©2016 cengage learning. all rights reserved. history and development of the law of criminal...

©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL

EVIDENCE

Chapter 1

Learning Objectives

Explain the importance of the Magna Carta.

Explain the function of the writ of habeas corpus.

Identify how the U.S. Supreme Court made the Bill of Rights applicable in state court criminal cases.

List the rights identified and made available to a criminal defendant under the U.S. Constitution.©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

Evidentiary Rules

Gates through which evidence flows in our criminal court system.

Most have their origins in English law.

Important to safeguard rights of accused persons in a fair trial and to ensure the interests of the public in the proper functioning of the criminal justice system.

©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

Early Methods of Determining Guilt or Innocence

Use of ordeals was common; e.g., duels in which winners were considered innocent and losers were guilty.

Later, judgment was often pronounced by the clergy through oaths and oath-helpers (similar to witnesses today). Presentment juries composed of community

residents were also used.


Early Methods of Determining Guilt or Innocence

Petit juries were charged with not only determining guilt or innocence but also with finding facts about this determination.

Rules were gradually developed to govern the introduction of facts into criminal trials.


Witchcraft as a Crime

Numerous trials charging witchcraft as a crime were held in ancient Rome and later in Europe.

In Salem, Massachusetts witchcraft trials were conducted and people were executed and imprisoned.

The crime of witchcraft no longer exists in the American criminal justice system and can never be resurrected.


Magna Carta

Established minimum standards for arresting and imprisoning individuals accused of crimes.

Required a demonstration of probable cause before a person can be arrested or held in custody.

This principle influenced the drafters of the American Declaration of Independence.


Writ of Habeas Corpus

This writ serves as a safeguard against unlawful imprisonment.

The writ requires that an official must present himself to a court to show cause for holding a person in custody.

The right of habeas corpus is incorporated into the U.S. Constitution in ARTICLE I, SECTION 9.


Writ of Habeas Corpus

Habeas corpus writs provide another form of review in criminal convictions and sentences in addition to the appeal process. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and 28 U.S.C. § 2255

authorize federal and state courts to hear petitions for habeas corpus.

The petitioner must show the normal appeal process has been exhausted.


Habeas Petitions

Prior to 1996, federal courts heard habeas petitions under “de novo” review which gave little deference to state court decisions.

Since 1996, writs are limited to cases where the conviction or sentence was contrary to a clearly established federal law or based on “unreasonable determination of the facts.”


Cullen v. Pinholster131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011)

Affected review of habeas petitions by federal courts.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with petitioner’s claim that his conviction and death sentence were flawed because his mental condition was not taken into account.

U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that evidence presented at a habeas hearing could not be considered.


Thaler v. Haynes130 S. Ct. 1171 (2010)

Illustrates limitations to habeas petitions.

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned a Texas homicide conviction, was reversed by the Supreme Court because the appellate court applied a legal principle that had not be clearly established by the Supreme Court.


Habeas Corpus and Enemy Combatants

Enemy combatants at Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba have appealed their detention using habeas petitions.

In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court held that detainees on U.S. military bases had habeas corpus rights. Suspected enemy combatants can be tried

in military tribunals as opposed to federal district court.


The American Declaration of Independence

British abuses abounded in the colonies prior to the creation and signing of the Declaration.

Many of these abuses concerned liberty, freedom, and the judiciary.

Eventually many of these abuses were specifically corrected in the U.S. Constitution.


The American Declaration of Independence

In declaring independence from Great Britain, this U.S. document repudiated the doctrine of the divine right of kings. Declared that governments derive power

from the consent of the governed.

Stated that all men are created equal and “endowed with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”


The U.S. Constitution

The delegates sought to write a Constitution which supported the new American democracy and would create a practical government to serve the people. The concepts of habeas corpus and the

right to a trial by jury were incorporated. Bills of attainder and ex post facto laws

were prohibited.


The Bill of Rights

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution were added to “embody certain guarantees and immunities which were inherited from our English ancestors.” Originally, these rights were applicable

only to the federal government. The U.S. Supreme Court, through the

Fourteenth Amendment, applied these rights to the states.


Fifth and Sixth Amendments

Individual rights in criminal prosecution are present in various parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments provide

an extensive list of those rights.


Fifth Amendment

Protects the accused from: detention without a presentment or

indictment by a grand jury; double jeopardy; self-incrimination; and deprivation of life, liberty, or property

without due process.


Sixth Amendment

Provides the accused with the right to: a fair, speedy and public trial; an impartial jury; information about the nature and cause

of the accusation; the ability to confront and cross-examine

witnesses; and counsel for assistance in defense.


Innocence Until Proven Guilty

In a criminal prosecution, the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In Taylor (1978) and Pagano (2002), the

courts have consistently held the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the defendant’s presumption of innocence is a basic component of a fair trial.


Public and Speedy Trial

The Sixth Amendment provides that “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” A public trial means all court sessions

must be open to the public unless the trial court gives sufficient, specific reasons for closing the courtroom.


The Promptness Rule

Suspects arrested without warrant must be given a probable-cause hearing within 48 hours of arrest.

