Criminal Evidence Quiz 3

Fifth Amendment

Part of the United States Constitution that protects individuals from self-incrimination and guarantees due process. It also includes rights related to grand jury proceedings and prohibits double jeopardy. It ensures that no person shall be compelled to testify against themselves in criminal cases. Additionally, it provides for just compensation when private property is taken for public use.

Double Jeopardy

A legal principle that prevents an individual from being tried again for the same offense after a valid conviction or acquittal. It ensures a defendant cannot be prosecuted more than once for the same crime. This principle protects against legal harassment and preserves the integrity of final judgments.

Separate Sovereigns Exception

A legal doctrine that allows different jurisdictions to prosecute a defendant for the same conduct without violating the double jeopardy clause, as each jurisdiction is considered a separate sovereign with its own laws. This exception applies in cases involving state and federal courts or different states.

Self-Incrimination

The act of exposing oneself to criminal prosecution by making statements or providing evidence that could be used against oneself in a court of law. It is protected against by the Fifth Amendment. This protection ensures individuals cannot be forced to testify against themselves, thereby safeguarding their rights.

Taking the Fifth

A colloquial term describing the act of refusing to answer questions or provide information that may incriminate oneself, invoking the right against self-incrimination as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

Bram v. U.S.

A landmark Supreme Court case that established the principle that confessions must be voluntary and not coerced, thus reinforcing the rights against self-incrimination.

Adamson v. California

A Supreme Court case that held the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination applies to state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment, affirming the incorporation of certain federal rights at the state level.

Malloy v. Hogan

A Supreme Court case that extended the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination to the states, ruling that states cannot compel a person to testify against themselves in criminal proceedings.

Miranda v. Arizona

A landmark Supreme Court decision that established procedural safeguards for individuals in police custody, requiring law enforcement to inform suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have counsel present during interrogations. The Court ruled that failure to inform suspects of these rights could lead to the inadmissibility of their statements in court.

Miranda Warning

A legal warning given to individuals in police custody prior to interrogation, informing them of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. It serves to protect against self-incrimination and ensure that any statements made during interrogation are admissible in court.

Bright Line Rule

A legal standard that provides clear guidelines for law enforcement or judges, simplifying the interpretation of a law or rule. It helps to determine the admissibility of evidence and the application of legal principles in straightforward scenarios. The Bright Line Rule eliminates ambiguity by establishing clear and objective standards that must be followed, ensuring consistent application in legal proceedings. (Edwards v Arizona)

Interrogation

The process by which law enforcement officials question a suspect to obtain information or confessions related to a crime. Interrogations require that suspects be informed of their rights to avoid self-incrimination.

Rhode Island v. Innis

A Supreme Court case that determined the definition of "interrogation" in relation to custodial questioning and established that any words or actions by police that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from a suspect can be considered interrogation. This ruling emphasized that interrogation is not limited to direct questioning but includes any police conduct that could knowingly provoke a suspect's incriminating remarks.

Confessions

Statements made by a suspect acknowledging involvement in a crime, often considered powerful evidence in legal proceedings. These admissions of guilt can be given voluntarily or as a result of interrogation and must meet certain legal standards to be admissible in court. (Direct Evidence)

Incriminating Statements

Statements made by a suspect that suggest their involvement in a crime, which can significantly influence legal cases and are generally scrutinized for admissibility in court. Such statements can be made during interrogations or casual conversations with law enforcement and may lead to further investigation or charges. (Circumstantial Evidence)

Parameters of Miranda

The guidelines established by the Supreme Court that dictate the rights of a suspect during custodial interrogation, ensuring they are informed of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present. These parameters aim to protect the Fifth Amendment rights of individuals against self-incrimination.

Miranda does not attach

until a suspect is in custody and subject to interrogation, meaning that the suspect must be formally arrested or deprived of freedom in a significant way before these rights are activated.

Berkemer v. McCarty

A landmark Supreme Court case establishing that a person does not need to be formally arrested for Miranda rights to apply during a traffic stop if subjected to a custodial interrogation.

Terry v. Ohio

Brief investigative detentions

PA v. Muniz

Routine booking

Hoffa v. U.S.

