- StudyBlue
- Texas
- University of North Texas
- Criminal Justice
- Criminal Justice 4200
- Kawucha
- Criminal Procedure Final
Criminal Procedure Final
Criminal Justice 4200 with Kawucha at University of North Texas
About this deck
By: Samantha Woodlee
Created: 2011-05-02
Size: 25 flashcards
Views: 111
Created: 2011-05-02
Size: 25 flashcards
Views: 111
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
Dennis
Sign up (free) to study this.
Kirby v Illinois
No right to counsel at police lineups prior to the time the suspect is formally charged with a crime.
US v Wade
A police lineup after the accused has been formally charged with a crime is considered "a critical stage of the proceeding" so the accused has a righ to counsel.
Gilbert v California
Police lineups that are fraught with dangers of suggesstion are invalid becuase they violate the accused right to counsel.
Frye Doctrine
Procedures uses must be sufficiently established to have gained acceptance into the particular field in which it belongs
Daubert Doctrine
Replaces Frye, Federal cases not allow the expert testimony pertaining to scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that will assist the judge or jury in understanding the evidence or in determining the fact at issue.
Spano v New York
The use of deception as a means on psychological pressue to induce a confession is a violaton of the defendants right's
Escobedo v Illinois (1964)
Def was interrogated for several hours without seeing his lawyer. He was denied the right to counsel, becuase when the investigation is no longer considered a general inqury into the unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, no statement elicited by the police during the investigation may be used.
Miranda v Arizona (1966)
Law enforcement officers must give suspects the floowing warning whenever this is a CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION! You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used aganist you in a court of law, you have a right to an attorney, is you cannot afford one you will be appointed one prior to questioning, you may terminate this interview at any time.
Dickerson v Illinois
declared Miranda is Constitutional Law!
Berkmer v McCarty
A person subject to custodial interrogation must be given the miranda warnings regardless of the nature or severity of the offense and whether the person goes to jail or not.
Missouri v Siebert
The court ruled a 2nd statement as the result of an 1st invalid statement should be supressed.
Brewer v Williams (1977)
The Christian Burial Case is an example of a "Functional Equivlant" interrogation.
Rhode Island v Innis
The defendant left the gun around a handicap school, the cops stated it would be bad if someone found it, this is not a functional equivalent of an interrogation.
Edwards Rule
Once a suspect has invoked the right to remain silent until he consults a lawyer the police cannot question him for the same offense unless they initiated futher comunication.
Moran v Burbine
There is a difference in unethical behavior and unconstitutional behavior. Police didnt tell the guy that his attoney was there but the evidence was allowed anyway.
Willaims v Flordia
said that it does NOT have to be a 12 memebr jury to be constitutional
Ballew v Georgia
Court upheld a 6 member jury but no less than that
Apodaca v Oregon
Court upheld a 10-2 vote for conviction.
Johnson v Louisiana
9-3 vote for a conviction is constitutional.
Barker v Wingo
4 ways to decide is the right to a speedy trail has been vioated
- Lenght of delay
- Reason for delay
- assertion or nonassertion of rights
- Prejudice to the defendant
Powell v Alabama (1932) Federal
Person has the right to counsel even though he may not be guilty, but he faces the danger of conviction becuase he does not know how to establish innocence.
Gideon v Wainwright (1963) State
The 6th right to counsel is applicable to state becuase of the 2nd clause in the 14th it applies every time a def is charged with felony
In re gault (1967) Juveniles
Even though juveniles proceedings are not criminal, they are entitled to a court-appointed counsel if the proceedings can lead to commitment and an institutional in which the juvenile's freedom is limited.
Kastigar v US
Need to only grant use and derivative ue immunity to compel an unwilling witness to testify.
Blockburger v US
2 part test to determine double jeopardy
- Same element test
- Lesser included offense
About this deck
By: Samantha Woodlee
Created: 2011-05-02
Size: 25 flashcards
Views: 111
Created: 2011-05-02
Size: 25 flashcards
Views: 111
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
Dennis