intro to criminal law outline

8/12/2019 Intro to Criminal Law Outline

1/25

Criminal Law OutlineSpring 2010

Themes-crim law as crude engine for sorting social phenomena- e.g., rape, domestic violence !attered wife- human desire for ordering and rationalit" ma#es us want to put the !lame somewhere even when causation is clear.

$suall" pic# the %!ad actor&. 'n some cases, we loo# awa" from the victims own fault negligence agenc" and sa"that ( is lia!le for their !ad decisions )e.g. Sterno, sweat lodge*- how to deal with the stiff on the floor. Small changes in facts ma" dictate whether someone is lia!le or not. Often,this can !e a fortuit".-since crim law is how we tr" to rationali+e human e perience, hard to rationali+e crim law.- prosecution must show concurrence of voluntar" act )or omission when dut" to act* social harm specified in thedefinition of the offense ( s mens rea and an actual and pro imate causal connection !tw act and harm.- must have the guilt" intention )unless strict lia!ilit"* plus the prohi!ited act or steps toward completion of the

prohi!ited act.

CRIMINAL LAW

Homicide1. (efinitions

a. /illing of uman eing !" another uman eingi. eople v. Chave+ - 3oung 4e ican woman #ills child during the process of !irth. (ispute

over whether child alive or not. Court re5ect old rule that child must !e alive, full"separated from its mother, totall" indep life, own heart !eat and respiration. 'nstead,focus on natural poss and pro! of growth and development.

1. ere, child alive, so was homicide. Convicted of involuntar" manslaughter !ecause of her %natural dut"& towards child.

ii. Singleton v. State - lac# woman charged with 1st degree murder and convicted of 2 nd degree murder for #illing child. On appeal gets off !cs this is onl" %nonfeasance& which itclaims is not criminal )ignoring Chave+*.

1. Li#el" !ias !cs of alleged low education and race. $nli#e Chave+, !ias operatesin other direction. Consider this.

iii. /eeler 6 (ivorced couple gets in fight and hus!and #ic#s pregnant wife in stomach, #illingfetus. 7c8uitted !cs fetus wasn t included in penal provisions. Leg amend, !ut can onl"

!e charged w murder 9 not manslaughter.iv. :ow li#el" that fetus would !e defined as a human !eing.

!. %3ear and a da"&i. $nder common law, a death that occurred more than a "ear and a da" after the act that

apparentl" caused it was not a homicide for which one could !e held criminall"responsi!le.

ii. ;ven if precluded from homicide, ma" !e a!le to charge for other crimes with longer nostatute of limitation

c. Statue of Limitationsi. Specif" amount of time during which crime must !e prosecuted.

d. (istinctionsi. 4urder

1.


2/25

iv. =elon"-murder )1 st degree if specified felon" and 2 nd degree ifunspecified*

ii. 4anslaughter - unlawful #illing of a human !eing without malice .iii. 'nvoluntar" manslaughter - unlawful #illing of human !eing in commission of a lawful

act which might produce death without due caution and circumspection . =ailure to usedue care where such a dut" e ists is sufficient. > Criminall" negligent

iv. ?oluntar" manslaughter - #illing upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion

caused !"adequate provocation !efore reasona!le opportunit" for cooling time.

2. ?oluntar" 4anslaughter a. rovocation6

i. Traditional Bases 6 e treme assault or !atter" mutual com!at ( s illegal arrest in5ur" ora!use of close relative discover" of adulter". 4ere words are not sufficientl"

provocative )!ut aggregate ver!al assault and e tremel" insulting words might !e*.


3/25

iv. 4ullane" v. Eil!ur 6 7ppellant convicted of murder after fatall" assaulting a man- poss of provocation. 'n 4;, %malice aforethought& )murder* implied unless ( prove that he acted%in heat of passion on sudden provocation& to get reduced to manslaughter.