Information gathered by undercover operatives

Public Safety Exception

allows questioning of a suspect after arrest but before reading the Miranda rights if there is an immediate and significant danger to the public. (New York v. Quarles)

Rescue Doctrine

a legal principle that deals with the responsibilities people have when they create dangerous situations for others. Generally, the law does not require someone to help another person in trouble. However, if someone causes a situation that puts another person in danger, they may have a duty to help. For example, if a person carelessly causes an accident, they might be expected to assist anyone who is hurt as a result of their actions. This principle is rooted in the idea that if you create a problem, you should also help fix it.

Special Situations of Self-Incrimination

Attorneys, School Teachers, Police Officers

Garrity v. NJ

law enforcement officers and other public employees have the right to be free from compulsory self-incrimination.

The Bruton Rule

a legal principle that prohibits the admission of a non-testifying co-defendant's confession in a joint trial if it implicates another co-defendant. This rule aims to protect the co-defendant's right to confront witnesses against them, as established in the U.S. Supreme Court case Bruton v. United States.

Bruton v. U.S.

It establishes that in a joint trial, the confession of a co-defendant that implicates another defendant cannot be admitted into evidence against the latter if the co-defendant does not testify. This rule is rooted in the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to confront one's accusers. The Supreme Court held that admitting such confessions without the opportunity for cross-examination undermines the rights of the implicated defendant, potentially leading to unfair prejudice against them. The Bruton Rule seeks to ensure that a defendant is not convicted based on the hearsay of a non-testifying co-defendant, thus preserving the integrity of the judicial process.

Garrity Rule

This rule protects public employees from being compelled to incriminate themselves in violation of their Fifth Amendment rights during an internal investigation. The ruling arose from a case where police officers were ordered to answer questions under threat of job loss. The Supreme Court held that statements made under such coercive conditions could not be used against the employees in subsequent criminal prosecutions. Essentially, if a public employee is informed that their statements are mandatory and any refusal could result in disciplinary action, those statements cannot later serve as evidence in a criminal case, ensuring protections against self-incrimination while balancing the state's interest in investigating misconduct.

Constraints on LE

Deception, Trickery, and Lies. (No Physical Force Allowed)

Where does the 5th amendment not apply?

Statements regarding a 3rd party, any evidence that is not communicative or testimonial, groups and businesses, and non-criminal cases

Other areas unprotected

Blood of field sobriety tests, compulsory participation in ID procedures and videotaped bookings, and physical examinations mandated by the court

Witnesses

Witnesses are individuals who observe or have direct knowledge about an event or situation. In a legal context, they provide testimony under oath during trials or depositions. Witnesses can be categorized into two main types: eyewitnesses, who testify about what they saw, and expert witnesses, who provide specialized knowledge relevant to the case. Their credibility and reliability can significantly influence the outcome of legal proceedings.

Jurors

Triers of fact

Statute of Elizabeth

This law aimed to address various issues related to property, land ownership, and the responsibilities of landlords and tenants. It was part of a broader legal framework to regulate the social and economic relationships in Elizabethan England.

Qualification of Witnesses

the criteria that individuals must meet to be deemed eligible to provide testimony in a legal setting. Generally, a witness must be competent, which means they have the capacity to understand and convey information truthfully under oath. This includes being of a certain age (often at least 18), possessing sufficient mental capacity, and having firsthand knowledge of the facts in question.

Incompetency

pertains to a person's ability to stand trial or testify as a witness. Factors that may contribute to a determination of incompetency include mental illness, cognitive disabilities, or age-related impairments. This status can influence various legal proceedings, as individuals deemed incompetent may not be held responsible for their actions or may require legal representation and guardianship to manage their affairs.

Voir Dire

a legal procedure used during jury selection in which potential jurors are questioned by the attorneys and sometimes the judge. The purpose of voir dire is to determine the jurors' qualifications, biases, and ability to render an impartial verdict. This process ensures that jurors can approach the case with an open mind and without preconceived notions that could affect their judgment.

Child Witnesses

minors who provide testimony in legal proceedings. Their involvement can be critical in cases such as child abuse or custody disputes. In legal contexts, several factors influence how child witnesses are handled:

• Competency: Courts assess whether a child understands the obligation to tell the truth and can communicate their experiences effectively.

• Suggestibility: Children may be more susceptible to leading questions or suggestions, which can impact the reliability of their testimony.

• Testimony settings: Courts often modify environments for child witnesses to make them more comfortable, such as using closed-circuit television or having support persons present.

