Lushing F04 Crim Procedure

Lushing F04 Crim Procedure - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OUTLINE...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OUTLINE – LUSHING FALL 2004 I. The Constitution of the United States 1. 2. Article I, §9: Congress has power to suspend habeas corpus. (Only happened during the civil war.) 3. Article IV, §2: Extradition—getting someone from one state to another for trial. 4. Article I, § 9 (federal), § 10 (states)—ex post facto clause (can’t pass a law that makes an act that already occurred a crime or that increases sentence for crime; no retroactivity). 5. States don’t have constitutional rts.; individuals do. 6. Equal protection clause says that no person shall be denied these rts, but constitution only applies to citizens. 7. Bill of Rights sets restraints on Federal Government. II. Due Process of Law: Right to a trial, must be charged with a crime that is already on the books, opportunity to be heard. 1. Due Process Debate a. Total Incorporation: Some Supreme Court justices believe/have believed that the intent of the 14 th Amendment was to incorporate all of the Bill of Rights through the words “due process.” b. Fundamental Rights: Idea that 14 th Amendment designed to incorporate “fundamental rights” from the Bill of Rights. 2. Palko v. Connecticut : D charged w/ first degree murder which carried a mandatory death penalty. Jury found him guilty of second degree murder and he was sentenced to life in prison. (Implication is not guilty of murder-1.) Prosecutor appealed—judge kept confession out, misdefined crimes and did not allow some of D’s testimony. In retrial Palko was convicted of murder-1 (gets death sentence). a. Issue: (Before the Supreme Court) Was the second trial a violation of Defendant’s due process rights? b. Holding: No. Double jeopardy held not to be a “fundamental right.” D.A.s can appeal acquittals. c. Note: The Supreme Court overruled this in Benton v. Maryland in 1969, holding double jeopardy to be a fundamental right. 3. Adamson v. California : D does not testify to avoid having his priors admitted. At the time California law said that if D failed to testify, prosecution could comment about it. [Even the judge could tell the jury to consider D’s decision not to testify.] a. Issue: Is the self-incrimination clause “fundamental?” b. Holding: No. c. Things to Consider: Lots of reasons why people might not want to testify. But, inference is that they must have something to hide. d. Note: Overruled in 1964. Court held that privilege against self- incrimination applies to the states. In 1965, held that P can’t comment
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
on D’s decision not to testify. In 1981 held that J has to instruct jury that it cannot make an inference b/c D didn’t testify. e.
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.

This note was uploaded on 02/14/2008 for the course LAW 7118 taught by Professor Halberstam during the Fall '02 term at Yeshiva.

Page1 / 36

Lushing F04 Crim Procedure - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OUTLINE...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online