1. SCOT$S sa" violation of due process as per Einship. istoricall", presence ofheat of passion most impt determining factor in deciding degree of homicide 9trend toward ma#ing prosecution prove this fact. ig differential )fine-life*, socan t sa" all one crime. (epending on how good ( s law"er is- increasedli#elihood of erroneous conviction.

v. atterson v. :ew 3or# 6 Contrar" to 4ullane". State can shift and set !urden of proof)insanit", self-defense* to show lesser culpa!ilit" if not an element of the offense. Legcan allocate to ( the !urden of persuasion.

vi. ost 'n limited circ leg can allocate !urden of persuasion a!out facts not formall" '( d aselements of the offense. Since this, SCOT$S sa"s that an" fact that increases penalt"must !e proved !" 5ur" !e"ond a reasona!le dou!t.

e. Transferred 'ntent6 'f #ill someone !" accident when tr" to #ill someone else, intent transfers andmurderous intent ascri!ed as to actual victim )li#e torts*. %intent follows the !ullet& (ualconvictions possi!le with attempted murder of !oth )when ends up 5ust assaulting Fd part"*. 'ntentis not %used up& on one victim )actual or intended*. 4a" result in punishment disproportionate tothe !ad act that was intended.

F. (egrees of 4urder a. :ote6 'f see an indictment for 2d degree murder, usuall" something %wrong& with the facts and

(7 will accept voluntar" manslaughter plea. 2d degree murder as residual categor" )unlawfulintentional #illing w o more*.

!. % enns"lvania formula&6 grades correlate to atrociousness. =irst degree faces death penalt" !utothers don t. Orig, intention for death penalt" to !e imposed onl" when #illing %full" deli!erateand premeditated& Eidel" adopted.

i. =irst degree- willful, deli!erate, premeditated or homicide that occurs during the perpetration or attempt of a stat enum felon" )arson, rape, !urglar", ro!!er"*. 7ll othersare second degree murder.

i. Losing some ground6 'll Crim Code def murder as %#illing intentionall" or #nowingl"& nomention of premed or deli!. :3 too.- 4a" !e influence of 4 C.

ii. $nder 4 C capital punishment O/ onl" if aggravating circ and no mitigatingc. 'ntent to #ill6 natural and foreseea!le conse8uence of one s act- some states re8 all F elements and

in others onl" willful and others superfluous use of a deadl" weapond. remeditation6 %To premeditate is to thin# a!out !eforehand to deli!erate is to measure and

evaluate the ma5or facets of a choice or pro!lem- thought process undistur!ed !" hot !lood.&i. Gust !ecause had oppt" to do so, doesn t mean that "ou did )e.g., Caruso *

ii. ;vidence6 )1* facts prior to homicide showing ( engaged in %planning& activit" )2* factsa!out prior relationship- motive, which together with )1* or )F* show inference ofreflection rather than rash impulse )F* facts a!out nature of #illing to determine if mannerdone according to preconceived design. $su re8 all three or strong )1* or )2* and )1* or)F*.

e. eople v. Caruso 6 ( #ills (r. after !elieving that he did !ad 5o! and #illed child. of state ofmind6 was the #illing result of premeditation and deli!erationD

i. ?erdict of first degree murder not supported !" weight of the evidence. Lac#s premeditation and deli!eration. Ehile there was time and opportunit" for it, doesn t

appear it actuall" happened. ( suddenl" #illed (r when thought he laughed. :ot a!outwhether ( s !elief was correct !ut rather nature of !elief.ii. %(eli!eration and premeditation impl" the capacit" at the time to thin# and reflect,

sufficient volition to ma#e a choice, and !" the use of these powers to refrain from doinga wrongful act.&

iii. :otes6 Ct s view of capa!ilities of ( clearl" influences its !elief as to whether crime was premeditated-seem to !elieve ( incapa!le.

f. (iminished Capacit"i. 7ctor s a!normal mental condition, less than insanit", will e onerate or result in

conviction of a less serious crime or degree of crime. Law resists gradations of


4/25

responsi!ilit". :ow trend awa" from considerations of diminished capacit". ;vidence ofmental incompetence ma" influence inferences.

ii. Comm. v. 4a++a 6 ( convicted of murder and ro! stranger. See# verdict reduction onaccount of ( s mental retardation and diminished criminal responsi!ilit". Court refuse-won t have %partial crim responsi!ilit"&- point to fact he used victim s CC 9 car asevidence of a!ilit" to formulate and carr" out plans

iii. eople v. Eolff 6 1H " o ( schi+ophr #ills mother after thin#ing necessar" in order toseduce rape some local girls. 1 st attempt fail, tr" again, hide weapon, !ut turn self in andconfess. 1 st degree re8 more than specific intent to #ill !ut rather e tent to which ( couldmaturely and meaningfully reflect on contemplated act. :ot enough here- %vague 9detached&.


