendants receive the same receive the plea offers? |
|
Definition
| "All deals are not created equal" co-def not entitled to same plea, no violation of equal protection. |
|
|
Term
Brady v. United States (1970)
What is a brady plea? |
|
Definition
| "plea brady' - Agents may not produce a plea by actual or threatened physical harm, or by mental coercion. A plea will stand unless induced by threats, misrepresentation, or by improper promises (bribes) |
|
|
Term
| North California v. Alford, (1970) |
|
Definition
| Guilty plea which represented voluntary and intelligent choice among alternatives available to defendant was not compelled merely because he took the plea to avoid the death penalty. |
|
|
Term
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)
When does right to jury trial apply? |
|
Definition
| Right to jury trial is granted to prevent oppression by the govt, and applies to all "serious" offenses. Court focused on potential, not actual sentence to determine seriousness |
|
|
Term
Williams v. Florida (1970)
Minimum Jury size |
|
Definition
| The right of jury trial does not mean a jury has to be composed of 12 people,. Florida's 6-man juries didn't violate 6th/14th. |
|
|
Term
| Apodaca v. Oregon, (1972) |
|
Definition
| The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial does not require verdicts to be unanimous, nor is unanimity required by the Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement that racial minorities not be excluded from the jury. |
|
|
Term
Ballew v. Georgia (1978)
Minimum composition of a Jury |
|
Definition
| "porn case", Jury of less than 6 violates 6th/14th |
|
|
Term
Burch v. Louisiana (1979)
Voting requirements of a 6 person Jury |
|
Definition
| - Non-unanimous conviction of 6 person Jury (5/6) violated right to trial by jury. |
|
|
Term
. Singer v. United States (1965)
What right is there to a bench trial? |
|
Definition
| - no constitutional right to bench trial |
|
|
Term
Taylor v. Louisiana (1975)
6th amendment requirement of jury representation |
|
Definition
| 6th Amendment requires juries to represent a cross-section of the community. Women, as a class, can't be automatically exempted. |
|
|
Term
Duren v. Missouri (1979)
How to establish that a Jury is not a valid Cross section of the community |
|
Definition
| In order to establish violation of "cross-section", def must show 1. group is distinctive, 2. representation in venire is unfair, 3. this under-representation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in jury selection. |
|
|
Term
Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
What is a batson claim? |
|
Definition
| Three part process to evaluate a claim that the use of peremptory strikes by a party was racially motivated and in violation of the const. 1. The opponent must make prima-facie showing of racial discrimination 2. The proponent of the strike must then provide a race-neutral explanation 3. The court must decide whether the opponent of the strike has proven a. This applies to defense use of peremptories too. |
|
|
Term
. Georgia v. McCollum
Who has authority to challenge use of perremptory challenges |
|
Definition
| State has standing to challenge defendants use of discriminatory peremptory challenges. |
|
|
Term
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel T.B.,
Is it okay to strike based on gender? |
|
Definition
| gender strikes just as bad as race. |
|
|
Term
Wainright v. Witt (1985) -
When will a juror's attitude toward the death penalty effect their ability to sentance fairly? |
|
Definition
| replaced witherspoon (so who gives a fuck about witherspoon) with a test requiring the judge to determine if the juror's attitude toward the death penalty would "prevent or substantially impair" their ability to decide on sentence fairly |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Stands for several propositions
1. The court shall ask questions of jurors with expressed opinions of guilt
2. It is sufficient to qualify a juror if that juror can lay aside his impression
3. The challenger must show the actual existence of such an opinion in the mind of a juror as will raise the presumption of partiality
4. Impartiality is not a technical conception, it's a state of mind. There is no formula or test to determine it exactly |
|
|
Term
Coleman v. Kemp (1985)
Standards for change of venue |
|
Definition
