Ethics in Criminal Procedure, Law Assignment Homework Help

User Generated

WbuaJvafyb

Business Finance

Description

Write a paper detailing the significance of ethics in criminal justice and criminal procedure. In your paper:

  1. Summarize your working definition of ethics.
  2. Define ethics within the context of criminal justice.
  3. Compare ethics in law versus real life.
  4. Examine the need for equal treatment of all people in the criminal justice system.
  5. Describe the major safeguards provided by criminal procedure.


The paper must be three to four pages in length (excluding title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style. You must use at least two scholarly sources in addition to the textbook to support your claims. Cite your sources within the text of your paper and on the reference page. For information regarding APA, including samples and tutorials, visit the Ashford Writing Center, located within the Learning Resources tab on the left navigation toolbar.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

2 Digital Vision/Thinkstock The Elements of a Crime Learning Objectives After reading this chapter and studying the materials, you should be able to: 1. Explain the format of criminal statutes. 2. Identify the components of a crime. 3. Define the culpable mental states. 4. Identify and describe the criminal defenses. wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 29 2/25/13 11:51 AM CHAPTER 2 Section 2.1  How to Read and Analyze a Criminal Statute 2.1  How to Read and Analyze a Criminal Statute T he drafting of a criminal statute is a tedious and complicated process, because if it is to accomplish the objective of social control, citizens and law enforcement personnel must understand it. Additionally, the law must pass constitutional scrutiny, because appellate courts have the power to invalidate a law if it is determined to violate state or federal constitutions. Indeed, law enforcement officers, lawyers, judges, courts, and ultimately, the people interpret and scrutinize laws. For this reason, the language used to draft criminal statutes is critical to the process. The Format of a Criminal Statute Criminal statutes are codified, which means that lawmakers in a particular jurisdiction have passed laws and included them in an official document. The criminal laws of the federal system are codified in the U.S. Code. Likewise, each state has its own code. The name of the codified laws may vary from state to state. In Tennessee, statutes are called the Tennessee Code Annotated. The Ohio Revised Code contains the criminal laws for the state of Ohio. In the commonwealth of Kentucky, the criminal laws are called the Kentucky Revised Statutes. In other words, each state has its own naming convention. But in all cases, they include the written statutes. The written laws for a particular jurisdiction will consist of multiple books. A visit to a law library would yield these books, which include the U.S. Code as well as each set of state laws. However, in recent years most state legislatures have also posted their statutes on the Internet. That has made legal research easier, because the Internet offers access to the most up-to-date statutory information. Consider This: Resources for State and Federal Criminal Statutes The following websites offer information on selected federal and state criminal statutes: The U.S. Code: http://143.231.180.80/browse/&edition=prelim California Penal Code: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.html/pen_table_of_contents.html Florida Statutes: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display _Index&Title_Request=XLVI#TitleXLVI Montana Code Annotated: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca_toc/45.htm Ohio Revised Code: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc Pennsylvania Crimes Code: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/htm/18/18.htm wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 30 (continued) 2/25/13 11:51 AM CHAPTER 2 Section 2.1  How to Read and Analyze a Criminal Statute Consider This: Resources for State and Federal Criminal Statutes (continued) Examining the various codes reveals that each jurisdiction has its own unique numbering system. While that may seem confusing, the numbering systems are designed to provide the reader with a logical approach to examining the statutes. The codes typically use some type of outlined numerical system that contains titles and numbers. Each code is broken into major categories under which laws relating to that topic are found. You will often find a title or chapter addressing Criminal Law or Crimes. There might be one on Family Law or even Parks and Wildlife. If you go to the Topic Area of Criminal Law, it will likely be divided into smaller topics, such as Crimes Against Persons or Theft Related Offenses. While the names and numbers may from vary state to state, they are usually pretty easy to traverse. As you peruse the above codes, try to find laws pertaining to the following crimes: Montana: Burglary Ohio: Aggravated Murder Pennsylvania: False Imprisonment United States (Federal): Treason Though the organization of the criminal code varies in each jurisdiction, there are common threads in all of the crimes. They will all identify the offender, the required mental state of the offender, the action taken, causation, the victim if necessary, and a penalty clause. Before you examine those components, it helps to understand the legal language used in the criminal law. AFP/Getty Images In October 2010 President Barack Obama signed Rosa’s Law—named for Rosa Marcellino, a young girl with Down syndrome—which replaced offensive and outdated language in federal statutes. Many state legislatures are following suit by enacting bills that replace the use of terms such as mental retardation with intellectual disability. wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 31 The Language of the Law Because criminal statutes are subject to considerable scrutiny and interpretation, lawmakers often use technical and legal language to write criminal laws. As a result, people untrained in the law may have difficulty understanding the language. Interestingly, two of the simplest words can cause the most confusion: or and and. These small words make a big difference in determining, among other things, whether a defendant has committed a crime. As you will see as we work through this chapter, an offender must meet all of the required elements in order to be charged with that crime. For 2/25/13 11:51 AM Section 2.1  How to Read and Analyze a Criminal Statute CHAPTER 2 example, if a statute states that the person must do A and B, then there is no crime unless both A and B have been committed. However, if the connecting word was or, then committing either A or B would be sufficient to be charged with a crime. While it may seem like common sense, it requires the reader of a statute to pay careful attention. Another common obstacle to interpreting a criminal statute is the use of highly specialized words with specific definitions. Some laws include terms that are defined elsewhere in the code. Some words may have special interpretations and definitions that have been set by the courts. For example, a rape statute might prohibit “sexual conduct” under particular circumstances. It might state, “No person shall compel another, by force, to engage in sexual conduct.” In order to know what types of behavior are being addressed, one must know how the legislature has defined “sexual conduct.” Readers must determine definitions of terms to properly interpret the statute. Likewise, some terms are not defined by the legislature, so courts must interpret them. If a drunk driving statute used the phrase “operate a motor vehicle,” one must know how the appellate courts have interpreted the word operate—it often has a meaning beyond driving. For example, the Massachusetts Court System Model Jury Instructions state, “A person ‘operates’ a motor vehicle not only while doing all of the well-known things that drivers do as they travel on a street or highway, but also when doing any act which directly tends to set the vehicle in motion.” Consider This: Was Lester “Operating” His Car? Lester attended his nephew’s wedding reception, which featured an open bar with free drinks. After drinking five margaritas, Lester headed home. He stumbled to the street, where his car was legally parked at a parking meter. He opened the door, put his keys into the ignition, turned on the radio, but then decided he was too intoxicated to drive. So he fell asleep. An hour later a police officer noticed Lester passed out in the car. The officer knocked on the car window and asked Lester to step out of the car. The officer quickly realized that Lester was drunk and arrested him for driving while intoxicated. The driving while intoxicated statute in Lester’s state specifies that the offender “operate” a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant in order to be charged with drunk driving. Was Lester “operating” the car if he was sitting behind the wheel with his keys in the ignition but not driving? Some words may have different meanings in the statutory setting than in everyday common usage. For example, a number of crimes include the element of possession. But in most cases, the concept of possession means more than simply having something. It usually implies the offender knew he or she had the item. The fact that a gun was in a woman’s glove compartment does not necessarily mean she was aware it was there. In this way proving knowledge of possession becomes an element of the crime. The reader of criminal statutes must deal with inconsistent language and structure as well. Laws are written over a period of time. A state’s murder statute may have been written in 1969, whereas the computer fraud offense may have been written 30 years later. Just like in society, the use of language changes and evolves. wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 32 2/25/13 11:51 AM Section 2.2  The Components of a Crime CHAPTER 2 Concept Check: True/False: If a statute defines A and B in its language describing a crime, an offender only has to commit either A or B to be found guilty. False. If a statute states that the person must do A and B, there is no crime unless both A and B have been committed. 2.2  The Components of a Crime E ach criminal offense has specific elements that are required in order to state whether a crime has been committed. These elements, which may include the offender’s mental state, the actions, and the circumstances surrounding the event, are introduced in this section. Additionally, each offense will identify the penalties that may be imposed if an offender is found guilty of committing the crime. Determining the Elements of a Crime Judges and juries must listen to testimony and examine evidence in order to determine if a person has committed a crime. In doing so, they must not only decide what facts in a case are true; they must also apply the law. To accomplish that task, they must understand what behaviors are prohibited and decide whether the defendant has engaged in them. Those prohibited behaviors make up the elements of the crime. One way to think about it is that the elements are the pieces to a jigsaw puzzle. A person has not committed a specific crime unless all of the required elements fit the puzzle. Consider This: Fashion Malfeasance Consider the following hypothetical statute: Fashion Malfeasance Code 324.09. A. No person shall wear the following apparel in a public place: 1. A red shirt with orange trousers. 2. A red shirt with lime green trousers or skirt. 