Psych notes 2:13:20 - 1 Rights of the accused 4th amendment o Protection from illegal search and seizure Exclusionary rule Mapp v Ohio(1961 o

Psych notes 2:13:20 - 1 Rights of the accused 4th...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 7 pages.

1 Rights of the accused - 4 th amendment o Protection from illegal search and seizure Exclusionary rule Mapp v. Ohio (1961) o Evidence found as a result of illegal search or seizure must be excluded from evidence in state and federal courts Limits United States v. Leon (1984) o “good faith” exception o If warrant issued by neutral judge – even if later determine there was not probable cause to support warrant – the evidence is admissible Rakas v. Illinois (1978) o You must have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched or where object seized Nix v. Williams (1984) o Inevitable discovery exception Evidence found due to illegal search or seizure can be admitted if a case can be made that it would have been inevitably been found via legal means o Today 1. Legitimate expectation of privacy has to have been violated Not for garbage, backyard, anything accessible to public 2. Home Unless there is an emergency generally a warrant is required to enter without permission 3. Vehicle If stopping a vehicle, need probable cause 4. Reasonable suspicion will support temporary detention &/or protective search - Right to council o Gidden v. Wainwright (1963) Right to counsel during felony trials even if defendant cannot afford one o Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972) Extends right to misdemeanors Modifications o Ross v. Moffitt (1974) Right to counsel for trial and one appeal o Strickland v. Washington (1984) Court appointed attorney must meet an “objective standard of reasonableness” o Coleman v. Thompson (1991) If court appointed attorney makes an error after minimum required representation you can’t use that as a basis for appeal o Ake v. Oklahoma (1985) Defendants who can’t afford it are entitled to free psychiatric help in preparing an insanity defense if there is a serious question about their sanity Has been extended to other types of experts if the court is convinced they are necessary for a fair determination of facts
2 o Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Right to remain silent Limits o 1. Confession in violation of Miranda rights may be admissible to impeach defendant if they testify o 2. Confession by defendant who did not fully understand Miranda might still be admissible o 3. To stop an interrogation the request for a lawyer must be clean & unequivocal Davis v. USA (1994) o 4. Miranda does not apply if person is not in police custody o 5. Miranda does not apply unless you are being interrogated o 6. Defendant does not have to be old anything beyond what Miranda requires

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture