Exam 3 CCJ 2020

Federal Courts

- have geographic jurisdiction over the entire US

- power from the US constitution and congress

state courts

- have geographic jurisdiction over their states

- power from the stare constitutions and state legislatures

- 50 of them

- territories are self governed and have their own courts, but mostly either "district courts" or federal courts are used

adversarial system

- two sides pitted against one another with a referee over the process

- state v. defendant with the judge overseeing

EX) themis (personification of justice) - blindfolded (meant to be an impartial referee); practice of cross examination; jury selection process; at each stage in the process, the other side is actively trying to make your job harder

jurisdiction

the ability of a court to hear a case

geographic jurisdiction

where the crime was committed

subject matter jurisdiction

- type of offense

- some overlap so some federal prosecutors can cherry pick what cases they bring to a federal court vs. what cases stay state side

white collar crime

brought into the federal system more frequently

Mootness

if the issue being appealed is irrelevant, then it won't be heard

standing

if you are not impacted by the decision

ripeness

- merged with standing, doesn't get used anymore

- wait until impacted to bring suit

- cannot sue in anticipation of a harm

collusion

- you cannot manufacture the harm

- intentionally slipping in a fast foot restaurant

most jurisdiction

held by state courts

levels 1 and 2

decide adjudication and sentencing of a case

levels 3 and 4

decide whether there was a legal error in case processing in previous levels

level 1

- lower trial courts

- called county courts in FL

- 85% of cases go through these courts

- traffic cases

- misdemeanors

- civil cases

- run by local/county gov

- adjudication (guilty/not)

- sentencing

level 2

- major trial courts

- called circuit courts in FL

- felonies

- civil cases (at or above a specified monetary amount)

- adjudication and sentencing are decided in major trial courts as well as lower

level 3

- intermediate court of appeals

- if you believe the trial court made an error in the processing of your case, you have the right to appeal

- your appeal will be reviewed here

- district courts in FL

- panel of judges who hear your appeal and decide whether a legal error was made

- if error made, ask supreme court

- compelled to hear your case

level 4

- supreme court

- if you dont like what intermediate court of appeals rules, ask for relief from state supreme court

- court of last resort for the system

- hear cases en banc

- discretionary jurisdiction

- don't have to hear your case

lower trial courts

- FL: county 67

- Fed: district 94

major trial courts

- FL: circuit 20

- fed: district 94

intermediate court of appeals

- FL: district 6

- Fed: circuit 13

true

lower courts must follow decisions of higher courts

true

courts at the same level or in different regions don't have to follow each other's rulings

booking/case screening

- arrestee is taken into the jail

- record is made of their arrest

- police sent the arrest report to DA's office

- prosecutor evaluates whether probable cause exists to believe suspect committed an/the offense

- they will have to prove probable cause to a judge or grand jury if they decide to prosecute

- case dies if prosecutor doesn't find probable cause

initial appearance

- within 24/48 hours, the arrestee/suspect will go in front of the judge for the first time

- defense council will be assigned if needed

- advised of rights

- given notice of the charges

- judge will decide what happens until the adjudication of guilt

- bail decision

bail 1770s

- maintain the integrity of the constitutional process of adjudicating guilt

- making sure the trial takes place

- deny bail: flight risk; propensity to taint evidence

bail 1960-1970s

- introduce dangerousness as a legally permissible goal of bail

- SCOTUS upholds the legality of dangerousness as a consideration at bail i Salerno v US

cash bail

- if it is paid, then the person can get their money back when the trail happens

- some money is skill kept for fees or bail can be seized if the person is given a fine as punishment

secured (surety) bond

- if the person cannot pay their bail, they can pay a lesser amount to a bail bond company to post bail

- bail bond company gets money back

- often seen as predatory, so some courts have taken over secured bonds

- person pays lesser amount to the court

- if they don't show up, the court keep the money

property bond

- if the judge allows it

- the person can't pay the bail, but they may have property that is worth at least a little more than the set bail

recognizance bond

- judge allows the person to go free pending the trial

- if the person doesn't come back, they owe money

- there is still a risk to encourage returning for trial, but the money does not have to be paid up front

pros of bail

- allows suspects to be more active participants in their defense

- prevents overcrowding in jails and saves money by not paying for their jail stay