3. Any combination of trousers, skirt, shirt, or blouse in which one component is plaid and another is striped. B. A person who violates any of the above sections has committed the crime of Fashion Malfeasance and shall be punished as follows: 1. An offender who has no previous convictions for Fashion Malfeasance is guilty of a Second Degree Misdemeanor and may receive a definite term of incarceration of up to but no more than 30 days. 2. An offender who has one or more previous convictions for Fashion Malfeasance is guilty of a First Degree Misdemeanor and may receive a definite term of incarceration of up to but no more than 60 days. (continued) wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 33 2/25/13 11:51 AM Section 2.2  The Components of a Crime CHAPTER 2 Consider This: Fashion Malfeasance (continued) Apply the statute: Mrs. Smith goes to the mall on Saturday morning. She is wearing a bright yellow hat, a red blouse, and blue plaid linen slacks. The mall security guard spots her outside of a store and immediately contacts the local police. Upon their arrival, Smith is arrested for the crime of Fashion Malfeasance pursuant to local code 324.09. For evidence, the security guard takes her photograph with his cell phone. You are on the jury. The security guard testifies that he observed the defendant walking in the mall and describes how she was dressed. He is allowed to present his cell phone photo of Smith into evidence. When it is time to deliberate, you must decide what facts you believe and if the crime was committed. Certainly you agree that Smith was in a public place, and you can easily make a decision as to what she was wearing. But is she guilty of the crime? Were all of the required elements met? No. Section 1 requires that she wear a red shirt with orange trousers. She did not. While she had on a red shirt, she was not wearing orange pants. Section 2 requires that she wear a red shirt with lime green trousers. She did not. The answer is also no for Section 3. While she was wearing plaid, she did not wear any component that included stripes. Therefore, based on the evidence, you must determine that she did not meet the elements of the statute. Not guilty. Even if you thought her outfit was hideous, you must still enter a verdict of not guilty because the elements were not met. Who Is the Offender? Most criminal statutes will first identify the offender. The language will often read, “No Person shall. . ..” In some cases the offender will be identified by additional criteria such as age or status. In such cases the language might read, “No person, who is eighteen years of age or older. . ..” Such age specifications are common in sex offenses. An example of status is when a statute is directed at someone in a particular situation, such as a caregiver. The statute might read, “No person who is acting as an employee, volunteer or caregiver in a nursing care facility. . ..” Descriptors such as these are often directed at people with specific responsibilities. Many states have elevated penalties for assault crimes involving caregivers, or they may address crimes that are committed by specific public officials. Mens Rea: What Is the Required Mental State? The issue of the intent or other mental processes of the offender is often a required element of a crime. An offender’s reasoning may impact the crime. If the statute states, “No person shall intentionally cause another’s death,” then the prosecutor must prove the defendant intended to kill. The most common descriptions of an offender’s mental state are purposely or intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly or negligently. There are some offenses, such as minor traffic offenses, in which the mental state is irrelevant. For example, it may not matter why you were speeding, only that you were. Those are called strict liability offenses. wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 34 2/25/13 11:51 AM Section 2.2  The Components of a Crime CHAPTER 2 Actus Reus: What Is the Action? Criminal offenses require either specific action or, in some cases, the absence of action. The term actus reus is Latin for “the guilty act.” The identification of the act is often the most difficult. A judge or jury must determine what specific acts are prohibited by the statute and if the defendant engaged in those acts. The statute might say: “No person shall intentionally cause physical harm to another.” Therefore, if a woman walked up to another woman and slapped her across the face, she would meet the elements of that statutory language because she intentionally caused her victim harm. In that situation it would be fairly easy to decide the action violated the statute. But the action can also be quite complicated. There may be a requirement that the offender engage in a combination of actions in order to meet all of the required elements. As we mentioned earlier in the discussion on legal language, it is necessary to examine words very carefully. Consider a murder statute that requires that the offender “cause the death of another.” A man shoots another man in the leg and the victim dies. The medical evidence shows that the victim died of a heart attack and that the gunshot would not have been fatal. A jury may have to determine whether the gunshot caused the fatal heart attack. If the answer is no, the offender has not committed the crime of murder and instead would likely be convicted of a less serious felonious assault charge. In some cases, the required action in the statute might actually be an omission to act. Suppose a statute requires a person to perform a function or act in a particular manner. If they fail to do so, they commit a crime. For example, most states require a police officer who witnesses a crime to take appropriate action, such as making an arrest. If an officer fails to do so, he commits a crime such as dereliction of duty. In any event, the required element of an action also implies that the action or omission to act is voluntary. Involuntary actions do not meet that requirement. In the Ohio Revised Code, the language specifically excuses involuntary actions: “Reflexes, convulsions, body movements during unconsciousness or sleep, and body movements that are not otherwise a product of the actor’s volition, are involuntary acts” (O.R.C. 2901.21 D.2). Consider This: Was an Act Voluntary? Susan and Rob are standing together at the edge of a cliff admiring a beautiful vista. They take in a romantic and stunning sunset. Suddenly, Rob sneezes. His entire body convulses, and he inadvertently knocks Susan over the cliff. She falls 200 feet to the jagged rocks below and is killed instantly. Did Rob’s action cause Susan’s death? Certainly. However, he would not be guilty of a crime because his action was involuntary. This would be tragic, but not criminal. wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 35 2/25/13 11:51 AM Section 2.2  The Components of a Crime CHAPTER 2 Causation In some criminal offenses, a required element is causation. The defendant’s actions must cause the harm. In a homicide, the offender’s action must cause the victim’s death. Consider the following scenario: Reuben shoots Austin in the head, and he dies from the gunshot wound. Therefore, Reuben’s actions caused Austin’s death. In another example, the damage that results from intentionally setting a fire would satisfy the causation requirement in an arson case. In cases where causation is a required element, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the events would not have occurred if the defendant’s actions had not caused them. This is often referred to as the “but for” test of causation: But for the action of the defendant, the result would not have occurred. In the above example, Austin would not have died if Reuben had not shot him. On the other hand, if Reuben had only stabbed Austin in the finger with an ice pick and then he died of heart disease four months later, the stabbing would not have caused his death. Is There a Specific Victim? Some criminal statutes may require a specific victim. As mentioned earlier, there are crimes specific to whether a victim is a patient in a care facility. There are some property crimes that might refer specifically to a government building as the target of an act of vandalism. Some statutes—especially sex offenses—require the victim be under a certain age. Some statutes make killing a child under a specific age a more serious offense. OJO Images/SuperStock It is often not enough for prosecutors to prove a crime was committed; additional elements, such as actus reus or causation, are also required before a defendant can be found guilty. Penalties All criminal statutes provide a penalty for committing a specific crime. This is usually accomplished by identifying the penalty classification of the offense. Others may refer the reader to another section in the code that explains the punishment. A penalty section might read as follows: Breaking and Entering: Whoever is determined to be guilty of committing the offense of Breaking and Entering has committed a felony of the fourth degree. This type of writing makes clear the penalty classification, but a reader must refer to another section in the statutes to determine what punishments are possible. There might be another section that defines the classifications, which could read: wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 36 2/25/13 11:51 AM Section 2.3  Culpable Mental States: Inside the Mind CHAPTER 2 Felony of the Fourth Degree: An offender convicted of a felony of the fourth degree may be sentenced to incarceration in a prison of the state for a term of no less than six months nor more than five years. In addition, the offender may be required to pay a fine not to exceed twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500). Specially designated penalties exist as well. For example, many states include the suspension of one’s driver’s license as a penalty for driving away from a self-service gas station without paying. Of course, the more serious traffic crimes, such as driving while intoxicated or reckless driving, often carry the possibility of license suspension. Some crimes might prevent an offender from holding public office. In some states if a police officer is convicted of domestic violence, the officer can no longer carry a firearm. As previously indicated, a felony is a crime for which a perpetrator might be incarcerated for 1 year or more. A misdemeanor’s possible penalty includes incarceration of less than 1 year. Many jurisdictions also have misdemeanor classifications for offenses that carry only fines. Felony sentences are usually served in prisons, while misdemeanor sentences are served in local jails. Concept Check:True/False: Omission to act is NOT a component of actus reus. False. In some cases, the required action in the statute might actually be an omission to act. That occurs when the statute requires a person to perform a function or act in a particular manner. If they fail to do so, it is a crime. 2.3  Culpable Mental States: Inside the Mind A s discussed previously, most crimes include a required element that relates to the thought process of the offender. In a sense, the law asks: What was he thinking? In order for a person to be found guilty of a crime, the offender must have the culpable mental state required by the statute. Mens rea is a Latin term that means “guilty mind.” It describes how a person’s mental state informs a criminal act. Some crimes only require that the offender act recklessly or negligently. The crimes considered the most serious often require that the offender acted purposely or intentionally. With most murder statutes, the offender must have intentionally caused another person’s death. Accidental or reckless acts, though criminal, do not carry as severe a punishment as do intentional acts. But determining what is inside a person’s mind or what he or she intended is no easy task. Judges and juries make such determinations by examining evidence and making reasonable inferences. wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 37 2/25/13 11:51 AM Section 2.3  Culpable Mental States: Inside the Mind CHAPTER 2 The culpable mental states are intent, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. The concept of strict liability, which does not require a culpable mental state, applies to some minor offenses. Consider This: Was There Intent to Kill? Julius walks into a crowded subway station carrying a shotgun. He yells, “I’m sick of this train station and I hate of all of you!” He then fires five shots into the crowd, killing two people. He runs out of the train station and is captured four blocks away, still holding the weapon. Upon being arrested, he tells the police he did not mean to do it and it was an accident. If you were on the jury, you would need to determine if Julian intended to kill the people in the subway station. Consider the evidence. He told police he did not mean to do it. But he expressed hatred and frustration with the train station and the train passengers. One could reasonably infer from his statement before shooting that he intended to harm people. His actions, too, are clues. He brought a shotgun with him to the train and fired it five times directly into the crowd. It is reasonable to infer that he intended to harm someone if he brought his gun and voluntarily fired his weapon five times. Courts do not use a psychologist to examine his thoughts. Judges and juries would examine words, actions, evidence, and outcomes in order to logically determine what his intentions were during the commission of the crime. It would be reasonable to believe this killer acted intentionally and therefore committed the crime of murder. APimages.com Robert Chambers, nicknamed the “Preppie Killer,” was charged with murdering