5/25

manslaughter or assault, !ut some 5urisdictions allow assault through the mergerdoctrine- not rational* trend towards e panding scope*.

2. 4ust !e a rel close pro imit" in terms of time and distance of the felon" and thehomicide. eriod !egins when actor reach point she could !e prosecuted for anattempt to commit the felon" and continues at least until all elements of crimecompleted.

F. ( can t !e responsi!le for death of accomplice when police #ill accomplice whoinitiated gun !attle since dead accomplice can t !e guilt" of his own murder, so( not vicariousl" guilt". )as opp to Ta"lor where lia!ilit" was !ased on acts ofalive co-( and not dead co-(*.

i . 7!olition of felon" murder 1. 4 C a!andons felon" murder !ut sa"s that rec#lessness and e treme indiff

)char murder* are presumed when actor accomplice engages in or attempt actsthat manifest e treme indifference to value of human life.

.


6/25

1. ; ception6 %Castle (octrine&6 Ehen attac#ed in home place of wor#, canalwa"s use deadl" force. Scope ma" e tend to an" place where "ou are lawfull"

present.2. 'f "ou precipitate violent confrontation, o!liged to retreat if can do so safel"

!efore using deadl" force. 4a" use self-defense if prior to fatal !low, attemptsto and tells attac#er of intent to disengage from altercation.

iv. 'mperfect Self (efense6 :on deadl" aggressor who is the victim of a deadl" responsemust retreat !efore using deadl" force one who #ills another !cs unreasona!l" !elievesthat factual circumstances 5ustif" the #illing )fails to reali+e that non deadl" protectiveforce will suffice or unreasona!l" !elieves that ? is a!out to use deadl" force eventhough intends no harm or non-deadl" harm*.

v. attered Eoman S"ndrome1. Shaffer 6 istor" of ( !eing a!used !" hus!and, vic threaten her, she shoots him

when he comes down stairs. 'f self-defense clear, she wouldn t have !eencharged. 4a" have had a safe avenue of retreat.

2. eople v. umphre" 6 ( convicted of vol manslaughter after shooting hus!andduring course of an a!usive attac#. (a" !efore he d shot at her. TC allow e perttestimon" on !attered women s s"ndrome to !e considered as to necessit" !utont reasona!leness of self-defense

a. 'f did it out of anger, vol manslaughter, if did it out of fear, selfdefense.

!. To !e %perfect self defense& )complete defense* !elief must !esu!5ectivel" reasona!le and fear of imminent harm.


7/25

e. (efense of ropert"i. Can t use force to recover propert" !ut can prevent someone from ta#ing with non-deadl"

force !ut can t use more force than the urgenc" of the occasion re8uires. (eadl" forcenever allowed.

f. (efense of a!itationi.


8/25

i. (ecedent s contri!utor" negligence isn t a defense !ut 5ur" can consider decedent sconduct when det whether ( s act was criminall" negligent )e.g., in vehicularmanslaughter, decedent failed to stop at the red light*.

c. 4isdemeanor-manslaughter i. Some states- an" homicide which results from commission of unlawful act )not felon"*.

ro imate cause is impt limit. 4ust !e an affirmative causal connection.d. (run# driving- negligence per se in some states, so involuntar" manslaughter. $su. Some sort of

connection is needed.e. 4ar"land v. Chapman 6 =ault" landing gear on plane and tr" a !unch of times to fi and have safe

landing, eventuall" a!andon plane, which crashes into house and #ills three. Court claims noreason for ( to have anticipated this. 7ctions reasona!le in light of #nowledge, ris#, efforts, alt s9 e pected outcomes. =ollowed procedure.

i. (iff from civil negligence- re8uire wanton rec#less disregard from human life. 'f deathsaccidental misadventure simple negligence hones error in 5udgment, gross negligenceshouldn t !e found.