| pre-trial publicity/change of venue case. Two applicable standards 1. The actual prejudice standard 2. The presumed prejudice standard i. rarely applicable. Pre-trial media blitz must "pervade and saturate" the community rendering a fair trial and impartial jury "virtually impossible" presumed prejudice must be rebutted or results in a venue change. |
|
|
Term
United States v. Brown (2000)
Purpose and validation of Gag orders |
|
Definition
| Upheld gag order to keep parties, witnesses, and attorneys from talking about case. Due to the substantial liklihood of such comments tainting the jury pool. |
|
|
Term
. Wilkins v. State, Starks v. State, Cherry v. State
Purpose of voir dire |
|
Definition
| the purpose of voir dire is to elicit possible prejudice and bias. The trial court has broad discretion to limit scope of voir dire with regard to abstract or technical legal matters, because a jury charge is more appropriate in those cases |
|
|
Term
Estelle v. William (1976)
When must you object to defendant's prison garb? |
|
Definition
| Presumption of innocence is huge deal, courts must carefully guard against the dilution of the principle that guilt is established by probative evidence. You must object to prison garb. "A defendant may not remain silent and willingly go to trial in prison garb and thereafter claim error" |
|
|
Term
Illinois v. Allen (1970)
When can a defendant lose his right to be present at court? |
|
Definition
| A defendant can lose his right to be present if he's acting like a goddamned animal after being warned. Standard: "so disorderly that his trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom." Guess who has a shitton of discretion to determine this :O. *There at least 3 constitutionally permissable ways to handle a shitler def. 1. Bind and gag him/keeping him present, 2. Cite him for contempt, 3. Put him in timeout until he promises to act normally. (this is seriously an option) |
|
|
Term
Ferguson v. Georgia (1961)
What right to be questioned on the Stand does a Defendant have? |
|
Definition
| Def.'s counsel was denied ability to ask def. questions when he took the stand. (due to an archaic GA law.). SCOTUS reversed saying it was a violation of his 6th amendment RTC to prevent him from being asked questions by his own attorney. |
|
|
Term
Nix v. Whiteside (1986) -
What restriction is there on your right to testify on your own behalf? |
|
Definition
| Right to testify on your behalf exists, but, code of conduct prohibits lawyer from allowing his client to perjure himself. Attorney said he'd seek to withdraw after client told him he was going to lie on the stand. This didn't deprive def. of his RTC because no prejudice was established. |
|
|
Term
Rock v. Arkansas(1987
Sources of Right to Testify on your own behalf |
|
Definition
| Right to testify on your own behalf comes from due process of 14th, compulsory clause of 6th, and Fifths privilege against self- incrimination. |
|
|
Term
Mobley v. State (GA 1995)
What must a defendant who wishes to testify be made aware of? |
|
Definition
| Right to testify is a tactical choice of a defendant, however, defense counsel must advise defendant of the potential perils of testimony, after which, the defendant can competently choose to take the stand. |
|
|
Term
Pearson v. State, (2004)
What may a prosecutor not comment on in closing arguments |
|
Definition
| Prosecutor may not comment on defendant's silence before arrest, or failure to come forward voluntarily, even when def. chooses to testify. You can be impeached with pre-arrest silence if no govt. action induced it |
|
|
Term
United States v. Perez (1824)
When may a court declare a mistrial? |
|
Definition
| courts have authoirty, taking in all circumstances, to declare a mistrial if there is a "manifest necessity." No bar to future prosecution. |
|
|
Term
Illinois v. Somerville (1973)
When may a judge declare a mistrial? |
|
Definition
| The judge can declare a mistrial sua sponte, against the defendant's will and double jeopardy will not bar retrial. |
|
|
Term
Clemons v. State (GA 2002) -
When must a motion for mistrial be made? |
|
Definition
| A motion for mistrial must be promptly made as soon as the moving party is aware of the matter giving rise to the motion. The motion must be made at the time of the objectionable event; otherwise, the motion is not timely and will be considered waived because of delay. |
|
|
Term
Haynes v. State (1980)
When does Jeopardy attach?
