Home > Preview
The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
The American Court System
- Most legal issues are resolved in state trial courts
- the courts at the lowest tier in a state's court system
Amer. CJS designed to incorporate the priciple of
- Basic fairness in three main gov. groups:
- Law enforcement
Define Preliminary hearing
- Is used to determine whether probable cause exists to believe that the offense charged in the information has been committed by the defendant.
- The hearing officer considers the evidence and reaches a decision on the issue of probable cause.
Miranda v. Arizona
- Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which resulted in a signed, written confession. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnaping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.
- The police clearly violated Miranda's 5th Amendment right to remain silent, and his 6th Amendment right to legal counsel
Define Nolo Contendere
A plea by which a defendant in a criminal prosecution accepts conviction as though a guilty plea had been entered but does not admit guilt.
Structure of the Federal Court System
Structure of the Federal Court System(2)
- is to avoid unduly prolonging litigation by proving and disproving facts which do not really matter to the substance of the litigation. In other words, the collateral evidence rule is a rule of trial efficiency.
- they are inadmissible in evidence
- the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to make an arrest, to conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest, etc. when criminal charges are being considered.
- It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed.
- This term comes from the Fourth Amendment
Warrant of arrest
is a warrant issued by a judge on behalf of the state, which authorizes the arrest and detention of an individual, or the search and seizure of one's property.
Searches by school officials
- The Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures. Does this apply to students at school? Yes. Does it mean that your locker or backpack are off-limits to school personnel? No.
- Although the court recognized that students have privacy rights at school, these rights are balanced with the school′s need to maintain an environment where learning can take place. The court held that the standard to be applied in school searches is that of reasonableness.
Effect of false arrest
- Is a common law tort, where a plaintiff alleges he or she was held in custody without probable cause, or without an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.
- Possible to sue law enforcement officials for false arrest
Define The exclusionary rule
a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant'sconstitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law
Search warrant requirements
- A warrant is given to government agents to pursue their official duties without violating the Fourth Amendment.
- A search warrant cannot be issued to a private citizen
- A search warrant cannot be given unless it is based on probable cause. Read more: Requirements for a Search Warrant
- A search warrant must include a sworn statement by the government agent, or his representative, seeking the warrant that has enough information to allow the court to make an independent determination of probable cause.
- A search warrant cannot be given unless it gives a good description of what the government intends to search.
6 Exceptions to the warrant requirement
- Search Incident to Lawful Arrest
- Plain View Exception
- Stop & Frisk
- Automobile Exception
- Emergencies/Hot Pursuit
Issues related to consent searches
- Reference to a Warrant
- Use of Deception
- Limiting the Scope of the Consent
- Third Party Consents
is a person who provides privileged information about a person or organization to an agency
Types of Surveillances
- may be crucial in establishing eyewitness testimony that a defendant committed a crime.
- Several types of pre-trial identification exist: showups, lineups, and photo arrays being the most common.
rules of civil procedure don't apply until lawsuit has begun
Right to attorney
Fourteenth Amendment to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to afford to pay their own attorneys, extending the identical requirement made on the federal government under the Sixth Amendment.
Info exchanged between the party to allow them to evaluate their positions prior to trial
Discovery follows ___ and usually leads to ___
- 1 strict court rules as to what is allowed
- 2 settlement
What are 4 ways to request or obtain info during discovery?
- 1 Interrogatories
- 2 Request for production of documents
- 3 deposition
- 4 physical or mental evaluation
Penalty for non-compliance
Roles and responsibilities of:Prosecutor
Roles and responsibilities of:defense attorney
Roles and responsibilities of: judge
Qualifications of a juror
- be a United States citizen;
- be at least 18 years of age;
- reside primarily in the judicial district for one year;
- be adequately proficient in English to satisfactorily complete the juror qualification form;
- have no disqualifying mental or physical condition;
- not currently be subject to felony charges punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;
- and never have been convicted of a felony (unless civil rights have been legally restored)
Escobedo v. Illinois
was a United States Supreme Court case holding that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth Amendment
Terry v. Ohio
was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion
Florida v. J.L. (1995)
held that a police officer may not legally stop and frisk anyone based solely on an anonymous tip that simply described that person's location and what he or she might look like but that did not furnish information as to any illegal conduct that the person might be planning.
Payton v. N.Y(1980)
Payton and related case law establish that the principle that a person in a home, particularly his or her own, is entitled to Constitutional protections of due process under the Fourth Amendment not afforded to persons in automobiles, as per Whren v. United States, or to persons in public,
Weeks v. U.S.
- was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- It also prevented local officers from securing evidence by means prohibited under the federal exclusionary rule and giving it to their federal colleagues.
Mapp v. Ohio
was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures,"
U.S. v. Leon
was a search and seizure case in which the Supreme Court of the United States created the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule.
Chimel v. CA
- is a Supreme Court of the United States case handed down in 1969. In the case, the Court held that police officers arresting a person in his or her home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, although they can search the area within immediate reach of the person.
- The rule relating to searches incident to a lawful arrest established in this case is known as the Chimel rule.
Carroll v. U.S.
- (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which upheld that the warrantless search of an automobile is known as the automobile exception.
- The case has also been used to increase the scope of warrantless searches.
New Jersey v. T.L.O.
- (1985), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the constitutionality of a search of a public high school student for contraband after she was caught smoking.
- A subsequent search of her purse revealed drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and documentation of drug sales. She was charged as a juvenile for the drugs and paraphernalia found in the search. She fought the search, claiming it violated her Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches.
- The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, held that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Illinois v. Gates
- (1983), is a Fourth Amendment case
- probable cause was achieved for the warrant under the new "totality-of-the-circumstances" standard because the investigation by DEA and Detective Mader would have, on its own, been probable cause for a search warrant.