Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Stack #917991
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| exclusionary rule | the gov. throws out illegally obtained evidence in the case against the defendant. (moost used remedy) |
| defense of entrapment | the gov. dismisses cases against defendants who committed crimes they wouldn't have committed if law enforcement officers hadn't encouraged them to commit. |
| encouragement | is a widely used police tactic directed mainly at consensual crimes, like offical corruption, and crimes without complaining victims like illegal porn, drugs, and prositution. |
| Probative evidence | "good evidence" or evidence that proves or helps to prove that defendants committed a crime. |
| "bad methods" | police actions of obtaining evidence that violate constitutional rights. |
| 4th amendment | ban on unreasonable search and seizures |
| 5th amendment | ban on coerced self incriminating statements |
| 6th amendment | right to counsel |
| 5th and 14th amendment | right to due process |
| The court broadened the "weeks rule" in silverthrone | the expansion of the exclusionary rule to ban the use of evidence indirectly based on an illeagal gov. action is called "fruit of posionous tree doctrine". (the gov. should not be able to better their case after violating constitutional rights) |
| mapp v. ohio | the exclusionary rule extended to the states in the case of Dollree Mapp |
| 3 justifications for the exclusionary rule: | 1. Constitutional right 2. Judicial integrity 3. Deterrence |
| prophylactic rule | a protective procedure against violations of constitutional rights. |
| exceptions to the exclusionary rule: | 1. collateral use 2.cross examination 3.attenuation of the taint of unconstitutional official conduct 4.independent source 5.inevitable discovery 6.the "good faith exception" |
| collateral use exception | allows the use of illegally obtained evidence in nontrial proceedings. proceedings related to the case but not the trial of the case. |
| collateral proceedings | proceedings "off to the side" of the main case. such as: bail hearings, preliminary hearings, grand jury proceedings, and some habeas corpus proceedings. |
| case in chief | the only part the exclusionary rule applies to. It means the part of the trial where the gov. presents its evidence to prove the defendants guilt. Case in chief does not include cross examination by defense. |
| impeach | undermine the believability of a testimony. Walder v. US |
| attenuation exception | says the illegally obtained evidence can come in if the poisonous connection between illegal police actions and the evidence they got illegally from their actions weakens enough. |
| independent source exception | when an officer violates the constitution looking for evidence and then in a totally seperate action gets the same evidence lawfully. This is admissable |
| inevitable discovery exception | while acting within the constitution, evidence would have eventually been found anyway. |
| good faith exception | this exception allows the government to use evidence obtained from searches based on unlawful search warrants if officers honestly and reasonably believed they were lawful. |
| keeping good evidence from juries_________? | can set criminals free |
| the social costs of letting guilty criminals go free by excluding credible evidence that would convict them is ________? | not as high as we may believe |
| how many criminal cases will be dismissed because the police seized evidence illegally? | less than 1/10th of 1% of criminal cases |
| what is the strongest argument for the exclusionary rule? | to help ensure judicial integrity |
| how many lawsuits against police on charges of illegal searches and seizures? | few thousand |
| encouragement most likely to occur when officers? | 1. pretend they're victims 2.intend to entice suspects to commit crimes. 3.communicate the enticement to suspects. 4.influence the decision to commit crimes. |
| active encouragement usually requires tactics: | 1.asking targets over and over to commit crime 2.developing personal relationships with targets 3.appealing personally to targets. 4.supplying of helping targets get contraband |
| subjective test of entrapment | focuses on whether defendants had the predisposition to commit the crimes. |
| defense of entrapment if: | 1.they had no desire to commit the crime before the gov. encouragement. 2.The gov. encouragement caused them to commit the crime |
| The circumstances the government CAN use: | 1.active solicitation 2.prior criminal convictions 3.prior criminal activity/with no conviction 4.defendants criminal reputation 5.by any other adequate means |
| objective test of entrapment | also called hypothetical person test, focuses on whether the actions of gov. officers would get a hypothetical "reasonable person" to commit a crime. Doesn't focus on predisposition. |
| In the CJ system criminal intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If police officers honestly believe they were enforcing the law and not committing a crime then they are not ____________________? | criminally guilty |
