Studied by 0 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
Black Stone’s ratio
“It is better that 10 guilty persons go free than one innocent person suffer”
What 2 things does the law function to protect?
Protect citizens from crime
Protect accused from an unfair trial
Miranda v. Arizona
Court decided that (miranda) rights should be read to a suspect when they are arrested. if we want to make things fair, we need to inform them of their rights. In order to invoke miranda, you have to make an unequivocal statement that you are invoking those rights
Due process model
Places the primary value of the protection of citizens from possible abuses by the police and law enforcement
Characteristics of the due process model
Assumes innocence of suspects
Fairness over efficiency
Its why states are responsible for burden of proof
Actually no requirement for the defendant to present a defense because innocent until proven guilty
Crime control model
Seeks the punishment of lawbreakers, emphasizing the efficient detection and detention of suspects and prosecution of defendants so that society can be assured that criminal activity is being contained or reduced
Crim control model characteristics
Repression of criminal conduct is the most important function
Efficiency over fairness
Attempt to protect society as a whole by detecting and moving people through the criminal justice process
California’s 3 strikes law
3 strikes law
No matter what the 3rd crime is, the 3rd crime is punished harsher
Presumption of guilt
A prediction of the outcome, prediction of how the case will turn out
Presumption of innocence
Not a prediction of outcome, but rather a direction to official on how to proceed; speaks fairness into the procedure
Exclusionary rule
Designed to prevent the prosecution from introducing evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s rights
Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
Evidence is inadmissible when a defendant can demonstrate a causal connect between evidence and a prior rights violation. The court held that the Constitution prohibits not only the illegal seizure of evidence, but also all evidence resulting from it. Expanded exclusionary rule to all evidence discovered because of a rights violation
4th Amendment
The right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures
5th Amendment
No person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Boyd v US
1st American judicial case to exclude evidence on grounds implicating the 4th amendment
Weeks v US
The defendant’s private correspondence was seized by police without a warrant; important because court relied excluively on 4th Amendment for its judgment, and emphasized not only the nature of the evidence but the manner in which it was seized
Amos v US
Court extended exclusionary rule beyond private papers; the court began focusing on the manner in which evidence was obtained rather than the nature of the evidence
Mapp v. Ohio
Supreme court explicitly ruled that the exclusionary rule also applied to the states’ prosecution of state crimes
Crime control position on exclusionary rule
People v DeFore; “should the criminal go free because the constable has blundered?”
Good faith clause
An exception mandating that evidence would not be excluded on the basis of rights violations in cases where law enforcement agents acted under a reasonable, good-faith belief that their actions were constitutional. Stands as one of the most significant retreats from the exclusionary rule as originally established
US v Williams
US court of appeals adopted a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule; The court justified this exception on the basis that the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct; thus, excluding evidence when the police acted rightly is unneccesary
US v Leon et al
Held that evidence seized in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant which was subsequently invalidated should not be barred from admission
Herring v US
May be said to represent a “sea change” in exclusionary rule jurisprudence, as it was the 1st case to make the mental state of the police into account. By holding that an officer’s actions must exceed mere negligence, Herring paved the way for further expansion of the good faith exception
Silverthorne Lumber v US
The court stated that illegally-obtained facts could still be admitted if knowledge of them was garnered from an independent source. The burden of proof lie within the prosecution, who must convince the court that the evidence is independent of the unlwful act
Nardone v US
Court established a second exception, attenuation
Attenuation
To make something weaker; the prosecution may argue that the connection between the initial violation and the derived evidence has become weak to the point of illegality
Wong v US
Court restated the attenuation exception, but their language has been used to support another exception, which applies where the government “undoubtedly would have lawfully discovered the ‘tainted’ evidence” through legal means
Adversarial system assumes 3 things
Those who dispute affects should be responsible for making their arguments
The biases of self-interest are necessary motivator in discovering the truth
Conflict can take place within our system of law
Countries with adversarial system
US, Canada, UK
Countries with inquisitorial approach
France, Germany, Spain
Basics of adversarial system
Each side presents its best evidence and an independent fact-finder decides the outcome
Judges ensures due process and decides what evidence to admit
Those involved construct the version of the truth
Fundamental fairness is paramount - even if ‘unjust’ results occur occasionally
Individual rights may trump truth
Basics of inquisitorial system
The judge asks questions of the witnesses (who testify for the court) and makes a decision
Judge constructs version of the truth
Search for truth is paramount - even if unfair means are used occasionally
Truth may override individual rights
Role of attorneys adversarial
Attorney acts as extension of client, assist client as if it were their own case
Active, responsible for producing evidence and questioning witnesses
Prosecutors and defense attorneys are more partisan, competitors
Role of attorneys Inquisitorial
Less active, less responsible for developing evidence
Prosecutors and defense attorneys less partisan, mainly aid in the search for truth
Role of judges adversarial
Passive
Like umpires or referees; not responsible for ‘investigating’ truth
Role of judges inquisitorial
Active
Considered the ‘examining magistrate’; responsible for developing truth
Role of parties, witnesses adversarial
More party control of disputes and less intervention
More oral testimony
Short questions and answers
Rather than them giving a long full story, witnesses only answer what they get asked
Role of parties, witnesses inquisitorial
Less party control of disputes; more control by judge
Tend to see more oral testimony of witnesses
More written testimony
Long narratives
Rules of evidence adversarial
Stricter, more complex rules of evidence
More exclusionary rules to control police, prosecutors, and judges
Presented to laypersons/jury
Rules of evidence inquisitorial
Fewer, more lax rules of evidence
More discretion for judge and governmental decision makers
Presented to jurists
Advantages of adversarial systems
Both parties investigate the case; get ‘both sides of the truth’
Motivates each party to put forth efforts to find truth and persuade the fact finder in a competitive trial
Promotes more respect for individual rights
Formal rules preserve an equal playing field; assume fair administration of justice
Less removed from the average citizen, more accessible
Trial by jury - better than the government paid agent
Advantages of inquisitorial systems
One investigation of the case
Brings investigation of cases before a detached magistrate - avoids overzealous detectives and prosecutors
Promotes more respect for individual duty, responsibility and security of society as a whole
Informal and less complicated process assures efficient administration of justice
Panel of judges or government paid agents are less biased than the average citizen
Critiques of adversarial
Truth suffers when rights become obstacles (e.g., to investigation, exclusion)
Complex rules of evidence are difficult for laypersons to understand
Investigative work is left to partisans
The judge has too little power
Trials become lengthy, process is slow, backlog develops
Backlog discourages trials, huge pressure to plea bargain
Excess law and unequal resources give more justice to wealthy
Desire to assure fair means may lead to unjust ends
Whole thing can get undermined
Critiques of inquisitorial
Fairness suffers when duty to the court overrides individual rights and privacy
Lack of rules of evidence give too much discretion to judges; they may be prone to biases
Investigative work is left to government
The judge has too much power
Trials become ‘showcases’, process is too efficient to be fair
Huge percentage found guilty
Excess discretion and governmental control
Desire to assure just end may deny fair means