Jennifer Levin in 1986. Chambers claimed the death occurred accidentally during rough intercourse. Prosecutors could not establish intent, and a plea bargain of manslaughter was reached. wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 38 Intention or Purpose Many of the most serious crimes require that the offender act intentionally. Some jurisdictions may use the words purposely or willfully interchangeably. A person acts intentionally if it is his or her specific intention or purpose to cause a certain result. Acting intentionally also includes having a specific purpose to create or cause a certain circumstance. A person’s mental state is linked very closely to the action involved and the likely result. Suppose you broke your neighbor’s car windows with a sledgehammer. The local criminal code states that no person shall intentionally cause damage to another’s property. It appears that you both acted intentionally and met the element of intentionally causing damage. However, if while mowing your lawn a metal shard from the mower shot across your lawn and broke your neighbor’s window, you would not be found guilty. Even though you may be civilly 2/25/13 11:51 AM Section 2.3  Culpable Mental States: Inside the Mind CHAPTER 2 responsible for the damage, you are not guilty of the crime because it was not an intentional act—and intention is a required element. Determining intent is not always easy. Consider the crime of attempted murder, which might be described in a statute as follows: “No person shall intentionally attempt to cause the death of another.” Suppose Lindsay, jealous of her roommate Keisha because she is dating Lindsay’s ex-boyfriend, stabs her in the leg with an ice pick. Unknown to Lindsay, Keisha is taking medication that prevents her blood from clotting; she bleeds to death before Lindsay can get her to the hospital. Lindsay is charged with attempted murder under our hypothetical statute. Did she attempt to kill her? We know that Lindsay caused Keisha’s death, because Keisha died as a result of the ice pick wound. However, to prove Lindsay is guilty, the prosecution must prove it was her specific intention to cause Keisha’s death. Was it? If she was only trying to hurt her, the answer is no. If she knew Keisha would bleed to death if she stabbed her, then the answer would be yes. Lindsay could argue that her efforts to take Keisha to the hospital indicated she did not mean to kill her. Judges and juries consider these issues in order to answer the critical question of whether a person acted intentionally. Motive should not be confused with intent. The reason for committing a crime is considered the motive. A man might steal milk from the grocery store because he is out of money and needs milk for his child. Why he stole the milk is his motive. A woman might shoot her boyfriend because he is cheating on her. Jealousy is her motive. Her intention is to shoot him and cause him harm, perhaps death. Motive is an important consideration in a criminal investigation and is often considered by a judge or jury as they examine a person’s action. Motive may even be considered by a judge when determining punishment. Motive describes why a person commits a crime, not their intention to commit the crime. Concept Check: True/False: Motive and intent are synonymous. False. Motive refers to the reason why a person commits a crime. Intent describes whether a person purposely or willfully commits an act with a specific, desired result. Knowledge Many crimes require that the offender act knowingly. An offender acts knowingly when he or she is aware that his or her conduct will cause a certain result that is of a specific nature or that certain circumstances exist. The offender does not have to intend a specific result, but acts knowingly if he or she would reasonably know that a certain result is likely. Legal scholars often argue there are only minor distinctions between knowledge and intention. While that may be true, most states use knowledge as the mens rea for a variety of offenses. For example, if a man threw a rock into the crowd at a football game and it injured someone, we could infer the rock thrower acted knowingly. It may not have been his intention wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 39 2/25/13 11:51 AM Section 2.3  Culpable Mental States: Inside the Mind CHAPTER 2 to harm anyone, but he would have certainly known that someone would likely be hit by the rock and probably injured. In another scenario, imagine having dinner at a restaurant. You notice another diner leave the restaurant and leave her purse hanging over her chair. After looking around to make sure no one sees you, you take her purse and steal her money. You knowingly took someone else’s property without permission. Recklessness The concept of recklessness is often used in traffic-related offenses as well as crimes involving dangerous materials or devices. A person acts recklessly when he or she ignores or disregards a known risk and knows a certain result is likely to occur. In common language, recklessness is dangerous or stupid behavior. One of the most common crimes that includes the culpable mental state of recklessness is reckless driving. Dangerous driving behaviors that fall under the category of recklessness include excessive speed, drag racing, drunk or impaired driving, and playing chicken with cars. Consider This: Are They Reckless? Reckless: A person acts recklessly when he or she ignores or disregards a known risk and knows a certain result will likely occur. Example 1: Lola drinks five beers and is so intoxicated she is having trouble walking straight. Despite this, she gets into her car and drives home. To drive a vehicle while intoxicated is to disregard a known risk. Drinking to excess and then trying to drive is reckless. Example 2: John and Jake park their cars on a railroad track. They dare each other to stay on the track as a train arrives. The first one to bail out is chicken. This is a high-risk behavior. Both John and Jake engage in conduct that a reasonable person understands has a substantial likelihood for harm or damage. Example 3: Edna places unmarked containers of sulfuric acid in her trash can without telling the trash collector. A reasonable person would realize that disposing of a dangerous chemical such as sulfuric acid would pose a danger to the trash collector and anyone else who unsuspectingly comes in contact with it. The containers could easily explode during crushing or handling. Recklessness does not apply only to traffic-related crimes. Many states have laws that address other reckless behaviors that result in harm. These might include the reckless disposal of dangerous chemicals or the reckless handling of a firearm. wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 40 2/25/13 11:51 AM Section 2.4  Criminal Defenses CHAPTER 2 Negligence Crimes requiring only negligent behavior are rare. Negligence occurs when a person fails to adhere to a standard of care or fails to behave in a commonsense manner that could reasonably be expected in a given situation. Negligence is a legal concept that is more common in civil lawsuits than criminal ones. A person’s legal expectation in a particular situation is called the standard of care. For example, drivers are expected to obey stop signs, look in all directions, and proceed with caution when the intersection is safe and clear. This standard of care is taught in driver’s education and driving manuals, and it is enforced by the law. A person who fails to stop at a stop sign is therefore negligent. Another example of negligence might include a person or company that fails to follow operating instructions on a piece of equipment and hurts someone as a result. Other than traffic offenses, legislators draft very few laws that criminalize negligent behavior. Most states do, however, criminalize negligently handling firearms, explosives, and dangerous chemicals. Beyond these, however, most negligent incidents are considered accidents and are handled in the civil courts. Strict Liability Strict liability crimes are those in which a person is responsible for his or her actions regardless of his or her culpable mental state. As previously mentioned, there are some offenses that do not require a culpable mental state. These are crimes in which the mental state of the offender is irrelevant. Essentially, if the action occurred, then the crime has occurred. That would be the case with most minor traffic offenses. For the crime of failing to stop at red light, for example, the mental state of the driver does not matter. If the driver failed to stop, the violation has been committed. Offenses that require specific regulatory actions, such as vehicle registration, are strict liability crimes. For example, the crime of bigamy, which prohibits marriage to more than one person at a time, is a strict liability offense in most states. Concept Check: True/False: The culpable mental states are intent, knowledge, recklessness, negligence, and strict liability. False. The culpable mental states are intent, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. Strict liability does not require a culpable mental state. 2.4  Criminal Defenses I n a criminal trial, the government is responsible for bringing the charges to prove the case. The amount of proof required to prove a particular fact or case is called the burden of proof. The burden of proof required in a criminal trial is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Technically, if the prosecutor does not present sufficient evidence to prove that burden, the defendant is considered legally innocent and does not have to present a defense. There are other standards of proof used in the legal system. The burden of proof wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 41 2/25/13 11:51 AM Section 2.4  Criminal Defenses CHAPTER 2 in a civil trial is usually proof beyond a preponderance of evidence. The burden for many legal motions and in some administrative law settings is clear and convincing evidence. But in a criminal trial, it is the duty of the prosecutor to prove all required elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of beyond a reasonable doubt does not require absolute certainty. It is actually a degree of probability. The jury must examine the evidence and base its decision on reason and common sense. Hemera/Thinkstock In all criminal cases, the prosecutor is While the prosecution must prove its case beyond responsible for presenting the evidence a reasonable doubt, a defendant must typically to the court in a manner that convinces demonstrate an affirmative defense with clear and the jury that the defendant has met all convincing evidence. of the elements of the charges. If the prosecutor fails to do so, the defendant is not guilty. In all trials, the defendant has the right to present a defense. That defense may consist of an attack on the prosecutor’s evidence in an effort to convince the jury the defendant did not commit the charges. There are also specific defenses, called affirmative defenses, that may excuse the defendant from guilt. Since these are claimed by the defendant, most jurisdictions require the defendant to prove his or her defense. However, the burden of proof for an affirmative defense is less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It is usually either clear and convincing evidence or a preponderance of evidence. If a defendant successfully proves an affirmative defense, he or she may be relieved from criminal liability. That means the defendant will not be held responsible for the criminal charges. In this section, we will examine those defenses. Self-Defense In crimes involving physical harm to a person, the defendant may argue he or she acted in self-defense. This defense may be used in assault crimes or even murder cases. It arises when the defendant, who has physically harmed someone, claims his actions were justified because he was trying to protect himself or others. Self-defense law allows individuals to use reasonable and necessary force to protect themselves or others. Determining whether a person acts reasonably under the circumstances can be difficult. Was the defendant truly in danger? Did his or her defensive actions constitute a reasonable response to the threat? Did the defendant use necessary or excessive force? Juries must imagine themselves standing in the defendant’s shoes and determine whether the action met the requirements of self-defense. wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 42 2/25/13 11:52 AM Section 2.4  Criminal Defenses CHAPTER 2 Consider This: Was His Action Reasonably Necessary to Protect Himself? Johnson was playing softball for his community college team and had just