- for individuals whose offenses are not felonies, the length of pre trial detention is often longer than the eventual sentence they receive

cons of bail

- favors those with means upfront

- falls apart for those with truly no means to pay minimal set bails

3 step formal assessment of probable cause

- Goal is for the judiciary to check the executive

- May be done via a grand jury - ex parte

- A group of citizens decide whether probable cause exists to bind case over to trial

- If they decide probable cause exists, they return a true bill of indictment

- If not, they return "no bill of indictment" and the case dies

- The prosecutor can still try again

arraignment

- first time one can enter a plea

not guilty

force the government to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt

guilty

- defendant recognizes wrongdoing (i did it im sorry)

- defendant makes a tactical choice to plea

nolo contendere

- no contest

- allows defendant to plead guilty but that admission of guilt cannot be used against them in a later civil proceeding

plea bargain

- if case ends in guilty or nolo plea

- over 90% of cases end in plea

- punishment is lesser if not forced to go to trial

charge bargaining

in exchange for guilt, the charges will be reduced

count bargaining

reducing the number of counts

fact bargaining

leave material fact out of charge

sentence bargaining

recommend lesser sentence to the judge

jury selection

- there is a right to a jury trial in non-serious cases

- they can waive the right to a jury trial and opt for a bench trial (only have one judge)

- if they opted for jury trial, they will go through voir dire

voir dire

- speak the truth

- prosecution and defense are able to question potential petit jurors to see if they can be impartial

- both sides can remove an unlimited number of jurors for a reason

- both sides can remove a limited number of jurors without a reason

- peremptony trikes/challenges

pretrial motions

- must perform

- both adversarial parties must exchange evidence prior to the trial

- continuance

- suppress evidence

- change venue

trial

- assuming the defendant never plead guilty and the prosecutor does not drop the charges, they will inevitably end up at a trial

- defense does not have to put on a case, they can just sit there and let the prosecution talk

- closing statements

- prosecution goes last because of burden of proof

- jury moves to deliberations

- jury decides guilt/lack thereof but must be unanimous

- jury can find someone guilty of one count and not others

sentencing

- if adjudicated guilty, the person will be sentenced

- limited by statute

- punishment

appeal

- if they believed an error was made

- usually only the defendant can appeal because of double jeopardy

- if the judge is wildly out of line then, and only then, can the prosecution appeal a case

- because the defendant was never in any real legal jeopardy, the case was decided by the jury

federal judges

- appointed by the president

- confirmed by the senate

- life appointment

- this is how all federal judges are put on the bench

partisan elections

- the people of the community will vote for one judge to be appointed/reappointed over another

- political party will be on the ballot

Nonpartisan elections

- the people of the community will vote for one judge to be appointed/reappointed over another

- political party will not be on the ballot

legislative appointment

the state congress fills judicial vacancies

gubernatorial appointment

- means governor

- governor fills judicial vacancies

commission based appointment

- commission is a group of qualified people that evaluates appointments

- when a vacancy opens, the commission will review applicants and recommend 3-6 of them to the governor for appointment

- governor must pick from that short list

assisted merit selection

- missouri plan

- commission recommends 3-6 judges to the governor for appointment

- governor picks from that list

- judge that gets the appointment will serve a probationary term

- after the initial term, the judge goes up for a retention election

- if retained, the judge will then serve a full term before another retention election

- cycle of terms and retention elections

prosecute

bring charges against someone accused of a crime

prosecution

- agents of the state

- state attorney

- district attorney

- they are the most powerful actors in the criminal justice process

- if they do not bring charges against someone, the person will not ever have to go to trial/adjudication/anything

- unfettered discretion over

- bring charges

- which charges to bring

- recommend sentencing to a judge

- recommend bail

when the prosecutor gets the arrest report from the police, what question are they screening for?

is there probable cause to charge the defendant with a crime?