| who can plantiffs sue for money damages? | 1.individual law enforcement officers 2.officers' superiors(chiefs) 3.law enforcement agencies 4.gov. units in charge of officers and departments |
| constitutional tort (bivens) actions | lawsuits against individual federal law enforcement officers |
| federal tort claims act (FTCA) actions | lawsuits against the federal gov. for their officers' constitutional torts |
| when were individuals allowed to sue federal officers for violations of their constitutional right? | 1971 (Bivens case) |
| constitutional tort | a private right to sue federal officers for violations of plaintiffs' constitutional rights. |
| Bivens actions had to prove 2 elements: | 1.Officers were acting "under color of authority" or the apperance of power. 2.Officers actions deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right. |
| according to the qualified immunity or "good faith" defense: | The plaintiff doesn't automatically get to sue the officer. 2 elements: 1.their action meets the test of "objective legal reasonableness". 2.reasonableness measured by legal rules established when officer acted |
| doctrine of sovereign immunity | a holdover from the days when kings didnt have to appear in court, governments can be sued without their consent. |
| What makes the FTCA actions attractive to plaintiffs? | government's "deep pockets" |
| torts | most illegal acts by state police, county shefiff, and their deputies, and local police officers and chiefs, meaning plaintiffs can sue individual officers for damages for acts like assault, false arrest, and false imprisonment,tresspassing |
| defense of official immunity | limits officers liability for their torts. "a public official exercising his judgement of descretion cannot be held liable unless there is malicious intent. |
| civil rights act actions | allow plaintiffs to go into federal courts to sue state police officers and their agency heads for violating constitutional rights. |
| Plaintiffs have to prove 2 elements similar to those in bivens tort actions: | 1.officers acted "under color of state law" which includes all acts done within the scope of their employment. 2.Officers actions caused deprivation of plaintiff's rights gauranteed by US constitution. |
| doctrine of respodeat superior | state and local governments and their agencies are liable for the torts of their employees but only if the employees committed the torts during the course of their employment. |
| defense of vicarious official immunity | means police departments and local governments can claim the official immunity of its employees |
| Vicarious immunity test elements: | 1.the need for effective law enforcement 2.the need to avoid putting the public at risk. |
| no-affirmative-duty-to-protect rule | plaintiffs cannot sue individual officers or government units for failing to stop private prople from violating their rights by inflicting injuries on them. |
| special relationship exception | Special relationship is Custody. when someone is in custody, the agency is obligated to protect them (jail, prison ect) |
| state created danger exception 3 elements | 1.officers actions created a special danger of violent harm to plaintiff 2.officer knows actions would encourage plaintiff to rely on his actions. 3.danger created by officers actions made plaintiff vulnerable to danger and harm. |
| absolute immunity | immunity from civil suits. they cant be sued even if they act maliciously and in bad faith. Only remedy is to impeach or not vote them back into office. |
| functional immunity | prosecuters immunity depends on the function they're performing at the time of the misconduct. when they are advocates they have absolute immunity. when they are administrators they have qualified immunity |
| 3 major weaknesses when suing officers and governments: | 1. They are difficult and expensive to pursue. Most cant afford, and the ones that can must endure long hard legal battle because police agencies rarely settle 1983 suits. |
| 2.The supreme court has severely limited plaintiffs legal capacity to get court orders to stop police techniques. | |
| 3. Juries are more likely to believe police officers instead of plaintiffs. | |
| 2 types of administrative review: | 1.Internal affairs units (IAU) which review police misconduct by special officers inside police departments. 2.External civilian review, which review complaints against police with participation of individuals who aren't police officers. |
| internal review consists of 4 successive stages: | 1.Intake 2.Investigation 3.Deliberation 4.Disposition |
| Disposition of excessive force complaints | 10.1% sustained, 17.4% not sustained, 35.3% exonerated, 33.7% unfounded |
| If the IAU supervisor approves of investigation, he approves complaints go to decision making or deliberation stage. 4 possible decisions can be made: | 1.Unfounded(Act didnt take place) 2.Exonerated(act took place, but acts were justified/lawful) 3.Not sustained(not enough evidence) 4.sustained(enough evidence to prove alleged complaint) |
| recommended disiplinary actions ranked from least to most severe: | 1.reprimanded 2.written reprimand 3.transfer 4.retraining 5.counseling 6.suspension 7.demotion 8.fine 9.dismissal |