struck out. He was the last batter, and as a result his team lost the game. As he was walking back to the dugout, one of his teammates, angry because they lost, ran up and pushed Johnson down. Johnson jumped up, hit his teammate in the arm with an aluminum bat, and broke his teammate’s arm. Johnson was arrested and charged with felonious assault. At his trial, Johnson claimed self-defense. Did Johnson act reasonably? Was it reasonably necessary for him to strike his teammate with a baseball bat in order to protect himself? Concept Check: If you injured an assailant while trying to stop an assault, could you claim self-defense? Answer: Yes. The law also allows people to use reasonable force to protect others. If you observe someone assaulting another person, you can step in to protect him or her so long as your actions are reasonably necessary. Mistake of Fact A misunderstanding of a fact or circumstance may be an acceptable defense. If the mistake of fact means the defendant did not meet the required mental state, it could result in a reduced charge or even a not guilty decision. For example, in the crime of theft, an offender must intentionally deprive the owner of property. If a person took property but honestly did not realize that it was someone else’s, the person would be not guilty because he or she lacked the specific intent to take another’s property. Consider This: Is Gladys a Thief? Gladys goes to the hairdresser every Saturday morning. It is a friendly environment, and she knows everyone in the salon. One cold February day Gladys grabbed her full-length leather overcoat from the waiting area and headed home after her haircut. However, when she pulled into her driveway, the local police were waiting for her. They accused her of stealing a coat that belonged to another woman at the salon. It turned out that Gladys had grabbed the wrong coat. It was almost identical to hers but was a different brand and had a slightly different type of collar. Is Gladys guilty of theft? You have likely heard someone say that being ignorant of the law is no excuse for committing a crime. It is true that people are responsible for complying with a law whether they are aware of the law or not. However, it is also true that criminal law is continually changing and can be very complicated. In some circumstances a person’s ignorance of the law may prevent him or her from forming the required criminal intent. Occasionally, a new law wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 43 2/25/13 11:52 AM Section 2.4  Criminal Defenses CHAPTER 2 will be passed—the only way a person could intentionally violate it is if he or she knew and understood the law. For example, there have been a few tax fraud cases in which, because of the complications of the tax code, the defendant did not believe he or she was violating the law. For these types of criminal tax fraud charges, the government must prove the defendant acted willfully. If the defendant, in good faith, did not believe he or she was violating the tax law, then he or she could not willfully fail to pay taxes. Privilege The defense of privilege allows an individual of a particular status or position to engage in conduct that would otherwise be prohibited. For example, parents have the right to use reasonable physical force to restrain or discipline their child. A police officer has the right to use reasonable physical force to bring someone into custody. In correctional facilities, officers have the right to use reasonable physical force to ensure the security of the inmates and staff. During medical examinations or procedures, a medical professional may touch patients in a way that would be considered unlawful sexual contact in other circumstances. In such cases parents, corrections officers, and medical professionals are protected by privilege. Other examples of privilege include licensed pharmacists who may distribute controlled substances as long as they comply with proper procedures, or the privilege of people to carry a firearm if they comply with their state’s concealed carry laws. Alibi The alibi defense is perhaps the simplest. If a defendant claims the defense of alibi, she asserts she did not commit the crime because she was somewhere else at the time of the act. The alibi defense is usually supported by testimony or evidence to prove the defendant was, in fact, somewhere else. Consider This: A Credible Alibi It was almost midnight on New Year’s Eve. Calvin was in the midst of a large crowd in Times Square, watching the ball drop in New York City. Just as the clock struck midnight, someone shot and killed Calvin. One witness claimed the shooter was Roger, an old college friend of Calvin’s. After being charged with the crime, Roger claimed the defense of alibi. He said he was not in New York City on New Year’s Eve, but rather in Cleveland, Ohio, attending a party at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. A videotape of the party proved he was in Cleveland at the moment Calvin was shot. That would be the defense of alibi. In many states a defendant who claims the defense of alibi must file a formal notice with the court prior to trial so that the prosecutor has sufficient time to conduct an investigation of the alibi claim. Witnesses who give false information or testimony in support of an alibi may be prosecuted for perjury or obstruction of justice. wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 44 2/25/13 11:52 AM Section 2.4  Criminal Defenses CHAPTER 2 Entrapment Entrapment is a defense in which the government placed the criminal intent into the otherwise innocent and unwary mind of the defendant. As the U.S. Supreme Court defined it in Sorrells v. United States, 187 U.S. 435 (1932), “Entrapment is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer, and his procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion, or fraud of the officer.” Often referred to as the “government made me do it” defense, entrapment is one of the most controversial defenses and is rarely successful. To claim entrapment, defendants must admit to the criminal conduct while convincing the jury that they had no criminal intent until law enforcement persuaded them to act. They must prove they were not predisposed to commit the crime and would not have done so without the law enforcement intervention. It is a difficult burden for the defendant. There are a number of misconceptions about the defense of entrapment. One cannot claim entrapment when the police simply provide the opportunity to commit a crime. If the police employ a bait car in a neighborhood where there have been several auto thefts, for example, this is not entrapment. Someone who steals the bait car is already predisposed to steal, a fact that does not change simply because the police provided an easy opportunity for theft. Similarly, police have created fake fencing operations. Fencing is a slang term that refers to someone who buys stolen property. In such an operation, undercover officers set up storefronts or pawn shops and spread the word that they are willing to purchase stolen goods without a lot of questions. People begin bringing stolen merchandise to them. When caught, they often claim entrapment—but this is not a valid defense in these situations. The thieves were already thieves, and law enforcement did not create the criminal intent. One of the most famous entrapment cases involved John DeLorean, the famous automotive designer. DeLorean, who was the designer of the iconic Pontiac GTO muscle car, left General Motors to form his own car company. He built the DeLorean DMC-12, a stainless steel gullwinged sports car made famous in the Back to the Future movies. DeLorean built his car company in Dunmurry, Ireland, in the early 1980s. His timing could not have been worse. America was engulfed in tremendous financial problems arising from high inflation, and people were not spending money on luxury items. At the same time, Ireland was in the midst of its own political problems involving the AP Images Irish Republican Army. The comJohn DeLorean is one of the few criminal defendants who pany was failing. successfully proved entrapment. wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 45 2/25/13 11:52 AM Section 2.4  Criminal Defenses CHAPTER 2 During this time, DeLorean was approached by a purported drug dealer who was actually an informant working for the FBI. The informant, with the assistance of the FBI, proposed a complex and detailed criminal enterprise in which DeLorean could invest money and assist in money laundering and cocaine distribution, to which DeLorean agreed. The pieces of evidence against him included video footage that showed him in a room with cocaine. DeLorean was ultimately arrested and prosecuted in 1985. However, at trial DeLorean asserted the defense of entrapment. He convinced the jury that the criminal enterprise was completely a creation of the FBI and that he was not predisposed to commit any criminal act. The jury agreed that the FBI took advantage of DeLorean’s dire financial situation and used the operation to draw him into criminal behavior, and it found him not guilty. In 1992 the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the defense of entrapment in Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992). In 1984 Congress passed a federal law prohibiting the possession of child pornography. Prior to this law it was legal to possess such materials. The U.S. Postal Service began investigative operations to identify people in violation of the new law. They discovered that Keith Jacobson, a 56-year-old army veteran, had received pornographic material during the time it was still legal. So they began an operation designed to induce Jacobson to purchase illegal materials. They created scam companies and inundated Jacobson with advertisements and inducements to purchase the now illegal materials. They badgered him for twenty-six months. The Postal Service, along with the U.S. Customs Service, even sent him brochures suggesting that ordering the materials was patriotic because he would be standing up for his constitutional rights. Ultimately, Jacobson ordered some materials and was arrested. He was convicted in 1988 but appealed his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1992 the court overturned his conviction and stated: “Law enforcement officials go too far when they implant in the mind of an innocent person the disposition to commit the alleged offense and induce its commission in order that they may prosecute” (Jacobson, 503 U.S. 540, 554). Concept Check: Under what circumstances can a defendant successfully claim entrapment? Answer: To claim entrapment, defendants must admit to criminal conduct while convincing the jury they had no criminal intent until law enforcement persuaded them to act. They must prove they were not predisposed to commit the crime and would not have done so without law enforcement’s intervention. Statutes of Limitations Statutes of limitations refer to laws that prevent prosecution of some crimes if a specific amount of time has passed without the prosecution of the suspect. The statues of limitations vary from state to state, because each state determines when a prosecution must begin. For felonies other than murder, it is often a considerable period of time. It may vary from 6 to as many as 25 years. It is also not unusual for a state to set longer periods for more heinous offenses, such as rape, sex offenses involving children, and manslaughter crimes. The time limitations for misdemeanors are often much lower, generally ranging wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 46 2/25/13 11:52 AM Section 2.4  Criminal Defenses CHAPTER 2 from 6 months to 3 years. However, there are no statutes of limitations on murder. A murderer can be brought to justice no matter how many years it takes to catch him or her. For example, consider a state with a statute of limitations of 7 years for burglary. One night you come home and discover your house has been broken into and your television has been stolen. You immediately report it to the police. They have no suspects. They investigate but cannot determine who committed the crime. Nine years later, your television is found in the basement of a person who lives near you. The neighbor admits to police that he broke into your house and stole your television, but he cannot be convicted for the burglary because more than 7 years have passed since the discovery of the crime. However, statutes of limitations can be more complicated, especially interpreting the commencement of prosecution. Prosecution commences when the suspect is arrested or when a warrant is issued. If police have determined who committed a crime and obtained a warrant for the