Maryland v. Craig

a significant U.S. Supreme Court case decided in 1990 that addressed the issue of whether a state could permit a child witness to testify outside the presence of the defendant in a criminal trial.

Hypnosis

may be utilized in legal settings to recover memories or as a therapeutic tool for witnesses and victims to cope with trauma. However, its reliability as evidence can be contentious. Concerns include the accuracy of memories recovered under hypnosis, the potential for suggestibility leading to false memories, and the impact on a witness's credibility. In many jurisdictions, testimony obtained from a witness who has been hypnotized is often inadmissible in court due to concerns over reliability and suggestibility.

Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment

guarantees defendants the right to confront witnesses testifying against them in a criminal trial. This clause is essential to ensuring a fair trial, as it allows defendants to challenge the credibility of witnesses, and the evidence presented against them.

False Testimony

refers to providing inaccurate, misleading, or untrue statements during legal proceedings or under oath. The consequences can include criminal charges such as perjury, fines, and imprisonment, as well as damaging the credibility of the person who provided the false statement. It can lead to wrongful convictions, misinterpretation of facts, and erosion of trust in the legal system, ultimately undermining the pursuit of justice.

Perjury

the act of intentionally providing false information or misleading statements while under oath, typically during legal proceedings such as court trials or depositions.

Subpoena

a legal document that orders an individual to appear in court or produce certain documents or evidence for a legal proceeding. There are typically two types of subpoenas: a subpoena ad testificandum, which compels a person to testify, and a subpoena duces tecum, which requires the production of documents or records.

Brooks v. Tennessee

a significant case in which the Supreme Court addressed the rights of criminal defendants under the Sixth Amendment, particularly regarding their right to testify. In this case, the Tennessee statute at the time required defendants to testify first in their own defense, which raised concerns about the fairness of the trial process.

6th and 14th Amendments

Right to testify in your own defense

Pitfalls for a Defendant/Witness

Defendants and witnesses may face several pitfalls, including the risk of self-incrimination, misremembering details leading to inconsistencies, the pressure of cross-examination, and the potential for bias in their testimony.

Catch 22

a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules or limitations.

Witness Credibility

refers to the reliability and trustworthiness of a witness's testimony in court. Factors that contribute to witness credibility include:

• Competence

• Honesty

• Impartiality

• Ability to recall and articulate events

• Lack of bias or interest in the case outcome.

Demeanor in Court

appear confident, composed, and maintain consistent body language, tone, and composure are often seen as more trustworthy

Physical Facts Rule

an evidentiary rule that states that oral testimony may be disregarded when it is inconsistent or irreconcilable with the physical evidence in a case

Witness Impeachment

the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial.

Methods of Impeachment

• Bias/prejudice

• Prior felony convictions

• Character

• Immoral act or uncharged crimes

• Prior inconsistent statements

• Inability to observe

Non-methods of impeachment

• Sensory and mental capacity

• Truth and veracity challenges

Specific Impeachment

• Inconsistencies in current testimony

• Contradictory statements made in the past

Cornerstone of criminal cases

Witnesses

Credibility and Competency

important considerations

6th Amendment

Where the provisions for witnesses are housed

Lay Witness

Individuals who are privy to an event relevant to the issue at hand and are usually limited to real evidence

FRE 701

Opinion evidence limited to those facts rationally based on a witness’s perception which are helpful for clarification AND are not based on special knowledge

Lay Witness Opinion Testimony

Identification of handwriting, statements about emotional state and physical condiction of someone, voice identification, statements of mental condition, identity of person through a line up or photographs, and statements about the speed of a vehicle

Expert Witnesses

Assist the jury in clarification of evidence, usually have advanced degrees, has specialized knowledge. Judge rules on admissibility and scope, but jury assigns weight and importance

Qualification of Experts

Is expert testimony recognized, what qualification are needed, and do they meet these requirements

Limitations of Expert Testimony

Can not invade issues that the judge or jury have to decide, and are only limited to their area of expertise

Other Notes on Experts

Compensation varies on characteristics of a case, often leads to competing theories or conclusions, and are increasingly in demand

Frye v. US

Required that the science or method had gained acceptance in the field and were largely unworkable as advancements have occurred at a lightning pace