ii. ere pro!s no negligence !cs prosecution didn t reall" want to tr" the casef. Criminal :egligence

i. =ein!erg )Sterno*- Sell sterno which #new customers diluted and dran#. Bet strongergrade !" accident and have clear poison warning. F1 deaths of alcs poisoning in thefollowing wee#. Biven proof as to #nowledge and lethalit", is he lia!leD Cumulativeeffect of facts lets ppl disregard victims responsi!ilit". 'f seller aware that !u"er isalcoholic and will drin# it, then grossl" negligent )contesta!le though*.

ii. Bian-cursio v. State 6 4an with T! decides to see chiropractor for treatment > prevsuccessfull" treated !" conventional med. rescri!e fasting. Bet sic# and die 8uic#l". 'fhe d !een treated normall" disease would have !een arrested controlled. Court findculpa!le negligence.

1. 'f "ou claim "ou have the re8uisite #nowledge to !e a healer and don t have itand are grossl" negligent and someone dies, "ou ll !e held accounta!le. Brosslac# of competenc", gross inattention, criminal indifference.

iii. Sweat Lodge Case 6 eople die after alternative sweat lodge treatment. eople warned ofris#s, prepared for pro!lems, let people leave. 'ssue of victim responsi!ilit" !cs the"sought out non-medical treatment. 7ct per se was grossl" negligent. Laden withnormative 5udgment a!out who was the wrongdoer.

iv. urroughs 6 4an diagnosed w leu#emia unsucc treated using trad medicine decides touse alternative treatment.


9/25


10/25

ii. Causa causati- in5ur" the cause of the cause of death. (eath is a natural and foressea!leresult from the act and no intervening )unforeseea!le* act of a third part".

g. Louis 9 Stephenson - commit suicide after assault rape. Can attri!ute !cs %caused& !" ( s !ad act !ut also #ind of a superseding cause.

h. 4ultiple causes6 'f !oth parties commit fatal act, person who ends life is guilt" of homicide andnot person who speeds it up )the" would !e attempted*.

i. atiste 6 ( and dec get into argument, throw !ar stood, see dec reach into poc#et )thin# itis a #nife* and ( shoot him H time. (ec stagger towards (, co-( hit him with gun andshoot him. oth on the hoo# since either of the wounds would have caused death. (2accel !ut (1 fire fatal shot too. To sa" neither caused the death would !e unaccepta!le,

!ut also weird to sa" that it is one encounter i. 4 C 6 Tries to eliminate fortuities so sa"s !ut for causation is enough. 7lso sa"s events can t !e

too remote or accidental to have a 5ust !earing. 5. ale s


11/25


12/25

!.


13/25

1. 'tems attached to land can t !e su!5ect to larcen", !ut can if the" are severed from theland )!ut if go and chop down tree, "ou are first to ta#e possession of it, even if on thevictim s land. 'f "ou came !ac# ne t da" to get it, then it would !e vic s propert".

g. Still larcen" if "ou ta#e ancd carr" awa" the propert" of another even if the victim also had noright to possession. 't s a crime to steal from a thief.

h. ropert" of another- "ou can !e guilt" of stealing if "ou wrongfull" ta#e an"thing that someoneelse has a posessor" interest in )e.g., leased item*.

1. Can have larcen" if "ou rec#lessl" deprive another of his propert" and there is a highli#elihood it will !e destro"ed.

2. :o larcen" if "ou don t have the intent to steal at the time of the ta#ing )e.g., have permission when its given and then decide to ta#e*. $T, !ecomes a continuingtrespass, where ever" moment that "ou retain possession is a new trespassor" ta#inguntil terminates possession.

i. Claim of right6 elief in right ot do or ta#e is not thft !cs of "our !elief in "our presententitlement. 4ust !e careful not to ta#e more or !efore "our due. Can t collect de!t !" force evenif present entitlement.

Rape1. 'ntroduction- Law acting in a social conte t. Tric#iness of se ual relations in general as a realm for law.

a. /eep in mind o!vious distinction of who is criminal and who is victim. istoricall" law was ver"male-dominated. (o male !iases persistD )"es- 4 C is wac#*.

2. State v.


14/25

pro!lem where not all of the evidence is out there, to the ( s detriment. :ormall" witnesses can !ecompelled to testif" even if it is em!arrassing.