Further delay requires the government to demonstrate why the circumstances could not be avoided. Sanctions may include preclusion of

evidence collected during the delay.


Presley v. Georgia130 S. Ct. 721 (2010)

Pursuant to the Sixth Amendment the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.

The Presley court held that “public trial” includes the voir dire (juror examination) portion of a trial.

Closing the courtroom to the public requires the trial court to provide “sufficient” reasons or to consider alternatives.


The Right to a Speedy Trial

The Sixth Amendment includes granting the defendant a speedy trial. Courts are split as to whether this applies

in situations where sentencing is delayed.

A defendant may waive the right to a speedy trial with permission of the court. The federal government and many states

have enacted statutes that prescribe the time limit within which a case must go to trial.


Right to an Indictment

About half of the states follow the Fifth Amendment requirement of a grand jury indictment for capital or “infamous” crimes.

In other states, elected prosecutors determine whether to charge a defendant and what crimes to charge. Defendants charged with a felony by a

prosecutor have the right to a preliminary hearing.


Right to a Fair (Not Perfect) Trial

Under the Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the law does “not require a defendant receive a perfect trial, only a fair one.” If a defendant is convicted in a trial where

a harmless error occurred, the defendant is not entitled to a new trial.

If an error during the trial is deemed harmful, reversible, or plain, the defendant is entitled to a new trial or to have the charges dropped.


Right to Assistance of Counsel

If charged with a crime, a person has the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. If the defendant cannot afford an attorney,

one will be provided by the state or federal government.

The right to effective counsel applies at all stages of a criminal prosecution.


Strickland v. Washing-ton466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984)

A convicted defendant claiming inadequate or ineffective defense must prove:

the defense fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and

a reasonable probability exists that the results would have been different but for the lawyer’s errors.


Right to Be Informed of Charges

The Sixth Amendment provides that “the accused shall enjoy the right … to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.” Can be an issue when a defendant later

seeks to retract a guilty plea because it was not “voluntary and intelligent.”


Bousley v. United States523 U.S. 614 (1998)

A defendant’s guilty plea must be “voluntarily and intelligently” made in order to be constitutionally valid.

If circumstances show that the defendant was misinformed by either the court or the prosecutor, the guilty plea is invalid.


Right to Compel Witnesses

The Sixth Amendment provides that “the accused shall enjoy the right … to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.” Witnesses can be compelled to appear

through the use of subpoenas.


Right to Testify or Not Testify

It is the defendant’s choice whether to testify in his or her own defense.

Most defendants do not testify, for a variety of tactical reasons. A defendant who testifies is subject to

cross-examination.

Many defense lawyers want to avoid this risk.


Right to Confront Witnesses

The Sixth Amendment provides that “the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The famous trial of Sir Walter Raleigh in

1603 was one of the reasons the Confrontation Clause was included in the Sixth Amendment.


Freedom from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

The Fourth Amendment forbids searches without a warrant unless a justifiable exception can be shown.

The historic foundation for the Fourth Amendment can be traced back to the Magna Carta and the probable cause requirement.


Right to an Impartial Jury

This right is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

Juror challenges, either for cause or peremptory, are designed to help ensure an impartial jury.

Excusing jurors for cause has been an issue in death penalty cases.


Uttecht v. Brown127 S. Ct. 2218 (2007)

U.S. Supreme Court identified four principles that must be used to determine if a juror has been properly excused for cause in capital cases:1. The prosecution may not

challenge for cause any juror who expresses doubt about capital punishment.

2. The state has a legitimate interest in having jurors who are willing to apply capital punishment where the law so permits.


Uttecht v. Brown, cont.

3. Unless a juror is “substantially impaired” in his or her ability to impose the death sentence, the juror’s excusal for cause is improper.

4. The trial judge is entitled to deference in the determination of when a prospective juror is “substantially impaired.”


Peremptory Challenges and Discrimination

During jury selection, both sides are given peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors from being selected. Both sides are also given unlimited challenges for cause.

Preemptory challenges are determined by state law and are not required by the U.S. Constitution.


Peremptory Challenges and Discrimination

Both parties are generally entitled to strike any prospective juror for cause. They may also strike a limited number of

potential jury members without having to explain the reasons, called a “peremptory challenge.”

The peremptory challenge can be used to exclude potential jurors who might be reluctant to find the defendant guilty.©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

Batson v. Kentucky476 U.S. 79 (1986)

Prohibited the use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race of juror.

Prosecution needs “race-neutral” reasons to justify the challenges during jury selection.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not extended the Batson holding to include peremptory strikes based on other factors such as religion.


The Right of a Defendant to be Present During Trial

Common law principles mandate a defendant has the right to be present during his criminal trial and cannot be trial in absentia.

The Supreme Court has held that federal rules require that in felony cases the defendant must be present at the beginning of the trial.


Crosby v. United States506 U.S. 255 (1993)

Court held that Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires a defendant be present at the beginning of any felony criminal trial, forbidding in absentia trials for defendants who were not “initially present.”


©2016 cengage learning. all rights reserved. history and development of the law of criminal...

Documents

cengage learning

learning objectivesexplain

criminal trials

criminal court system

rights of accused persons

bill of rights applicable

state court criminal

criminal convictions