| Types of external review: | 1.initial investigation to collect facts 2.review of investigation reports 3.recommendation for dispostion to chief 4.review of decisions made by chief |
| effectiveness of civilian review: | 1.maintain effective control of police misconduct. 2.provide resolutions 3.preserve public confidence in police 4.influence polce management by providing feedback. |
| Police can do all of the following before they take suspects to court (Sanders v city of Houston 1982 | 1. complete paperwork 2. search the suspect 3. conduct inventory search 4. inventory property found 5. fingerprint the suspect 6.photograph the suspect 7. check for a possible prior criminal record 8.test laboratory samples 9. interrogatethe suspe |
| 10. check an alibi 11. conduct a lineup 12. compare the crime to similar crimes | |
| County of riverside v. McLaughlin | US supreme court provided guidelines for how long jurisdictions can hold suspects before proving they have probable cause to detain them |
| Criminal complaint | the document that formally charges defendants with specific crimes |
| criminal complaint | authorizes magistrates to conduct the first appearance |
| magistrate completes four tasks at first appearance | 1. inform defendants of charges against them 2. inform defendants of their constitutional rights 3. set bail or detain suspects 4. appoint attorneys for indigent defendants |
| citation release | charged with pett offenses are released without ever appearing before judges |
| ROR | released on recognizance --their promise to appear in court on their court date |
| money bonds | defendants are relased as soon as money is put up , come in several forms |
| excessive amounts | 1. seriousness of offense 2. amount of evidence against the defendant 3. defendant's family ties, employment, financial resources, character, and mental condition 4.length of the defendant's residence in the community |
| 5. defendant's criminal history 6. defendant's prior record for appearing and/or jumping bail | |
| preventive detention | allows judge to deny bail to defendants who might intimidate, hurt, and terrorize victims and witnesses or who might commit new crimes |
| Bail Reform Act of 1984 | authorizes federal courts to jail arrested defendants when ajudge determines after a hearing, that no condition of release would "reasonably" guarantee the appearance of the defendant and the safety of the community |
| Bell v. wolfish 1979 | U S Supreme court held that jailed defendants awaiting trial have constitutional rights but they're severely limited |
| retained counsel | a lawyer paid for by the client |
| appointed counsel | lawyers for people who can't afford to hire lawyers |
| indigent defendants | defendants too poorto hire their own lawyers |
| counsel pro bono | lawyers willing to represent clients at no charge |
| public defenders | permanent defenders paid by the publi to defend poor clients |
| criminal stages and the right to counsel | investigative stop no frisk for weapons no arrest no search following arrest no custodial interrogation yes lineup before formal charge no lineup after formal charge yes |
| first appearance no grand jury review/prelim hearing yes arraignment yes pretrial hearings yes trial (chap 13) yes appeal/collateral attack (ch 14) yes | |
| stages of criminal proceedings | shows the stages in the criminal process and indicates the ones the US Supreme court has declared critical stages |
| Leading right to counsel cases | Powell v. Alabama appointed counsel for poor, illiterate, ignorant,isolated defendants in state capital cases |
| Johnson v Zerbst appointed counsel in federal cases at trial (not before or after) | |
| Bett v. Brady appointed counsel in state cases under "special circumstances | |
| Gideon v. Wainwright appointed counsel in state felony cases (overruled Betts v.s Brady) | |
| Argersinger v. Hamlin appointed counsel in any offense punishable by incarceration | |
| Scott v Illinois no right to counsel for sentences that don't result in actual jail time | |
| authorized imprisonment standard | courtspecifically addressed the question of whether the right to assigned counsel extends to offenses where imprisonment is authorized but not required |
| actual imprisonment standard | that don't actually result in prison sentences |
| indigence | defendants who can't afford to hire a lawyer |
| to determine | 1. poor defendants don't have to be completely destitute |
| 2. earnings and assets count; help from friends and relatives doesn't | |
| 3. actual, not potential, earnings are the measure | |
| 4. state can tap defendant's future earnings to get reimbursement for the costs of counsel, transcripts, and fees for expert witnesses and investigators | |
| all defendants | have the right to "effective counsel" to defend them |
| only those who can afford to hire a lawyer | have a lawyer of their own choice. that's about 10 percent of all criminal defendants; the remaining 90 percent have the right to effective counsel but not of their choosing |
| mockery of justice standard | under this standard only lawyers whose behavior is so shocking that it turns the trial into a "joke" are constitutionally ineffective |