person’s arrest, prosecution has commenced even though the suspect has not yet been arrested. In this case the statute of limitations defense is not available. The time period is also satisfied if there is a summons, citation, indictment, or information issued. Likewise, if the suspect makes an overt effort to hide, such as leaving the jurisdiction or disguising his or her identity, the time period does not count toward the statute of limitations: that is, time stands still and is not included in that statute of limitations calculation. Civil statutes of limitations are relevant to civil cases and require that a person file a lawsuit within a specific period of time. Like the criminal version, the time limits vary according to the state and type of lawsuit. Insanity Sometimes, criminal defendants suffer from mental illness or other conditions that prevent them from being able to understand or control their actions. In these cases they may be relieved from criminal liability under the insanity defense. This a very complicated defense, and its application and interpretation varies from state to state. The concept of the insanity defense is derived from the idea that society only criminally punishes defendants who have the mental capacity to understand and control their behavior. The criminal justice system is designed to provide treatment, rather than punishment, for such offenders. Criminal defendants who claim insanity ask to be excused from criminal liability due to mental illness at the time of the offense. However they must not only show that they suffer from mental illness but also that it is of such a nature that it prevents them from understanding and controlling their behavior. It is generally proved by presenting evidence of psychiatric and psychological evaluations from mental health professionals. Some states provide for a not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) verdict in which the defendant, though relieved from responsibility for the crime, will be committed to mental health treatment until he or she recovers. The person’s release from a mental institution wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 47 2/25/13 11:52 AM Section 2.4  Criminal Defenses CHAPTER 2 would be dependent on the success of his or her treatment. Therefore, a defendant who was found not guilty by reason of insanity could actually spend more time in the treatment institution than if he or she had been found guilty and sentenced to prison. Likewise, the person might be released earlier if he or she were determined to be free from the mental illness or defect. A few states use a guilty but mentally ill verdict. In those situations the defendant is sentenced to the appropriate prison term for the crime but housed in a mental health treatment facility until he or she is able to join the general prison population. Consider This: A True Story of Insanity On Valentine’s Day in 1989, Raymond Butler decapitated his wife with a butcher knife in the kitchen of their home in Fairfield, Ohio. At his trial he was found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to a mental health treatment facility. Six years after his commitment, he was released after it was determined that he was no longer mentally ill. The court has continued to monitor his progress. Perhaps the most famous insanity defense involved John Hinckley Jr. In 1981 Hinckley shot President Ronald Reagan, press secretary James Brady, police officer Thomas Delahanty, and Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy. All of the victims survived. Hinckley claimed that an obsession with the actress Jodie Foster drove him to attempt to assassinate the president, and he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. He is still institutionalized in a mental health facility. Concept Check: Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. Many people, on learning of the facts of his case, certainly believed that he was mentally ill. The evidence at trial—often Dahmer’s own statements—indicated that he killed his victims, engaged in sexual acts with the corpses, dismembered them, and even engaged in cannibalism. How is that not insane? Answer: The jury determined that the methodical manner in which Dahmer lured his victims and his tedious efforts to elude capture indicated that he understood the nature and wrongfulness of his actions. They found him guilty, and he was sentenced to multiple life sentences. Related to not guilty by reason of insanity is the competence to stand trial, which is different from the insanity defense. If prior to trial a judge determines the defendant is not mentally capable of understanding the charges and assisting in his or her own defense, the judge may rule the defendant incompetent to stand trial. This does not mean not guilty and does not excuse the defendant from facing the charges. Rather, the defendant will be committed to mental health treatment until he or she becomes competent. If the defendant is restored to competence, the trial will proceed. wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 48 2/25/13 11:52 AM Section 2.4  Criminal Defenses CHAPTER 2 There are certainly criminal offenders who suffer from mental illness or other diminished mental capacities and are found guilty. While their mental issues may have not reached the threshold of criminal insanity, their condition may be considered by a court to determine their sentence. Correctional facilities also provide mental health treatment for inmates. Career Spotlight: Forensic Scientist by Erik Fritsvold Ted Bundy is one of America’s most notorious serial killers, and he was eventually brought to justice largely due to the work of forensic scientists. It is suspected that Bundy, a budding law student, murdered between 40 and 50 young women in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s. Most of Bundy’s murders involved kidnapping, torture, and sexual assault. Bundy often wore a cast or feigned an injury to lure and then abduct his victims. Most of his crimes took place in the West; however, he was eventually arrested in Florida after being stopped by police for driving a stolen car. Bundy was convicted of breaking into the Chi Omega sorority house at Florida State University (FSU) and brutally assaulting and raping four young women, two of whom he killed (Tilstone, Savage & Clark, 2006; Investigation Discovery, 2012). ASSOCIATED PRESS Forensic science proved critical in Bundy’s conviction. The Ted Bundy’s conviction was surviving victims were unable to identify Bundy. There were due almost entirely to forensic no useable fingerprint or other significant physical evidence scientists. DNA and scientific linking Bundy to the crime, and DNA evidence was not yet an advancements have continued to established science. The case hinged on the forensic science play a significant part in arrests analysis of bite marks on one of the FSU murder victims, Lisa and prosecutions. Levy. Forensic scientists were able to establish that Bundy had a unique bite mark due to his many crooked, damaged, and chipped teeth. After obtaining a warrant, a synthetic mold was made of Bundy’s teeth by forensic dentists that proved to be an exact match to the marks on Levy. It is likely that Bundy would have avoided conviction without the bite-mark evidence and corresponding forensic analysis. Bundy was executed on January 24, 1989 (Tilstone, Savage, & Clark, 2006; Investigation Discovery, 2012). According to the Encyclopedia of Forensic Science, “Forensic science is difficult to define precisely. Broadly speaking, it is the application of scientific techniques and principles to provide evidence to legal or related investigations and determinations” (Tilstone, Savage, & Clark, 2006, p. 1). Forensic scientists help determine the elements of a crime by gathering and analyzing physical evidence from the crime scene using a variety of laboratory techniques. Forensic science technicians are often, but not always, sworn police officers who have an undergraduate degree in the natural sciences. In the formal or informal apprentice phase, this academic foundation is then applied through extensive mentoring and training in the field. Continued education and retraining is necessary throughout this career to maintain a working and applicable knowledge of evolving science and technology required for the profession. (continued) wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 49 2/25/13 11:52 AM Review Questions CHAPTER 2 Career Spotlight: Forensic Scientist (continued) According to the U.S. Department of Labor, there were 13,000 forensic science technicians employed nationwide in 2010. This profession is expected to grow 19% in the next decade. On average, forensic scientists earn approximately $51,500 annually, with the top 10% of wage earners earning almost $83,000. In part due to the portrayal of forensic scientists in popular media, robust competition is expected within this field (US Department of Labor, 2012). Forensic scientists must possess a series of important scientific and interpersonal skills. They must be able to solve problems using the scientific method, be detail oriented, be effective communicators, and most importantly possess a durable mentality to be able to manage the grisly elements of some crime scenes. References Investigation Discovery (2012). Amazing cases. Retrieved from http://investigation.discovery .com/investigation/forensics/amazing-cases/amazing-cases.html Tilstone, W. J., Savage, K., & Clark, L. (2006). Encyclopedia of forensic science: An encyclopedia of history, methods, and techniques. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Occupational outlook handbook, 2012–13 edition: Forensic science technicians. Retrieved from http://www .bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/forensic-science-technicians.htm #tab-2 2.5  Chapter Highlights • The federal government and each state drafts specific criminal statutes that apply to their individual jurisdictions. The published statutes are available online in most jurisdictions. • Each criminal offense includes several components, including the offender, victim, act committed or omitted, the resulting harm, and applicable penalties. • To convict a defendant of a crime, the prosecution must prove the defendant has committed all of the required elements of the offense. • Most criminal offenses include a culpable mental state as an element. These mental states are intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. However, some crimes are strict liability offenses that do not require proof of a culpable mental state. • The affirmative criminal defenses include self-defense, mistake of fact, privilege, alibi, statute of limitations, entrapment, and insanity. Review Questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 50 Identify and describe the components of a criminal statute. Identify and define the culpable mental states. Explain the difference between motive and mental state. Identify and describe the affirmative defenses to a criminal charge. Explain key differences between not guilty by reason of insanity and incompetence to stand trial. 2/25/13 11:52 AM Key Terms CHAPTER 2 Key Terms actus reus  A Latin term meaning “the guilty act.” It is the specific action or omission required to commit a criminal offense. intentionally  A person acts intentionally if it is his or her specific intention or purpose to cause a certain result. affirmative defense  A defense that, if determined to be true, would relieve the defendant of guilt. The defendant has the burden of proving the affirmative defense by clear and convincing evidence. Selfdefense, insanity, and mistake of fact are all affirmative defenses. mens rea  A Latin term that means “guilty mind.” It is often used to describe the idea that what is in a person’s mind is a required element of a criminal act. alibi  An affirmative defense in which the defendant was somewhere other than the crime scene at the time of the crime, making it impossible for the defendant to have committed the crime. bigamy  A criminal offense in which a person marries more than one person at the same time. mistake of fact  A defense alleging that, due to a misunderstanding of a fact or circumstance, an offender honestly did not realize he or she was committing a crime and therefore lacked specific criminal intent. This defense can result in a reduced charge or even a not guilty decision. motive  A person’s reason or motivation for committing a crime. codified  A law that has been passed by a legislative body and included in the official code of that specific jurisdiction. negligence  Negligence occurs when a person fails to adhere to a standard of care or expected behavior. Although rarely used in criminal cases, it is a common cause of action in civil tort law. criminal liability  The responsibility for committing a crime. offender  A person who has committed a crime. entrapment  An affirmative defense that claims the government placed the criminal intent into the otherwise innocent and unwary mind of the defendant. omission to act  A person fails to perform a duty for which he or she is responsible. A police officer who failed to make an arrest when it was his or her legal duty has committed an omission to act. fencing  A slang term that refers to someone who buys stolen property. knowingly  An offender acts knowingly when he or she is aware that his or her conduct will cause a certain outcome, that it is of a specific nature, or that certain circumstances exist. insanity defense  A defense that claims the defendant suffered from a mental defect or illness that prevented him or her from understanding or controlling his or her actions. wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 51 penalty classification  The identification of a crime as a specific degree of felony or misdemeanor in a way that defines the punishment for the crime. For example, a crime may be classified as a first degree felony or a third degree misdemeanor. privilege  A right conferred by status, position, or license. A person with a concealed carry license has a privilege to carry a firearm. 