law - Chapter 8: Criminal Law and Procedure I. Criminal Law...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Chapter 8: Criminal Law and Procedure I. Criminal Law A. Sources of American Criminal Law B. Classification of Crimes C. Constitutional Limitations on Criminalization 1. Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia D. The Imposition of Punishment II. The Basic Components of a Criminal Offense A. The Wrongful Act 1. People v. Shaughnessy B. Special Rules C. Status Crimes D. The Criminal State of Mind 1. State v. Gordon E. Strict Liability F. Vicarious Liability G. Causation 1. Commonwealth v. Berggren H. Inchoate Crime I. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act J. Defenses 1. United States v. Scott III. Criminal Procedure IV. Proceedings Prior to Trial A. Arrest 1. Draper v. United States B. Custodial Interrogation 1. Charles T. Dickerson v. United States C. Searches and Seizures 1. Crystal M. Ferguson v. City of Charleston D. Investigatory Detentions (Stop and Frisk) 1. Adams v. Williams E. Bail 1. United States v. Salerno F. The Right to an Attorney G. Line-ups H. Preliminary Hearing and Grand Jury I. Arraignment V. The Criminal Trial A. Sullivan v. Louisiana B. Trial by Jury C. Fair and Public Trial D. Right to a Speedy Trial and Cross-Examination E. The Prosecutor's Role F. Sentencing G. Appeal
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
H. Habeas Corpus Court Case Summaries Chapter Eight: Criminal Law and Procedure Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia In 1958, the Lovings, an interracial couple, were married in the District of Columbia, although they were both residents of Virginia. Shortly after returning to Virginia, they were indicted and convicted of violating the state's miscegenation statutes. The Lovings filed a motion in the state court to vacate the judgment and set aside their sentences on the ground that the statutes were unconstitutional. The judge denied the motion, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. In the meantime, prior to the state judge rendering a decision, the plaintiffs filed a class action suit in the U.S. District Court. The federal court continued the case so that the Lovings could present their claims to the highest state court. That court upheld the miscegenation statutes. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the convictions and expressly ruled that the Virginia statutes were predicated upon "invidious racial discriminations" and thus violated the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the Constitution. People v. Shaughnessy The defendant, while a passenger in an automobile, was driven onto private property, where she was stopped and charged with violating an ordinance prohibiting entry onto private property without the owner's permission. At the close of her trial, the defendant moved to dismiss on the grounds that the applicable ordinance was unconstitutional. The court dismissed the case, but not on constitutional grounds.
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.

Page1 / 25

law - Chapter 8: Criminal Law and Procedure I. Criminal Law...

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