| when one defendant claimed he got ineffective representation because his lawyer slept through the trial | judge said you have a right to a lawyer, that doesn't mean that you have a right to one who's awake. That decision was affirmed by the reviewing court |
| reasonably competent attorney standard | according to this standard, judges measure lawyers' performance against the "customey skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under simila circumstances |
| two-pronged effective counsel test | to evaluate the effectiveness of counse. Announced in Strickland v. Washington |
| US supreme court | reversed, applying its new two-pronged test of ineffective counsel. |
| first prong, the reasonableness prong | defendants have to prove that their lawyer's performance wasn't reasonably competent, meaning that the lawyer was so deficient that she "was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the 6th amendment |
| if defendant proves his lawyer's performance was unreasonable | he still has to prove the second prong of the teset |
| prejudice prong of the resonable competence test | under the prejudice prong, defendants have to prove that their lawyer's incompetence was probably responsible for their conviction |
| contrasts between the preliminary hearing and grand jury review | preliminary hearing: 1. held in public 2. adversarial hearing 3. judge presides 4. judge determines the facts 5. defendants and their lawyers may attend |
| grand jury review 1. secret proceeding 2.only the government's case is presented 3. prosecutor presides 4. grand jurors decide the facts 5. neither defendants nor their lawyers may attend | |
| criminal information | written formal charge made by prosecutors without a grand jury indictment. they test their case at a preliminary hearing before a judge |
| indictment | they test the government's case by presenting it to a grand jury for grand jury review |
| true bill | returned by grand jury records the number of grand jurors voting for indictment |
| grand jurors | citizens selected to serve a term |
| binds | binds over the defendant; that is he sends the case on for trial |
| bind-over standard | there's enough evidence for the judge to decide to go to trial |
| probable cause to bind over | |
| prima facie case rule | according to this standard the judge can bind over a defendant if the prosecution presents evidence that could convict if the defense doesn't rebut it at triat |
| directed verdict rule | decide if there's enough believable evidence to send the case to trial |
| Federal grand juries | 16 to 23 jurors |
| Federal grand jurors | must 1. be US citizens 2. be 18 or over 3. reside in the jurisdiction 4. have no felony convictions 5. speak, write and read English 6. suffer from no physical impairments that might hamper their participation, such as impaired hearing or vision |
| charge the grand jury | calls to action against specific dangers, duties, responsibilities, warnings about secrecy, admonitions to protect the innocent and condemn the guilty |
| bench trials | trials without juries, in which judges find the facts--jeopardy kicks in when the court begins to hear evidence |
| government can reprosecute for the same offense | if the judge dismissed the case or ordered a mistrial because dismissal "serves the ends of justice |
| manifest necessity doctrine | serves the ends of justice |
| hung jury | a jury unable to reach a verdict |
| dual sovereignty doctrine | a crime arising out of the same facts in one state is not the same crime in another state. this also holds when the same conduct is a crime under both state and federal law |
| four elements make up the balance | 1. length of the delay 2. reason for the delay 3. defendant's assertion of his or her right to a speedy trial 4. prejudice (harm) the delay causes to the defendant's case |
| dismissal without prejudice | allows a new prosecution for the same offense |
| dismissal with prejudice | terminates the case with the provision that it can't be prosecuted again |
| government has to start prosecution | within 30 days after arrest (60 days if there's no grand jury in session); arraign defendants within 10 days after filing indictments or informations; and bring defendants to trial within 60 days following arraignment |
| why do defendants give up their right toa trial in the place where the crime was committed? | because they believe they can't get an impartial public trial in that location |
| when the courts rule on the motion | they balance the right to an impartial trial. In that respect, changing venue reflects the interest in obtaining a proper result in the individual case--prejudiced jurors can't find the truth |
| reasonable-likelihood of prejudice test | requires courts to balance 4 elements in a change of venue case 1. kind and amount of community bias that endancers a fair trial |
| 2. size of the community where jury panels are selected | |
| 3. details and seriousness of the offense | |
| 4. status of the victim and the accused | |
| actual prejudice test | to determine whether to change the venue or take less drastic measures |
| Silverthorne | |
| Wolf | |
| Mapp | |
| Weeks | |
| Aglenello |
Created by:
jarrodsmith