2/25/13 11:52 AM Key Terms CHAPTER 2 recklessly  A person acts reckless when he or she ignores or disregards a known risk and knows that a certain result would likely occur. statutes of limitations  Statutes that bar prosecution if a specific amount of time has passed after the discovery of a crime and the commencement of prosecution. self-defense  A defense that allows a person to use reasonable and necessary force to protect themselves and others. strict liability  A person or party is responsible for his or her actions regardless of his or her culpable mental state. It would not matter whether he or she intended the act. wri70161_02_c02_029-052.indd 52 2/25/13 11:52 AM 8 iStockphoto/Thinkstock Criminal Procedure Learning Objectives After reading this chapter and studying the materials, you should be able to: 1. Identify the sources of law that influence the rules of criminal procedure. 2. Identify the facts, reasoning, and decision in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion. 3. Describe the history and development of due process on the U.S. justice system. 4. Define the exclusionary rule and identify the exceptions. wri70161_08_c08_151-172.indd 151 2/25/13 11:55 AM Section 8.1  Introduction to Criminal Procedure CHAPTER 8 T he system of criminal procedure is an ongoing work in progress, one that both reflects the intent of the nation’s founders and is constantly interpreted to be relevant to modern society and technology. The men who drafted the Constitution lived in an era in which cars did not exist, but they wrote a Constitution that would later be applied to car searches. Even further from their imagination was the Internet and its related privacy issues; or cell phones; or YouTube. Yet Americans continue to rely on the U.S. Constitution to balance the scales of justice for these and other kinds of criminal cases. In the previous chapters, you studied the substantive criminal law by analyzing and interpreting the elements of criminal statutes and determining how they apply to behavior. Going forward we will examine criminal procedure, which is quite different. Criminal procedure dictates the rules by which our criminal laws are enforced. 8.1  Introduction to Criminal Procedure P olice perform many duties while protecting and serving communities, and chief among these are investigating criminal activity and making arrests. However, although police are expected to apprehend criminals, they are not allowed to execute their duties without any restrictions. They may not break into your house at any time to search for evidence, for example, or arrest you without reason and beat you to obtain a confession. Whether or not a person is guilty, police must abide by certain rules when investigating, apprehending, and processing them: Criminal procedure is the study of those rules. The police, the defense lawyers, the suspects, the judges, the witnesses, the victims, and whoever else is involved in the drama of crime and punishment must follow the rules of criminal procedure. The rules address issues such as search and seizure, trial process, and interrogation. They dictate when the police may pull people over, when they may search suspects’ cars or property, when they may ask suspects questions, and when they must read suspects their Miranda rights. The following chapters will go into more detail about these and other issues. Sources of Criminal Procedure How were the rules of criminal procedure determined? Who wrote them, and why? Criminal statutes are drafted by local, state, and federal legislatures. Legislative representatives decide what behaviors should be considered criminal in their particular jurisdictions. However, appellate courts primarily develop and determine the rules of criminal procedure. In Chapter 1, you examined the structure and function of both state and appellate courts. Most of the rules of criminal procedure are created when the U.S. Supreme Court interprets and applies the U.S. Constitution. Sometimes, state supreme courts apply their own state constitutions as well. State legislatures often codify the rules set by the appellate courts and occasionally draft rules specific to their state. A rule is codified when it is approved and included in the state code. wri70161_08_c08_151-172.indd 152 2/25/13 11:55 AM Section 8.1  Introduction to Criminal Procedure CHAPTER 8 At both the state and local level, state legislators or even the local court systems enact some rules. For example, while the U.S. Supreme Court has determined the criteria for speedy trial, some individual states have enacted specific statutory time limits. That is legal as long as the state rules comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s criteria. As discussed in Chapter 1, there are three branches of government in the United States; executive, legislative, and judicial. The U.S. Supreme Court sits at the top of the judicial branch. It is the court’s duty to interpret and apply the U.S. Constitution. The Decision Process of the U.S. Supreme Court How and why does the U.S. Supreme Court create a rule of criminal procedure? The court is a body of nine justices appointed by the president of the United States with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. To create criminal procedure, the justices do not simply confer and decide to write a law. They can only act in their role as the ultimate appellate court, which means rendering a decision when a case is presented to them for review. The Supreme Court only enters the criminal procedure process long after a crime occurs somewhere in the United States. The crime will be investigated, which might include evidence collection, interrogation, pretrial identification procedures, and questioning witnesses. If there is an arrest, the case will follow the trial process in the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred. A number of court proceedings will also take place prior to trial, such as bail determinations, preliminary hearings, arraignments, pretrial conferences, and pretrial motions. At trial, the judge will make other decisions, such as whether evidence is admissible, who is eligible to be selected for the jury, and whether attorneys may use a certain manner of questioning. The judge will also give specific instructions to the jury regarding what evidence they may consider and how they may act. In the event of a guilty verdict, a sentence is determined. A guilty defendant may wish to appeal in the event he or she believes the police or courts violated the rules of criminal procedure. The case would then follow that jurisdiction’s appellate process. At the state level, this involves appealing to the state court of appeals and the state supreme court. At this point, the losing party may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is a court of discretion and does not have to review a case. The appealing party asks the court to review the case by submitting a petition for a writ of certiorari. The court first determines if it will consider the case. If it refuses, the decision of the previous appellate court stands. If it agrees wri70161_08_c08_151-172.indd 153 Getty Images All paperwork, including legal briefs, must flow through the clerk’s office before reaching the Supreme Court justices. 2/25/13 11:55 AM Section 8.1  Introduction to Criminal Procedure CHAPTER 8 to review, however, the involved attorneys must submit legal briefs, written documents that argue their particular positions. Each of the nine justices read and consider the arguments presented in the briefs before attorneys, usually a state prosecutor and a defense attorney, are allowed to appear before the court to argue their positions orally. Unlike other court proceedings, hearings before the Supreme Court are not trials. No testimony or evidence is presented. The hearing consists of lawyers presenting their arguments to the court. The individual justices may also ask them probing questions. After oral arguments, the justices confer and deliberate on the issues at hand. The deliberation process often takes several months. Once they reach a decision, they announce their decision in open court and provide a written opinion that details their reasoning for the decision. Reading Cases Lower courts, judges, lawyers, police, and students learn criminal procedure by reading the case decisions (also called opinions) of appellate courts, and especially U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court official publication is called the U.S. Reports. Most of the cases cited in the book you are reading can be found by searching for the case name in an online database. For example, if you type Miranda v. Arizona into the search box, you will find many links to this 1966 landmark case’s decision. Some websites provide the entire opinion, while others may have brief explanations or interpretations. The official decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court may be found at the court’s website, http://www .supremecourt.gov. ASSOCIATED PRESS In 1961 Clarence Earl Gideon, pictured here, was wrongly charged with burglary and denied an attorney by the state of Florida. Gideon appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the landmark decision known as Gideon v. Wainwright, the court ruled that all defendants have the right to an attorney, regardless of their ability to pay for one. wri70161_08_c08_151-172.indd 154 Each case has a case name and a case citation: an example is Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Together the citation numbers tell the legal researcher where to look in the law library. The “384” is a book number of the U.S. Reports, and the “436” is simply the beginning page number. The number in parentheses is the year in which the case was decided, and “U.S.” indicates this is a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The case title imparts at least some information about the case. For example, if it is a criminal case and includes the name of a state, then it is a criminal case that originated in that state— it would not be a federal case. If it had been a federal case, it might have been titled Weeks v. United States. The other word listed is the last name of one of the defendants. In this case the defendant was Fremont Weeks. 