FRE

Attempted to streamline expert testimony

Daubert Standard

Emphasis on a focus of the inquiry should be based on principles and methodology rather than conclusions, states decide what is the appropriate test. Considerations are whether the scientific method can be used or tested, has it been subjected to publication or peer review, has potential error, existence and maintenance of standards controlling technique’s operation, and overall acceptance of the scientific community

Impeachment of Experts

Qualified to make sure their testimony is necessary for clarification, and they possess the requisite credentials and qualifications, scope of the testimony is within parameters of what the court is willing to accept as scientific or technological. Opposing counsel may stipulate, and can be in aggressive in cross-examining to discredit them in front of the jury

Methods of Impeachment

Challenges to professional credibility: Level of education, lack of publication or reputation in the field of expertise, testimony in previous cases, and potential bias or conflict of interest. Challenges of methodology: newness of technology, competing technologies, opposing theories, contradictory findings, and academic literature

Examination of Witnesses

Direct and Cross Examination

Direction Examination

Questioning by calling party, leading questions are not allowed, and not characterized by surprises

Cross Examination

Questioning by opposing counsel, limited to issues brought forth in Direct, leading questions are admissible and expected, exploratory in nature, considered to be a cornerstone of the adversarial system of American jurisprudence, and conducted to ensure veracity, shows facts in light most favorable to examiner, and/or to impeach the witness

Objections

Substance, Form, and Answer

Substance Objection

Solicited answer would be inadmissible. Privileged information; hearsay; incompetence; irrelevant; etc.

Form Objection

Argumentative, misleading, conclusive, narrative, and leading

Answer Objection

Solicited answer is inadmissible. Privileged information; hearsay; opinion; etc. Different from preceding two in that the request is that the answer be stricken from the record

Competency

ability to recollect and communicate; ability to determine fact from fiction; appreciation of veracity requirement

Relevant

Evidence which has a tendency to make the existence of a fact in question more or less probable than without its’ introduction

Material

Such consequence as to have an effect on the trial

Eyewitness Testimony

Both relevant and material, but may not be competent

Corroboration

Supplementary or supporting evidence which strengthens or confirms extant evidence. Situations requiring it: Testimony of coconspirators or accomplice, and alibi defenses

What is the cornerstone of the confrontation clause?

Cross examination

Hearsay

Any statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted

Assertion centered statements

Oral/written statements or nonverbal conduct intended to make an assertion

Declarant centered statements

Involves an evaluation as to the declarant’s credibility

Non-Hearsay Statements

When declarant testifies at the trial/hearing and is subject to cross examination and the statement is inconsistent or it is used as a rebuttal for a false testimony

Examples of non hearsay statements

Adoptive admissions, admissions by silence, admissions by conduct, flight to avoid prosecution, failure to call witnesses or produce evidence, refusal to submit to physical examinations, actions taken to obstruct justice, plea negotiations, and payment of medical expenses

Plea negotiations

Precludes introduction of withdrawn guilty pleas, nolo contendere pleas, or statements made during plea negotiations, and can be issued in cases of perjury

Co-Conspirator Rule

Not hearsay, based on premises that the conspiracy makes the parties one

Exceptions to Exclusionary Rule

Non-sworn statements are unreliable, some statements are reliable on their face, dismissing all non-sworn statements did not serve the interest of justice, and they may be introduced without the benefit of cross-examination

Exceptions where defendant is unavailable

Former testimony, dying declaration, statement against interest, and statement of personal or family history

Unavailability

Nature of the statement, refusal to testify, lack of memory on the subject, death or existing physical or mental illness, or is physical absent and cannot procure a statement

Statement against interest

Witness is unavailable

Statement is against the pecuniary or proprietary interest of the declarant

Statement of Personal or Family History

Witness is unavailable

Statement concerns personal or family history

Exceptions for the availability of witness as immaterial

Present sense impression, excited utterances, statements regarding mental, emotional, or physical condition, statements for purposes of obtaining medical diagnosis or treatment, past recollection recorded, regularly kept records, ancient documents, reputation, and family records and matters

Present Sense Impression

Made while the declarant was perceiving, or immediately after perceiving an event or condition

Do not have to be spontaneous and may be solicited

Excited Utterances

Involve observations through the 5 senses, spontaneous under the stress and excitement of the event, and that it be against the interest of the defendant