When may a jury be discharged? |
|
Definition
| It is well established that jeopardy attaches when a jury is impaneled and sworn." Once impaneled, court may not discharge the jury unless there is a manifest necessity, or the ends of public justice are otherwise defeated |
|
|
Term
United States v. Perez (1824)
When may a court declare a mistrial? |
|
Definition
| courts have authoirty, taking in all circumstances, to declare a mistrial if there is a "manifest necessity." No bar to future prosecution. |
|
|
Term
Ferguson v. State (GA 1963)
When does the time for making a motion for mistrial begin? |
|
Definition
| The time for making a motion for mistrial is not ripe until the case has begun, and the trial does not begin until the jury is impaneled and sworn. A defendant is considered in Jeopardy when: 1. He's in a court of competent jurisdiction 2. Upon sufficient indictment 3. The def. has been arraigned 4. The def. has pleaded 5. The jury has been impaneled 6. The jury has been sworn. |
|
|
Term
Illinois v. Somerville (1973)
Judge can declare a mistrial when? |
|
Definition
| The judge can declare a mistrial sua sponte, against the defendant's will and double jeopardy will not bar retrial. |
|
|
Term
Clemons v. State (GA 2002) -
When must a mistrial be made? |
|
Definition
| A motion for mistrial must be promptly made as soon as the moving party is aware of the matter giving rise to the motion. The motion must be made at the time of the objectionable event; otherwise, the motion is not timely and will be considered waived because of delay. |
|
|
Term
Oregon v. Kennedy (1982)
Test for lifting the double jeopardy bar for retrial? |
|
Definition
| When trial is terminated over objection of def, the classic test for lifting the double jeopardy bar to a second trial is manifest necessity. Where a mistrial is requested by the def. there is no manifest necessity standard. *Intent of the prosecutor is the standard for determining whether double jeopardy bars retrial when a defendant successfully moves for mistrial. |
|
|
Term
| Request to Charge - Federal rule 30 |
|
Definition
| Court must inform parties before closing arguments how it intends to rule on requested instructions |
|
|
Term
. Jones v. United States (1999)
Evaluations of Jury Instructions |
|
Definition
| Jury instructions must be evaluated in the context of the entire charge. Ambiguous instructions may be cured when read in conjunction with other instructions. Jurors are presumed to have followed instructions. |
|
|
Term
a. Jackson v. Virginia
What question is posed to a grand jury? |
|
Definition
| The relevant question is that, viewing evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact would have found the essential element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. |
|
|
Term
FRCP 26.3
Before a court orders a mistrial what must it do |
|
Definition
| the court, before ordering a mistrial, must give each party an opportunity to comment on the propriety of the order, to state whether the party consents or objects, or suggest alternatives. |
|
|
Term
Allen v. United States (1896)
What is an Allen Charge? |
|
Definition
| "Dynamite charge" case, judge can issue a strongly worded charge that implies the jury should return some kind of verdict. |
|
|
Term
Preston v. Blackledge (1971)
WHat is the magic number for mistrial and double jeopardy? |
|
Definition
| Court held that where four previous trials resulting in mistrial by reason of jury disagreement, a fifth was violative of double jeopardy. |
|
|
Term
Ball v. US –
Can there be a retrial after verdict of acquittal |
|
Definition
| Verdict of Acquital bars retrial |
|
|
Term
Brown v. State (GA 2005)
Requirement for juror miscondcut to upset the jury verdict |
|
Definition
| one of the jurors map quested something on his phone during trial. Jurors testified they didn't consider the info. There must be a reasonable probability the misconduct contributed to the conviction in order to upset a jury verdict. |
|
|
Term
In re Kemmler (1890)
How does court determine cruel/unusual punishment |
|
Definition
| in determining cruel/unusual punishment, courts generally look at the crime, the method and amount. Cruel at adoption: crucifixion, burning at the stake, etc. |
|
|
Term
| Mechanics of the Death Penalty |
|
Definition
a. In order for a def. to be eligible for the death penalty he or she must be found guilty of homicide, kidnapping w/ bodily injury, or aircraft hijacking
b. Jury must also find the existence of at least one aggravating circumstance
c. The DA must choose to request the death penalty. There is no other way it can be imposed.
d. Death penalty trial is bifurcated, meaning, two stages. guilt/innocence and sentencing |
|
|
Term
. Griffin v. Illinois (1956)
At what cost can an indigent recieve a transcript? |
|
Definition
| Free. There is no requirement for appellate review, but if you have it, you can't have a system that discriminates against poor people. |
|
|
Term
North Carolina v. Pearce (1969)
What protection does a Defendant have once an appeal has been reversed? |
|
Definition
| The constitution does not impose a bar to more severe sentence upon reconviction after an appeal has reversed the original sentence. |
|
|
Term
Powell v. Alabama (1932)
When do you have the right to counsel? |
|
Definition
| def. has right to "guiding hand" of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. |
|
|
Term
Strickland v. Washington (1984)
2 prong test for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel |
|
Definition
| The 6th amendment rtc is the right to effective assistance of counsel. "Whether or not counsel's conduct so undermined the proper function of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result." Two prong test 1. Def. must show that counsel's performance fell below that of professional standards. 2. Def. must show that the performance was so prejudicial as to create uncertainty about the reliability of the outcome of the case. |
|
|
Term
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 466. U.S. 335 (1990)
Rules regarding Representation of Multiple defendants and conflict of interest |
|
Definition
| This was the case of the two private attorneys representing 3 people charged with murder, they rested after the prosecutions first case as a strategic move, basically sacrificing the first defendant. There are a few rules. - Unless the state trial court knows or reasonably should know that a particular conflict exists, the court itself need not initiate an inquiry into the propriety of multiple representation. - In order to demonstrate a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights, a defendant must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance - The possibility that a conflict of interest arose from multiple representation is insufficient to impugn a criminal conviction |
|
|