@. eople v. Eilliams 6 Similar to sherr" e cept for social class. ( sa" that rape shield law violates his A7 right toeffective cross-e amination. ?ictim and ( #now each other, he gra!s her arms, coKd gra!s other, and ta#es herfrom !ar. Then have se with I ( s. ( claims that she was a prostitute and did it for mone" M no rape. Eants toadmit evidence that she d !een arrested for prostitution A da"s earlier. 7lso have prior se ual relations with 1(.

a. Eeight harm to victim with help to (. Ehat to do with evidence that she d solicited prostitution in the past. (emoni+e victim. Court sa" evidence of prostitution and prior se ual histor" not relevant.

!. Tension !tw rape shield laws and ( s a!ilit" to defend self.10. =ederal


15/25


16/25

i. Gones v. $S6 Tried for shoplifting. Gail time unli#el". leads :B !" reason of insanit". ashearing after and is committed. SCOT$S sa" hearing for commitment after committing acrimes O/ and civil hearing not nec. 7lso sa" he can !e confined until treatment succeedseven if it is much longer than his 5ail time would have !een.

ii. Se Offender Statutes#. (eciding what to do with an offender, who to maintain, who to tr" to reha!ilitate, etc., are

8uestions of social values. To reall" do reha!ilitation, we would have to assume responsi!ilit" for%su!normal s& material and spiritual well-!eing. owever, unli#el" to do that !cs it would involvetreating criminals !etter than other t"pes of unfortunate individuals.

l. Se offender statutes6 7fter sergin sentence, can !e transferred indefinitel" to holding institution.i. $S v. Eeed 6 /ill mailman after random shooting. Committed. 4ust prove that not

su!stantial ris# of release. ave 1 ps"chotic episode !ut otherwise normal. Ehilerecurrence unli#el", more li#el" than in normal person. (C sa" need for continuedconfinement without treatment.

1. These hearing alwa"s conclude need continued treatment. ig fear of wrongfulrelease.

I. 4ista#ea. =act- Ehen should the wrongdoer s conduct !e 5udged acc g to the facts, as the" appeared to him

at the timeD 4ust have !een reasona!le and negatives the mental element necessar" for the crime)e.g., malice aforethought, animus forandi*.

i. Strict lia!ilit" 7ct at peril6 ;.g., !igam" statutor" rape. 'gnorance or mista#e doesn tmatter. :ot popular now. 4 C doesn t li#e, onl" allows for violations )i.e., offenses thatcan t result in imprisonment*.

ii. Gewell 6 deli!erate avoidance of #nowledge as to what was in the trun# of his car )almostdef drugs*- %willful ignorance&- 'f aware of a high pro! of something s e istence,#nowledge will !e imputed.

1. /nowledge if "ou are aware of the fact or correctl" !elieves that the fact e ists,or if "ou are deli!eratel" ignorant )more controversial*

iii. $T, if o!tain heroin !elieveing it is cocaine and are prosecuted for #nowingl" rec g acontrolled su!stance, "ou can still !e convincted !cs error doesn t negate re8 specificintent. Onl" mista#en as to general nature.

iv. 4ista#e of fact not availa!le if actor would !e guilt" of another offense, had thecircumstances !een as "ou thought the" were.

!. Law6 'gnorance of the law is no e cuse, however mista#e as to the legalit" of ownership ofsomething )e.g., "ou !elieve that "ou are the rightful owner* ma" get "ou off.

i. Long 6 Bet 7r#ansas mail order divorce on advice of his law"er. 4inister also consultslaw"er. Turns out divorce invalid and !igam" committed. Loo# for evidence of doing

!est to find out what conduct is lawful and conforming "our conduct to that. 'f loo#s li#e"ou did too much, then ma" suggest that "ou had a 8uestion as to if "our conduct waslawful.

ii. orning 6 awn!ro#er has ela!orate method not to have transactions occur in (C. Boes tothe edge of the alw and goes around it. Lia!le.

iii. (on t want to hold lia!le someone who tries not to !rea# the law and the law surpriseshim, !ut not the person who intentionall" goes to the edge of the law.

iv. $suall" a 8uestion of good faith. :ot t"picall" a defense !ut rather decision not to prosecute.

v. ; ceptions6 reasona!le reliance 9 fair notice. :ot e cused if "ou rel" on "our owninterpr of law even if a reasona!le law-trained person would also have misunderstood it.