2/25/13 11:55 AM Section 8.1  Introduction to Criminal Procedure CHAPTER 8 But the name of a case does not always impart all of this information. A case might simply be titled State v. Johnson or People v. Smith. If so, one would need to look further to determine the state in which the case originated. Other times a case title may only have two individuals’ names; for example, the famous case of Gideon v. Wainwright was from Florida. Gideon was the criminal defendant who sued Louie L. Wainwright, the secretary to the Florida Department of Corrections, in a habeas corpus action. Later in this chapter you will study a case called Brewer v. Williams. In that case Williams was the defendant and Brewer was an attorney general of the state of Iowa. Each case decision will go over the particular set of facts that were presented during the hearing or trial. It will summarize the crime, relevant police actions, and court procedures being addressed in the court’s review. Case reports also feature the decision, which is sometimes summarized at the beginning of the opinion and then again in a summary at the end. The decision is the piece of the opinion that explains how the court has interpreted and applied the law. The decision states what actions, if any, must next be taken in the case and also addresses any specific procedures to be followed in the future. In addition to the decision, the opinion describes and explains the court’s reasoning in reaching its decision. The reasoning helps lower courts, police, and lawyers understand how to apply the decision in future cases. Rarely do the U.S. Supreme Court justices unanimously agree on a decision. More often, they reach their decision by majority rule. If at least five of the nine justices agree, they have reached a majority opinion. One justice serves as the primary writer of the opinion. The justices who disagree may write dissenting opinions indicating why they diverge from the majority. While dissenting opinions are not law, they are often helpful in interpreting the court’s actions. Case decisions may also feature a concurring opinion, in which justices write about how they agree with the decision, but for a different reason than the majority. The Role of the Constitution The U.S. Constitution forms the basis of criminal procedure (each state also has its own constitution). While state constitutions often parallel the U.S. Constitution, there are some differences. We will discuss the relationship between state and federal government in more detail when we examine the historical development of criminal procedure. Consider the founding of the United States. The first settlers from England sought escape from the oppression of the English government. They declared independence and won the Revolutionary War, after which they began to form the federal government. The constitutional forefathers wanted to protect their new country’s citizens from their government. They believed it important for the government to provide certain services and protections and also to protect individual liberties. With these priorities, they signed the U.S. Constitution in 1787 and adopted the first 10 amendments, called the Bill of Rights, 4 years later. Criminal procedure’s roots are found in the Bill of Rights, which addresses wri70161_08_c08_151-172.indd 155 2/25/13 11:55 AM Section 8.2  Due Process CHAPTER 8 fundamental principles such as protection against unreasonable search and seizure, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, excessive bail, the right to a jury trial, effective counsel, and confrontation of witnesses. The scales of justice symbolize the American system of justice. On one side there is the need for the government to enforce laws and protect its citizens. On the other is citizens’ individual liberty and freedom. This balance is the premise on which America’s constitutional law is founded. In virtually every case, the U.S. Supreme Court must balance the actions of the government and law enforcement against peoples’ individual freedoms and right to privacy. State Versus Federal Procedure As indicated earlier, the United States is composed of multiple governments. The original premise was that the country consist of individual states that retain all powers not specifically given to the federal government. As a result, there are often conflicts between states’ rights and those of the federal government. Today an individual has certain basic rights regardless of whether he or she is charged with a state or a federal crime, including the right to an attorney, a lawful search, and a speedy trial. However, such rights did not always apply to state criminal proceedings. Even though the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, federal rights did not always apply to the states. Concept Check: How are the individual rights described in the Bill of Rights applied to state criminal proceedings? Answer: They are applied via the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The Bill of Rights is part of the U.S. Constitution. For many years states were not required to abide by those rules because they were included in the U.S. Constitution and only applied to federal criminal cases. The right to due process changed this, however, when in 1868 the United States adopted the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment states that all citizens of the United States are considered both citizens of the nation as well as of the state in which they reside. But most importantly, it states that a citizen cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. However, the passage of the 14th Amendment did not immediately apply those protections to the states. The U.S. Supreme Court had to interpret and apply those individual rights. This process continues today. 8.2  Due Process D ue process is mentioned in both the 5th and 14th Amendments, yet neither defines it. In fact, this critical concept is not defined anywhere in the Constitution, and thus legal scholars have struggled to characterize it. Over time, the court has considered what rights are mandatory in order to ensure due process. In other words, is the right fundamentally necessary to ensure fairness? wri70161_08_c08_151-172.indd 156 2/25/13 11:55 AM Section 8.2  Due Process CHAPTER 8 Ratified in 1868, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Adopted after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment clarified that the due process and equal protection of the law guarantees enshrined in the Constitution would also apply to the states. The 14th Amendment serves as the foundation for many subsequent cornerstone decisions and laws. Concept Check: Tessa is arrested for robbery. At her arraignment, she tells the judge she does not have any money and needs an attorney. She faces prison if convicted and says she is innocent of the crime. The judge says, “Unfortunately, we don’t have enough money in our county budget to give every defendant a free attorney.” Has due process been denied? Answer: Yes. Tessa has been denied due process of law. She cannot possibly get a fair trial if she does not have an attorney to represent and defend her on those serious charges. In the United States all criminal defendants who face incarceration are entitled to an attorney. If they are indigent, or unable to afford one, the government must provide them with effective assistance of counsel. However, such individual rights were not applied overnight, but rather over a series of cases in which the court historically applied due process. Is Beating a Prisoner a Violation of Due Process? Often called an American travesty, the case of Brown v. State of Mississippi paints a grim picture of a dark period of police interrogation in the United States. From a legal standpoint it also illustrates the beginning of the U.S. Supreme Court’s journey to use due process to impact state criminal proceedings. Brown v. State of Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936) The Facts: Brown v. State of Mississippi considered the murder of Raymond Stewart, a white plantation owner who was found dead on the afternoon of March 30, 1934. Almost immediately, law enforcement suspected three black tenant farmers—Henry Shields, Ed Brown, and Arthur Ellington. That evening Deputy Sheriff Dial arrested Ellington and took him not to jail but to the victim’s home, where a crowd was waiting. Ellington denied he was involved with the murder, but the crowd strung him up to a tree, where they whipped him. After he continued to claim innocence, they cut him down, rehanged him, and whipped him more. After continuing to deny his involvement, the crowd cut him wri70161_08_c08_151-172.indd 157 2/25/13 11:55 AM Section 8.2  Due Process CHAPTER 8 down and let him go. He returned home, in pain and agony, only to be arrested again by Dial 2 days later. On the way to take him to jail, Dial drove into Alabama, where he whipped him until Ellington finally confessed. In the meantime, Shields and Brown were also arrested and taken to jail. There, deputies whipped them until they confessed to exactly what the deputies told them to confess to. Of these events the Supreme Court said: On Sunday night, April 1, 1934, the same deputy, accompanied by a number of white men, one of whom was also an officer, and by the jailer, came to the jail, and the two last named defendants were made to strip and they were laid over chairs and their backs were cut to pieces with a leather strap with buckles on it, and they were likewise made by the said deputy definitely to understand that the whipping would be continued unless and until they confessed, and not only confessed, but confessed in every matter of detail as demanded by those present; and in this manner the defendants confessed to the crime, and, as the whippings progressed and were repeated, they changed or adjusted their confession in all particulars of detail so as to conform to the demands of their torturers. When the confessions had been obtained in the exact form and contents as desired by the mob, they left with the parting admonition and warning that, if the defendants changed their story at any time in any respect from that last stated, the perpetrators of the outrage would administer the same or equally effective treatment. (Brown v. State of Mississippi, 1936) All three men were indicted on April 4, 1934; the trial commenced the next day. They were asked if they had counsel and they stated that counsel would not help them at that point. Counsel was appointed. When Dial was asked under oath if he whipped Ellington, he said, “Not too much for a negro; not as much as I would have done if it were left to me.” No one denied the whippings and torture, and the trial court condoned it by allowing the confessions into evidence. Within 48 hours all three men were convicted and sentenced to death. In 1934 the Fifth Amendment (which protects a defendant from being compelled to be a witness against themselves) did not yet apply to the states. Because the crime occurred in Mississippi, criminal procedure belonged to the state, and the men were arrested on a state murder charge. Brown, Ellington, and Shields appealed their conviction to the Mississippi Court of Appeals. That court upheld their conviction, essentially saying Mississippi could do what it wanted. The men appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court, with the same result. The Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case and used the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to overturn the state’s conviction. Their decision read, in part: wri70161_08_c08_151-172.indd 158 2/25/13 11:55 AM Section 8.3  The Exclusionary Rule CHAPTER 8 But the freedom of the state in establishing its policy is the freedom of constitutional government and is limited by the requirement of due process of law. The due process clause requires “that state action, whether through one agency or another, shall be consistent with the fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions.” Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 316, 47 S. Ct. 103, 104, 48 A.L.R. 1102. It would be difficult to conceive of methods more revolting to the sense of justice than those taken to procure the confessions of these petitioners, and the use of the confessions thus obtained as the basis for conviction and sentence was a clear denial of due process. (Brown v. State of Mississippi, 1936) The justices ruled that even though this was a state case, all citizens of the United States are entitled to due process; using torture to compel a confession violated this right, and any evidence obtained from such a confession could not be used in court. This case helped define due process, and also signaled that the U.S. Supreme Court had begun to regulate state behaviors. The case was remanded to Mississippi with instructions that the coerced confessions could not be used in evidence. Rather than face the risk of a new trial, all three defendants pleaded guilty to less serious manslaughter charges. 8.3  The Exclusionary Rule T he exclusionary rule was developed by the U.S. Supreme Court. It excludes illegally obtained evidence from being considered during a trial. In this section you will examine its history and development, why and how it was ultimately applied to the states, and its exceptions. The exclusionary rule was not applied to the states until 1961. However, the Supreme Court did exclude evidence in a few state cases because the police conduct violated the defendant’s right to due process of law. Consider, for example, a case called Rochin v. California 342 U.S. 165 (1952), in which the Supreme Court reviewed police conduct in the arrest and prosecution of Antonio Rochin. Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952) The Facts: On the morning of July 1, 1949, three Los Angeles County deputy sheriffs went to the home of Antonio Rochin. The police did not have a search warrant but had some information that Rochin was selling narcotics. Finding the outside door open, they entered the dwelling. They went to the wri70161_08_c08_151-172.indd 159 2/25/13 11:55 AM Section 8.3  The Exclusionary Rule CHAPTER 8 second floor, where they forced open the door to Rochin’s room. They found Rochin sitting partly dressed on the side of the bed, where his wife was lying. One of the deputies noticed two capsules on a night-stand and asked, “Whose stuff is this?” Rochin grabbed the capsules and put them in his mouth. The three deputies then wrestled with Rochin and sought to open his mouth so they could extract the pills. When this failed, the deputies handcuffed Rochin and took him to a hospital, where at their direction a doctor forced an emetic solution through a tube into Rochin’s stomach. The solution induced vomiting, and in the vomited matter the deputies found two morphine capsules. (Rochin v. California, 1952) In 1949 California lacked an exclusionary rule, so even evidence obtained illegally was admissible in court. They were not alone, as the exclusionary rule was not required of states until 1961, meaning that states were not required to exclude evidence from trial just because it was illegally seized. The morphine evidence in the case above, however, was illegally seized. The cops broke into Rochin’s house without a warrant, tried to physically force open his mouth, arrested him, and pumped his stomach against his will. Though illegal, the state was allowed to admit the evidence because it was not yet beholden to the exclusionary rule. The trial judge allowed the evidence, and Rochin was convicted. He appealed his case through the California appellate system and lost, at which point the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The court, which ruled that police misconduct had deprived the suspect of his right to due process, said: Applying these general considerations to the circumstances of the present case, we are compelled to conclude that the proceedings by which this conviction was obtained do more than offend some fastidious squeamishness or private sentimentalism about combating crime too energetically. This is conduct that shocks the conscience. Illegally breaking into the privacy of the petitioner, the struggle to open his mouth and remove what was there, the forcible extraction of his stomach’s contents—this course of proceeding by agents of government to obtain evidence is bound to offend even hardened sensibilities. They are methods too close to the rack and the screw to permit of constitutional differentiation. (Rochin v. California, 1952) The Decision: The court ruled that the police misconduct in this case deprived Rochin of his right to due process of law. This was one of the strongest messages the U.S. Supreme Court had ever sent regarding police violation of a suspect’s rights. It let states know loud and clear that the court would not hesitate to exclude evidence in their cases. The court did not go so far as to say that all evidence obtained illegally must be excluded, but it clearly stated that this case’s combination of police abuses and unlawfully collected evidence violated due process. wri70161_08_c08_151-172.indd 160 2/25/13 11:55 AM Section 8.3  The Exclusionary Rule CHAPTER 8 From Where Does the Exclusionary Rule Stem? While most rules of criminal procedure can be attributed in some way to the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Supreme Court developed the exclusionary rule on its own. The U.S. Constitution entirely lacks language regarding consequences for violating individual rights or due process, and although the Bill of Rights provides many protections that apply to criminal prosecutions, it does not expressly indicate how to ensure these rights or how to handle their violation. Criminal statutes dictate specific punishments for violations. The penalties might include incarceration or fines. The Fourth Amendment states that the government shall not conduct illegal searches. However it does not provide a penalty in the event the amendment is violated. The Fifth Amendment protects us from compelled self-incrimination. It does not, however, identify the consequence. The U.S. Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule as a remedy to the problem of police illegally obtaining evidence. History of the Exclusionary Rule The U.S. Supreme Court initially created the exclusionary rule in 1914 in the case Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383. Police had investigated Fremont Weeks for selling illegal lottery tickets through the mail, and they twice searched his Kansas City home without a warrant. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately threw out the seized evidence and announced that evidence illegally seized by law enforcement would be inadmissible for criminally prosecuting violations of the U.S. Code. Because this was a federal case, however, the court did not require the exclusion of evidence in state cases at this point in time. Meanwhile, states were struggling with the problem of police violating citizens’ rights in order to obtain evidence. Both illegal searches and unlawful interrogations were a continuing issue, in part due to the fact that many law enforcement officials were ignorant of the rules of search and seizure. Prior to the early 1970s, when law enforcement was professionalized, training and education opportunities were minimal and sporadic. Law enforcement jobs seldom required any education, and many agencies hired individuals at 18 years of age with minimal qualifications. Beyond the larger cities, the little training that existed focused on tactics instead of law. Some rural agencies provided no training at all. New police officers might simply be hired, given a gun and badge, and put on the streets. The lack of training and education often meant that police officers did not understand the law and, in many cases, did not know they had violated the Bill of Rights. Then, in the early 1970s, some states and larger cities began requiring law enforcement agencies to provide mandatory training on these issues for police officers. An influx of federal funding encouraged the creation of college criminal justice programs, which further helped encourage training and education. But prior to this, police often obtained evidence illegally, with few consequences. A few states enacted their own exclusionary rules, but the majority did not. In 1949 the U.S. Supreme Court warned states that this was becoming a problem when they heard the case Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25. This case pertained to Colorado police, who had obtained evidence during an illegal search. Had Wolf been a federal case, the evidence would have been excluded, and in fact, the defendant/appellant in Wolf was asking the U.S. Supreme Court to apply the exclusionary rule to the states. The court refused, however, suggesting wri70161_08_c08_151-172.indd 161 2/25/13 11:55 AM Section 8.3  The Exclusionary Rule CHAPTER 8 that while it was aware of the problem, it preferred to let individual states decide how best to find a solution. The court hinted that civil and administrative remedies might be required if the states did not want to adopt the exclusionary rule. In a sense the U.S. Supreme Court warned the states that they needed to solve this critical legal problem. The court changed its tune, however, in the 1961 case Mapp v. Ohio, when it finally required states to adhere to the exclusionary rule. Feeling that it had given the states ample opportunity to correct their problem, by 1961, the court had had enough. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) The Facts: Dollree Mapp and her daughter lived on the top floor of a two-family home in Cleveland, Ohio. On May 23, 1957, three police officers knocked on her door. They believed a wanted person might be hiding out in her apartment and also that there might be some evidence in her home. After calling her attorney, she refused to let them in since they did not have a search warrant. They did not come in but continued to watch her house. Three hours later, after conferring with their headquarters and being joined by at least four more officers, they again knocked on her door. She refused again, but they forced their way inside. Mapp’s attorney arrived, but the officers refused to let him see her. She demanded to see a warrant, and the officers showed her a sheet of paper they claimed to be a warrant, but there was no evidence that it was. She grabbed it and stuffed it down her bosom. The officers physically retrieved the paper and handcuffed her. The officers then searched her home, including her child’s room. Finally, after finding nothing, they searched a trunk in the basement and discovered what they identified as obscene material. She was charged with the illegal possession of obscene material, prosecuted, and convicted. The Decision: The trial court, the Ohio Court of Appeals, and the Ohio Supreme Court all allowed the admission of the illegally obtained materials as evidence ASSOCIATED PRESS because the exclusionary rule did The outcome of Mapp v. Ohio resulted in the U.S. not apply to state criminal cases. Supreme Court requiring the states to enforce the Mapp therefore appealed her exclusionary rule. case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which finally decided that the remedy of the exclusionary rule must apply to state criminal proceedings. The court determined that the states had failed to identify or enforce solutions to the problem of police misconduct. To deter the police from illegally obtaining evidence, the court dictated that in all criminal proceedings, illegally obtained evidence could not be admitted. wri70161_08_c08_151-172.indd 162 2/25/13 11:55 AM Section 8.4  The Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule CHAPTER 8 Mapp was one of the most significant criminal procedure cases in U.S. history. The decision forced police departments to improve their hiring and retention practices and to update their training to include constitutional criminal procedure. Today the study of the constitutional requirements is available in law enforcement academies and college criminal justice programs nationwide. The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine The fruit of the poisonous tree refers to an extension of the exclusionary rule. Imagine a beautiful apple tree full of leaves and glowing red apples. If you poisoned the tree’s roots by pouring a dangerous herbicide into its soil, the apples would also be poisoned. Following the concept that if a tree is poisoned, so is its fruit, this doctrine excludes any evidence that is discovered as a result of some previous illegality. Evidence that would not have been discovered except for the previous or initial illegality is also excluded. For example, if a police...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Good morning. Because I did not had your textbook's title and authors, I have highlighted the places where you need to use it for in-text citation. Also put your textbook in the references. Let me know if you have any questions.

THE ROLE OF ETHICS IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE & CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

The Role of Ethics in Criminal Justice & Criminal Procedure

This paper analyzes the role of ethics within criminal justice. The concept of ethics in
general and within the justice context is briefly discussed and the differences between ethics
in justice and ethics in real life are highlighted. The importance of equality in ethics in justice
is also discussed, and the criminal procedures that are used to protect individuals from

5

THE ROLE OF ETHICS IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE & CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

unequal treatment and other unethical behaviors are explained. The paper concludes that
ethics play an important role in guiding behavior within the justice system.
the term ‘’ethics’’ is rather ambiguous, as it can be understood in slightly different
ways, depending on the perspective from which the definition is given. Many people confuse
ethics with cultural norms, and ethics are often use as a synonymous for the term ‘’morality’’.
From my perspective, ethics can be conceptualized as a set of principles which that regulate
behavior within a formalized context such as an institution, principles that serve as a guide to
delimitate what types of behavior are harmful for others, and what type of behaviors aren’t.
Some ethical principles are specific to some types of organizations. Hence, criminal...

Similar Content

Related Tags