Capital Punishment

Criminal Justice 1 with Mcdonald at Westfield State College

About this deck

By: Thomas Donovan
Created: 2010-12-08
Size: 22 flashcards
Views: 61

About StudyBlue

STUDYBLUE makes things that make you better at school. Things like online flashcards with photos and audio. Things like personalized quizzes and friendly reminders about when (and what) to study next. Think of it as a digital backpack™: access to all of your study materials online and on your phone. STUDYBLUE exists to make studying efficient and effective for every student, for free. Join us.

“Simply amazing. The flash cards are smooth, there are many different types of studying tools, and there is a great search engine. I praise you on the awesomeness.”
Dennis

Sign up (free) to study this.

Godfrey v. GA

Issue- are all catch phrases constitutionally vague?

Holding- Yes

Rationale- State courts have to define the terms they use

Maynard v. Cartwright

shoots husband and wife wife has her throat cut too, she lives long enough to identify the killer, is this especially heinous? Yes the woman suffers

-Still too vague does not get DP

Arave v. Creech

Utter disregard for human life, in order to be given death penalty you have to be a monster (callous, disregard life, cold blooded) he beat tjhis guy to death on a dare, and it was unprovoked and emotionless.

-gets DP because this was not vague

Future Dangerousness

1. Prior Record

2. Motive

3. Mental State

4. Drugs and Alcohol

-Past abuse

-Age

-Gender

Barefoot v. Estelle

Issue- can you allow DP on future dangerousness assumptions?

Holding- Yes

Rationale- you can bring in someone to talk on your behalf it was just him that was poor and could not afford it.

-This case was hypotheticals, the guy that made the hypothesis knows very little about the case but still made the assumption.

-the leading Psych eval guy said 2/3 predictions are wrong.

Ake v. OK

Issue- is there a right to psychiatric treatment?

Holding- Yes

Rationale- You have a constitutional right, you need to have significant showing that this person is insane and needs psychiatric help.

Lockett v. Ohio

Shes mentally slow not retarded, she is get away driver, gets slammed with the DP, she refuses plea bargain and gets the DP. Ohio makes new statute:

1. Victim is to blame- did the pawn shop owner cause any harm or provoke the crime?

2. Duress, coerced, strong provocation- did anyone make her do it?

3. Mentally Ill-

Her DP was overturned SC said you cannot hide her character, she is young and slow.

Lockett v. Ohio Continued

You cannot forbid:

1. Character, Age, Rehab

2. Prior Record

3. Circumstances of Offense

Issue- can the state limit mitigating circumstances?

Holding- yes,

Rationale- they must limit them to the three, they are relevant and must come into play.

Eddings v. OK

Issue- Is childhood shittyness relevent

Holding- Yes

Rationale- It can be mitigating but in this case he was still given the DP

Skipper v. SC

Issue- Is prison adjustment relevant to bring up as a mitigating circumstance?

Holding- Yes

Rationale- Prison adjustment is relevant in case involving future dangerousness

Delo v. Lashley

Issue- Do you need to supply proof of a prior record?

Holding- Yes

Rationale- You can't just say you don't have a criminal record and not submit proof

Gideon v. Wainwright

Landmark case for the 6th Amendment

-bill of rights only applies to Federal Gov. at this point

-This case provides people with council if they cannot afford it Federal or State

In re Gault

Miranda Rights for Juveniles

-right to counsel

-Self-incrimination

Douglas v. California

-Every criminal has constitutional right to lawyer in direct appeal

Argersinger v. Hamlin

Misdemeanors

PA v. Finley

How can it be meaningful counseling if were not getting a lawyer?

-We are not supplying you with a lawyer passed direct appeal

Caldwell v. Miss

Truely Awesome Responsibility Case:

-Defense Lawyer stresses to jury that their decision could end a mans life

-Prosecution says its bogus and that the juries decision is not the final one

-Prosecution is lying in a way just to try to get the jury to feel not responsible

-SC says jury must know it is awesome responsibility, They agree with Defense Attorney

Darden v. Wainwright

Issue- Is prosecuting misconduct unfair?

Holding- No

Rationale- He would have gotten DP anyway, prosecutor gets a slap on the wrist

Simmons v. S.C.

Issue- Does the Judge have to specify what "Life or Death" means?

Holding- Yes

Rationale- Life did not mean life, it meant LWOP, judge has to tell the jury that

McClensky v. Kemp

McC argues that GA DP is unconstitutional by the 14th amend.

-Baldus study on GA's Murders

you are 4.3 times more likely to get DP if you kill a white victim

-SC says under the 14th there needs to be powerful discrimination against the defendant, you killed a cop your getting the DP, No 8th amend violation, he loses and gets DP.

Strickland v. Washington

Says he had ineffective couseling

-SC says lawyer did a good job

-TEST FOR INEFFECTIVENESS-

lawyers performance was lousy- Was the lawyers performance reasonable by common standards
Lawyers Performance Prejudice the Defendant- is there a real possibility that the outcome would have been different had he gotten a good lawyer?

Wiggins v. Smith

Issue- Did hes lawyers performance effect the outcome of the trial?

Holding- Yes

Rationale- They did not consider his mitigating factors as well as they should have, his childhood was bad enough

About this deck

By: Thomas Donovan
Created: 2010-12-08
Size: 22 flashcards
Views: 61

About StudyBlue

“Simply amazing. The flash cards are smooth, there are many different types of studying tools, and there is a great search engine. I praise you on the awesomeness.”
Dennis