17/25


18/25

attendant circumstance )e.g., receive unstolen propert" !elieving it is stolen*. Canultimatel" !e characteri+ed as factual impossi!ilit" )which is not a defense*- usuall" notallowed an"more !cs it is more a 8uestion of semantics.

iv. Could sa" that if prep not a crime, how can a situation !e where no amount of effortcould ma#e the act a crime.

v. $suall" situation where actor s own steps are !ound to !e ineffective )e.g., shootunloaded gun or con5ure* O< where circumstances other than actor s conduct ma#e hisefforts ineffective )shoot loaded gun at a dumm"*. 'n the a!sence of a situation structuredto ma#e loo# possi!le what is impossi!le or an odd actor )e.g., con5urer* shouldn t !e a

pro!lem to ignore the li#elihood of failure. $suall" no less an attempt when6 no propert"to !e ta#en, murder victim not where actor )reasona!l"* e pects him to !e, or that themeans used could not actuall" #ill.

vi. Often distinction made !tw factual and legal impossi!ilit". =actual is when e traneouscircumstances un#nown outside of actor s control prevent consummation of the crim)e.g., tr" to pic# poc#et and no wallet is there*- criminal lia!ilit" is usuall" imposed !csthe person has the intent to commit a crime. Legal impossi!ilit" is where the intendedacts, even if completed, would not !e a crime- appl" when 1.* motive is to perform an actin violation of the law 2* intention to perform a ph"sical act, performance of the act,conse8uence resulting does not amount to a crime. :o crime of attempt when it is legall"impossi!le to commit a crime )i.e., act is not a crime*.

5.


19/25

easil" concealed activit" !cs of mista#e of law )e.g., though sale was illgal when itwasn t*

1. SCOT$S sa"6 One who without more furnishes supplies to an illicit distiller isnot guilt" of conspirac" aeven though is sale ma" have furthered the o!5ect of aconspirac" to which the distiller was a part" !ut of which the supplier had no#nowledge.

ii. (irect Sales co.v. $S6 :arcotics ta!let- sell huge 8uantit" to (r who illegall" distri!ute.


20/25

!.


21/25

histor" of cases where prosecutorial discretion has !een insufficient to provide I th 7mend protection !csof role in law enforcement.i. :ote6 'llegal arrest detention doesn t void su!se8 conviction.

c. 7dversarial hearing is time and resource intensiveUthis is not re8uired for information- sometimeconfrontation and cross-e am might help !ut generall" costs outweigh !enefit. cs not adversarial, thisisn t a %critical stage& where defense counsel is re8uiredUno high pro!a!ilit" of su!stantial harm.

d. ;ncourage fle i!ilit" among states !ut %fair and relia!le det of C is a condition for an" significant pretrial restraint of li!ert"&Udet must !e made !" a 5udicial officer !efore after arrest.

Appointment of Co!nseF. $SC F00I76 7de8uate


22/25

detention and circumstances where it ma" !e sought.


23/25

a!ilit" of accused to defend self. Ehen "ou are arrested, "ou suffer restraints on "our li!ert", so that swhen the protections start.

A. ar#er v. Eingo )$S 1@ 2*6 Set speed" trial criteria. ere Bov see# 1A continuances, ( doesn t complainuntil 11 th. =ree in pu!lic on !ail. 4oved to dismiss indictment. Trial commenced with co-( as chiefwitness, convicted, and given life sentence. Societal !enefits of speed" trial- don t let ( s plead to lesseroffenses, #eep accused and pot dangerous ppl off streets, reduce temptation to 5ump !ail, reduce dela"

!etween arrest and punishment to reha!ilitate. (lea" ma" wor# to defense s advantage !cs witnesses aren tas good. ard to set firm time period, so conte t specific. (ismissal as onl" poss remed" is too harsh.(ecide to have fle i!le !alancing test where consid !ehavior of gov and ( wand assertion failure to assertspeed" trial is one factor among man"6 length of dela", reason for dela", ( assert right, pre5udice to (.ere, while H "ear dela" is e traordinar", the pre5udice was minimal, he didn t want a speed" trial and usedthe motion to game s"stem. :o deprivation.

