CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINENEJ: 16-52, 73-95, 132-141KEEP IN MIND:Multiple suspects = admissible to neither, one, or both?R.E.P. – who has it with respect to what?Consent – who gives it with respect to what and is it valid?F.O.P.T. – could be used all the timeStanding – self-incrimination, violations of other people’s con. Rights (i.e. evidence against you found at someone else’s house)NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE 14thAMMENDMENT DUE PROCESS-INCORPORATION•14thamendmentono state may deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of lawbecause the actions of state officials are state action, state criminal procedures are governed by the constitution•Applicability of the Bill of rights to the statesoFundamental rights approachThe fact that a particular criminal procedure is prohibited by the BOR does not necessarily mean that the 14thprohibits its use by the state.Requires only those procedures that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty or which are fundamental to the American scheme of justiceExamines each case on its facts rather than applying a particular right to all situations.•Palko v. Connecticut (34) (P was found guilty for murder in 2nddegree and sentenced to life. C appeals arguing that some evidence was improperly excluded and that jury was improperly instructed on difference between 1stand 2nddegree murder. CT’s SC agree and ordered a new trial where P was sentenced to death. P argues that the new trial violated the 14thamendment guarantee against double jeopardy) Held thatoOnly those provisions of the Bill of rights that are implicit in the concept ofordered libertyare applicable to the states by the 14thSome, but not all constitutional safeguards ensured by the 5thto Ds in fed court apply to the stateAllowing a state the right to appeal when D was convicted of a lesser offense due to a trial error did not violate a fundamental principle of justice •Overruled 32 years later, that double jeopardy must also apply to the states•Adamson v. California (36) (A challenged his conviction for murder in CA court. At trial, both the prosecutor and the judge pointed out that A had failed to take the stand to rebut the evidence against him. A argued that these comments violates his constitutional right against self-incrimination) held thatoThe 5ths protection against self incrimination does not apply to D’s in state prosecutions through the 14th’s Equal Protection clause A state is free to act with respect to the states rights so long as it does not abridge the rights inherent in national citizenship•Since protection against self incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of national citizenship, a state need not protect it.