{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Crim Pro Notes - Class Notes 14 January 2008 I First Day a...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Class Notes 14 January 2008 I. First Day a. Three Questions we’ll deal w/throughout semester i. What are the rules of crim pro in C? ii. Which of these rules also apply to the states? iii. Why do we apply some rules to the states? b. C’al provisions we’ll cover in this class i. 4 th Am ii. 5 th Am iii. 6 th Am iv. 14 th Am c. Powell v. AL – p. 13 i. Arraignment – when D is made formally aware of charges and allowed to enter a plea ii. Fed SC not authorized to review decision of state SC as to issues of state law – only question is whether a federal right has been violated iii. SC decides that it’s the duty of the court, whether requested or not , to assign counsel according to DPC; in capital case where D can’t employ counsel and is incapable of adequately making his own defense b/c of ignorance, illiteracy, etc iv. DP means notice and hearing before competent tribunal, but that’s not enough v. Look at: 1. What’s at stake from D’s POV – this is a capital case, so amount of process due to them is at its highest; b/c deprivation they are facing is the highest – death 2. D’s capacity to engage in hearing is at its lowest – young, illiterate, out-of-state, prejudiced, etc; ability to defend is at its lowest vi. So in this circumstance, D’s have a right to appointed counsel – w/enough time to prepare for trial vii. Ct not saying all criminal D’s have right to counsel; “only D’s like these in a case like this” pretty much d. Duncan v. Louisiana – p. 31 i. Does the right to a trial by jury implicate these “fundamental principles central to ordered liberty” – i.e., does the 14 th Am apply? 1. Yes – majority opinion ii. J. Black, concurring – total incorporationist; thinks all BOR rights should be incorporated to the states via the DPC iii. J. Fortas, concurring; J. Harlan, dissenting II. Chapter 2 – The Fourth Amendment (Searches and Seizures) a. Weeks v. US – p. 59 i. Illegal to transport lottery tickets across state lines ii. No due process necessary for this case – just whether 4 th Am was violated b. Wolf v. CO – p. 54 i. Have the same right, but not the same remedy when search and seizure rule is violated ii. Exclusionary Rule – designed to deter police misconduct; but it doesn’t protect innocent people – there’s no recourse/remedies – no damages, just that E can’t be included 1. Also it causes reliable E to be excluded at trial – “the criminal is free b/c the constable has blundered” c. Mapp v. Ohio – p. 63 i. Overturns Weeks case ii. Very broad search, go through all of her stuff iii. But if that violated her rights, should her remedy be exclusion of E?
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1. State Ct says no – it’s reliable E – it uses it to convict her iv. So now case is before SC v. SC says state ct was wrong – exclusionary rule should stand vi.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}