north star

of the prosecution is the strength of the evidence

line prosecutor

prosecutor boss is also a prosecutor

defense counsel

- defendants agents

- represent the accused throughout the criminal justice process

-You have a right to counsel in the 6th Amendment

- Until 1963, this right was interpreted as "you can bring one, but the government doesn't have to give you one"

- That interpretation of the 6th Amendment changes in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

- SCOTUS grants indigent individuals the guarantee of an attorney during felony prosecutions

Indigent

individuals who can prove they can't afford defense counsel, excludes those without the ability to prove they are indigent or those who have more money

felony prosecutions

- doesn't include stacked misdemeanors

- does not specify when this right starts/ends

- some states start only offering counsel during the trial, no preparations, many defendants end up saying the wrong thing in court

US v Wade 1967

- The guarantee to counsel for indigent defendants is not just during the trial, but at any critical stage

- Any point in the process where in the absence of a

lawyer, strong prejudice is likely

- The only place that this right doesn't exist is at the

initial appearance

- They are only reading the charges, deciding bail, and assigning counsel

- How could someone already have their counsel if it has not been assigned to them yet

argersinger v. hamlin 1972

- extends gideon to those who are suject to a substantial period of incarceration

- 6 months or more

- includes stacked/serious misdemeanors

strickland test

test for ineffective cousel appeal

successful ineffective counsel appeal

shows:

- counsel's performance was below objective standards

- if not for counsel's errors, there is a reasonable probability a different verdict would have been reached

public defender

- salaried government employees whose full time job is to represent indigent people

- sole job is to represent indigent people

- majority of indigent people are represented by public defenders

assigned counsel

court assigns individual defense attorney's to cases for $xx per case

contract counsel

law firms or bar associations contract with a court to represent all their indigent people for a annual rate

is returning private counsel better than using a public defender?

yes

private counsel

- file more motions

- better acquittal rates

- more contact with client

public counsel

- are given the cases private counsel doesn't want/views as unwinnable

- many of their clients are in jail, therefore less contact

- set up to fail in forced comparison

- may be better in specialized situations

concurrent sentencing

- only serve 20 years in reality

- first 3 years in prison will count for the 3, 15, and 20 year terms

- next 12 will count for the 15 and 20 year terms

- only 5 years left to finish the 20 year term, 20 years served total

consecutive sentencing

- will serve 3 years for the first sentence

- 15 years after that for the 15 year sentence

- another 20 years after that for the 20 year sentence

- 38 years total served

determinate sentencing

- the defendant knows for a fact how much time they will spend under correctional supervision when the judge pronounces the sentence

- fixed sentences with no parole

legislative determinate sentencing

legislature fixes the penalties for particular offenses

judicial determinate sentencing

judge has broad discretion to sentence someone within a range, but once they decide, that is how long the person will serve

interdeterminate sentencing

- the person does not know the exact amount of time they will spend in prison when the sentence is pronounced

- parole

- judge will sentence someone to a range (5-10 years, eligible for parole at 5 years)

the guilty hand

- the doing part of the crime

- actus rea

- no conduct, no liability

moved by:

- concurrence requirement

- the guilty mind must exist at the moment the act is performed and the guilty mind must cause the guilty act

the guilty mind

- menus rea

- criminal intent

- rely on intent differences to differentiate between/if: whether a crime occurred; which crime occurred

- most to least serious and in a ladder

- if someone has any kind of intent, they automatically have all kinds of intent below it

purposeful intent

conscious objective to bring about the result

knowledgeable intent

substantially certain a result would occur

reckless intent

conscious disregard for a substatial risk that a result would occur

negligent intent

failure to perceive risk that a result would occur

common law burglary

- breaking and entering into the dwelling of another at night with the intent to commit a felony therin

- must show guilty hand: something was broken and trespassed

- attendant circumstances: night, dwelling of another

- must show guilty mind: intent to commit felony

attendance circumstances

offenses which make it worse to do the act in particular situations

EX: traffic drugs within 25 yards of a school

result based crime

shows:

- the result occurs

- result was caused by the guilty hand

absence of a justification or excuse

these are two general defenses open to you even if all elements of the crime are met