P ea "ar'ainin'1. ac#ground6 ;nd of 1@H0s where SCOT$S constitutionali+e a lot of police wor#. lea !argaining not o!vi

for !enefit of or (. $sed to !e seen as shad" !ut not standard operating procedure and how a!out @0W ofcases dealt with.

2. LE6 lea is a charade, strictl" a !argain and has nothing to do with repentance. :ot O/ if threat ofviolence, improper promises, misrepresentation.

F. rad" 6 Statute found unconst !cs coerced the plea and put a price on e ercise of right to 5ur". ( claim thatstatute made him afraid of death penalt" )counsel told him that onl" 5ur" trial could impose guilt" plea*, sosa" that his plea was involuntar" and invalid.

a. Test of plea 6 /nowing, voluntar", intelligentl" made. Gust !cs status unconst doesn t mean thatan" plea under it is involuntar".

!. (C in8uired into voluntariness and was found voluntar" so that sufficed. ;ven if the statue was a !ut for cause, this was a calculated plea and he calculated his !est advantage and turned outwrong. Court sa" no evidence that ( was so scared he couldn t thin# rationall" !ut entertain thatas a possi!le ground for involuntariness.

c. Claim that viol H th 7 to encourage guilt" plea through promise higher sentence. Court doesn t !u"it. ;ven if !argain d not diff from an" other who see s advantage to pleaing guilt" )e.g., 5udge

prefer guilt" plea, anticipate some charges dropped*, mutualit" of advantage- d gets lightersentence and conserves 5udicial and prosecutorial resources. F.* state can t force someone to go totrial inherent discretion in sentencing.

I. orden#ircher 6 sa"s that if he peas out he won t pursue F stri#es clause and su!5ect him to mandator" lifesentence.. ; treme diff !tw H "ear plea and pot life sentence under three stri#es. This was a give and ta#enegotiation !etween actors with rel e8ual !argaining power. 7s long as "ou can accept re5ect the offer, O/.SCOT$S !lind to realities of !argaining sentencing.

H. Core issue 6 's it O/ for state to accuse someone of a crime and then !argain a!out what the sentence will !eD The penalt" imposed is instrumental needs of a s"stem rather than desert.

A. O!5ections6a. Left with no su!stantial evidence of the crime, onl" the police report, don t #now what reall"

happened !. 4a#es actual crime and necessar" components seem irrelevant- onl" agreed !argain matterFsc. ( often gets less !enefit than anticipated.d. (efense att" s should fight harder to get a !etter deal than is standard.

. asic (efense6 Ehat else can we doD Can t have a trial for all who are prosecuted. ut shouldn t we

change the process if @0W of cases are dealt with this wa"D Odd to consider our s"stem adversarial if wedepend on this so much.P. Eho !enefits from the length" dela" !efore plea State sets ( up to plea- (efense counsel gets fee up front

no matter what wor# is done. ;asier to 5ustif" high fees for standard deals.@. So long as not error so egregious to suggest counsel incompetent, plea is valid, even if counsel mista#en

a!out validit" constitutionalit" of statue. So long as plea voluntar" O/.

Tria1. 7llen - disruptive defendant removed from courtroom- despite this, did he have a right to !e thereD


24/25

a. rocedure6 Earn him and then tell him he can go !ac# when he can !ehave- up to the 5udgesdiscretion.

!. Benerall" have the right ot hear evidence against "ou- ma" raise pro!lems when don t want to8uestion child witness in front of (.

c. ( also has a dut" to !e present under fed and state rules- O/ as long as ( is there when trial !egins !ut can !e a!sent alter. Court suggests that he has to assist his counsel !ut in realit" usuall" 5ust sits there and ma" help with identification. ( has no oppt" to spea# unless he wants to testif".': man" wa"s, ( is an o!5ect.

