Term
| In a criminal case who is the prosecution and who is the defendant? |
|
Definition
State serves as the prosecution
Victim serves as the defendant |
|
|
Term
In a civil case, what are the two parties and who represents them?
|
|
Definition
Victim is the plaintiff
Perpetrator is the defendant |
|
|
Term
| Who are the people involved in a criminal case? |
|
Definition
Police
Prosecutor
Defendance
Defendant's Counsel
Jury |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. Evidence needs to be obtained by a warrent or exception
2. Evendence needs to be presented to the prosecution to determine whether or not to charge
3. Charge needs to be solidified by evidence
4. Trial
Jury or Judge determines guilt or innocence
Person is found guilty or not guilty |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Reasonasonable suspicion
Plain View
Probable Cause
Officer sees crime committed
Investigating a warrent for something else and sees other evidence
Exigent circumstances
Hot pursuit |
|
|
Term
Expectation of Privacy
State of Florida v. Deon Edward
Facts |
|
Definition
Cops searched a trashcan while it was on the property
Once the trashcan was moved to the street, they seized evidence
Ruled it as an illegal search |
|
|
Term
What is a guilty plea with the right to contest?
|
|
Definition
| If a person pleas guilts with the right to contest, they are admitting guilt but contesting how the evidence was obtained |
|
|
Term
| For an officer to have reasonable suspicion, there needs to be: |
|
Definition
Suspicious behavior that shows a crime is about to be, is being, or has been committed
Probable Cause
Other people need to have been able to deduce that there was a reasonable suspicion at the point of contact for the officer |
|
|
Term
| To get consent for a search, police need to get |
|
Definition
Legal capacity
Proprietor ownership
The ability to voluntarily say yes, without coercion involved |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Evidence can be admissible if it was originally obtained illegally but would have been found in the process of a regular investigation, regardless of any potential illegally obtained information |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Only applies when a ruling by the jury has been made. It does not count if the jury is deadlocked, if the case was dismissed, if there was a mistrial, etc
A person can be charged and tried for a crime twice, but they cannot have a ruling made twice |
|
|
Term
Debate Lecture
Prostitution Debate
FOR |
|
Definition
Self Determination
Regulation- makes it safer
Economic reasons
Reduce overcrowding in jails
Cut down on crime
Segregate from other illicit activities
Prevents unwanted children
Increase in employment |
|
|
Term
Debate Lecture
Prostitution Debate
AGAINST |
|
Definition
Social morals
Addictive
Social impact
Unwanted pregnancy
Change structure of society |
|
|
Term
Debate Lecture
Euthansia Debate
FOR |
|
Definition
Self-determination
More humane
Population control |
|
|
Term
Debate Lecture
Euthanasia Debate
AGAINST |
|
Definition
Doctors are playing God/Hippocratic oath
Patient may not be in correct mental state
Abusive use
Slippery slope, biggest against
Insurance issues
Scientific innovation-premature loss of life
Moral issues-person dying and person doing it
Religious issues |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Motion to supress evidence after conviction |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Terry convicted of carrying a concealed weapon
Officer suspected Terry was casing the store
Officer pat down Terry and felt he had a gun |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Whether or not the guns had been lawfully seized |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Affirmed (the guns were lawfully seized) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The officer had reasonable cause to believe the defendants were suspicious and interrogation should have been made
Officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the person was armed and dangerous
Had the right to pat down the men and remove guns from their persons for his own protection |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Court distinguished between an investigator stop and an arrest, between an outer "frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and search |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Katz v. United States- 4th Amendment protects people, not places
Mapp v. Ohio
Johnson v. United States- police officers can interfere with personal liberty when their judgement leads them to in an effore to fetter out crime |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Defense appeal on lawful stop in a refusal to identify conviction (privacy case) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Brown refused to identify himself to police officers
At the station he identified himself
Still was charged with refusing to identify himself
Courts originally found that the officers lawfully stopped Brown
Brown appealed |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Whether or not the police executed a lawful stop on Brown |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Reversed (the court said the stop was not lawful, thus throwing out the conviction) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The officer was unable to convey proper reasonable suspicion in his articulation to justify stopping an individual without a warrent |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| demonstrated the importance of the police articulation |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Davis v. Mississippi