2. =aretta 6 State can t force the ( to have a law"er. ( had good reasons for wanting to represent self. Courtstuc# !tw insistence on impt of a law"er to a fair trial )Bideon* and right not to have a law"er.

a. /ind of the same issue as 7lford )letting ( plead guilt" while maintaining innocence*. !. urden on TC 5udge to discuss pro cons of represent self. $su order an attorne" to o!serve

proceedings in case ( changes his mind.c. (issent6 :o const right to represent "ourself. 4ore concerned with guaranteeing a fair trial.

F. 7 7 Standards for (efense6 Control an (irection6 Sa" ( should control and ma#e ultimate decision, !utdoesn t ac#nowledge law"er s e pertise and familiarit" with procedures and actors. retends counsel givesadvice and then ( decides. Since law"er is advising, unli#el" he ll re5ect it.

I. %'ncoherent& role of defense counsel v. re8uiring ( to appear .Tr" to reconcile !" consider the ( counsel ashis client s champion. Onl" a!le to participate in defense during sentencing. ut, this comes too late.; traordinar" role of law"ers in the adversarial trial.

H. 7gurs 6 Eoman #ills man after %romantic interlude& found fighting over a #nife and she sta!!ed him. Sheclaims self-defense. rosecutor doesn t disclose dec s criminal record and ( sa"s that had a dut" todisclose. sa" re8uest never made and didn t have to hand over. automaticall" gets it !ut ( has to gothrough the process.

a. F categories6 1.* rad" )specific re8uest for evidence is ignored*- almost never e cusa!le.Conviction reversed if evidence is material 2.* er5ured testimon" )#nowingl" give falsetestimon"* if ( #nows should ve #nown, then conviction is reversed. F* :o re8uest !oilerplatere8uest- prudent prosecutor will turn stuff over. Otherwise loo# at materialit" in the conte t of theother evidence and decide if would create raise poss of a reasona!le dou!t.

!. Conviction affirmed !cs TC 5udge convinced !e"ond a reasona!le dou!t that ( guilt", !ut Gudgeheard whole case w o evidence and ( was never allowed to use it.

A. Beneral pressure to uphold verdict.. (ut" of prosecutor to see# 5ustice and not 5ust convict. 4ost prosecutors would defer to the court in order

to avoid thorn" ethical issues. ro!lem of it !ecoming more a!out winning and losing than guilt.P. 3oung!lood 6 recursor to (:7 cases. 7wful child rape case. =irst photo '( draws down a curtain as

esta!lishing identit". 4a" !e more tied to a photo than to '(. Guries will convict on !asis of strong '(.=ailure to preserve evidence not violate su!stantive due process unless evidence of !ad faith. ut thismeans depending on a lot of police due diligence. ere seems clear negligence in failure ot preserveevidence.

Ro e of Defense Co!nse1. 'mportance of trust !uilding to get all of the facts !ut "ou don t want to influence their answers and

increase the li#elihood that the" d lie. Can t conceal evidence !ut can t reveal either.2. Gohns v. Sm"th 6 4ust ta#e all tacticall" sound steps even if "ou don t thin# that ( is innocent. 'f "ou #now

client is going to per5ure self, don t put him on the stand.F. :i v. Eh"teside6 er5ur"M#nowingl" testif"ing falsel". Can t participate in per5ur", !ut if witness ma" !e

mista#en, not per5ur" !ut could !e dangerous if their stor" is impeacha!le.I. Sm"th 6 Law"er as sophisticated w o discretion. (rift towards ma that the law allows- law"er s self- protection !cs can t !e critici+ed dou!ted if "ou don t defend vigorousl". 'mpt of euphemism in allowingone to 5ustif".

a. (on t have to ta#e cases that "ou are morall" opposed to, !ut if "ou ta#e it "ou must do the !est"ou can for them. Can t impose the cost of "our moral principles on the client.

H. 4an" points in the process where official role of and ( conflicts with ordinar" moral principles.


25/25

report and certain info must !e contained in it. :o full disclosure and oppt" to challenge now, !ut canreview and o!5ect to information in it. $su A wee#s dela" while presentencing report prepared.

a. 7locution6 ( s oppt" to spea# at sentencing. $suall" comes too late.. Bra"son 6 Gudge o!serve trial and conclude that defense was untrue. 'f "ou thin# ( lied on the stand, "ou

can ta#e that into account on the sentencing.

intro to criminal law outline

Documents