Terry v. Ohio- 4th amendment applies to all seizures of the person including seizures that only involve a brief detention short of traditional arrest
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce |
|
|
Term
Florida v. Bostick
Status |
|
Definition
| Prosecution appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Bostick was suspected of carrying drugs and was on a bus
Officers stopped the bus and asked to search his luggage
Bostick felt he had no choice given the situation and authorized the search, in which drugs were found
Bostick was arrested on drug charges |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Whether or no the police violated Bostick's 4th Amendment rights when they searched his luggage. Ultimately, the issue is whether or not a seizure occured |
|
|
Term
Florida v. Bostick
Ruling |
|
Definition
| Original ruling affirmed. Florida Supreme Court ruling reversed |
|
|
Term
Florida v. Bostick
Rational |
|
Definition
| The Florida Supreme Court focused too narrowly on one fact (that the exchange happened on a bus) as opposed to the entire circumstance of the case. There is not enough evidence to decide whether or not a seizure occured. Due to the voluntary nature of the search, the findings of the cocaine stand and are admissible as evidence. If he had refused to the search, he should have yelled it out for everyone to hear |
|
|
Term
Florida v. Bostick
Outcomes |
|
Definition
| A per say rule was adopted in Florida (prohibiting police from randomly boarding buses as a means of drug interdiction). The Supreme Court continued their trend from 1982-1991 where they heard 30 drug cases and overturned state rulings in 27 of them in favor of the police executing the war on drugs |
|
|
Term
Florida v. Bostick
Precednet |
|
Definition
Terry v. Ohio
Royer
Rodriguez
Delgado- uphold that officers can approach individuals as to whom they have no reasonable suspicio and ask them potentially incriminating questions |
|
|
Term
Seibert v. State of Florida
Status |
|
Definition
| Defense appeal on grounds of unlawful entry |
|
|
Term
Seibert v. State of Florida
Status |
|
Definition
| Defense appeal on grounds of unlawful entry |
|
|
Term
Seibert v. State of Florida
Facts |
|
Definition
Seibert and friends were doing illegal drugs
When friends left, female stayed behind
Said he was mentally unstable, friend called cops
Seibert wouldn't open door to cops, so they forced their way inside
Found Seibert's female friend choped into pieces |
|
|
Term
Seibert v. State of Florida
Issue |
|
Definition
| Whether or not the police unlawfully entered the residence of Seibert |
|
|
Term
Seibert v. State of Florida
Ruling |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
Seibert v. State of Florida
Rationale |
|
Definition
| Because there was the presence of exigent circumstances, the officers had an exception to the warrant clause and were allowed to enter to check on Seibert. Because the foot was in plain sight of the officer during the wellness check, it was also admissible |
|
|
Term
Duncan v. Louisiana
Status |
|
Definition
| Defense appeal on denile of trial by jury |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Duncan was convicted of a misdemeanor battery
Louisiana denied him a trial by jury because state law said Duncan can't request one unless a capital crime or facing a sentence requiring prison time
Denied trial by jury |
|
|
Term
Duncan v. Louisiana
Issue |
|
Definition
| Whether the right to a trial by jury is among the fundamental principles that serve as the basis of our institutions |
|
|
Term
Duncan v. Louisiana
Ruling |
|
Definition
| Reverse and remanded- Duncan won the right to a trial by jury |
|
|
Term
Duncan v. Louisiana
Ruling/Precedent |
|
Definition
Court ruled that the right to a trial by jury is a fundamental right of Americans that dates back to 1765 at the first continental congress
Because this could be a 2 year sentence, it is no small crime and deserves trial by jury |
|
|
Term
Blakely v. Washington
Status |
|
Definition
| Defense appeal on additional time given in plea case |
|
|
Term
Blakely v. Washington
Facts |
|
Definition
Blakely plead guilty to kidnapping his estranged wife
The court imposed an additional sentence to his 53 months because they claimed he acted "deliberately cruel" |
|
|
Term
Blakely v. Washington
Issue |
|
Definition
| Whether or not the state adding an additional 3 years to the maximum sentence for his crime because of "deliberately cruel," which was not included in the facts of his plea, without letting a jury decide whether or not the deliberate cruelty was present violating his 6th Amendment rights |
|
|
Term
Blakely v. Washington
Ruling |
|
Definition
| Reversed and case is remanded for further proceedings- he won his right to a tiral by jury to determine the extra sentence |
|
|
Term
Blakely v. Washington
Rationale |
|
Definition
| Before depriving a man of three more years of his liberty, the state should suffer the modest inconvenience of submitting its accusation to the unanimous suffrage of twelve of his equals and neighbors |
|
|
Term
Blakely v. Washington
Outcomes |
|
Definition
| It affirmed the right to a trial by jury if the court is trying to sentence someone for more than the maximum time allowed based on the facts of a plea |
|
|
