Chapter 12: Pretrial Procedure in Procedural Criminal Law
Continuing Chapter 12: Pretrial Procedure
Context within Procedural Criminal Law: This discussion follows previous examinations of major components in criminal procedure, such as stop and frisk, search and seizure, interrogation, and identification. These are governed by the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Constitutional Amendments.
Current Scope: The focus shifts to later chapters regarding pretrial procedures, beginning after the initial prosecutorial discretion and detention phases (covered previously), including the standards for detention and bail.
Bail and the Federal Bail Act: US versus Salerno
Case Overview: A significant US Supreme Court case involving a defendant named Salerno, described as a prominent mafia figure.
Charges: Salerno was arrested on serious charges.
The Federal Bail Act: This federal legislation allows the government to request a status of "no bail" for certain defendants.
Legal Challenge: Salerno argued that being held without bail violated the Eighth Amendment, which mandates that "reasonable bail" must be set.
Supreme Court Ruling: The Court held that the Federal Bail Act is constitutional. It does not inherently violate the Eighth Amendment to hold a defendant without bail.
Requirements for No Bail: The court must act reasonably and evaluate a variety of specific factors when making a determination to deny bail or bond.
Jail Overcrowding and Pretrial Detainees: Bell versus Wolffish
Case Significance: This US Supreme Court case is landmark for several reasons, specifically regarding the management of criminal institutions and the treatment of pretrial detainees.
Defining Pretrial Detainees: These individuals are not convicts; they have not yet been convicted of a crime but remain in custody because they have not made bail.
Nature of the Lawsuit: This was a civil lawsuit filed by detainees rather than a criminal conviction appeal.
The Complaint (Conditions of Confinement):
Detainees argued they were subjected to poor jail conditions.
Cells were approximately in size (described as equivalent to a small room or closet).
Units utilized "double bunks," forcing two individuals into a single small cell.
Constitutional Issues:
The detainees claimed a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, asserting they should be treated equally.
The issue was whether pretrial conditions amounted to punishment without due process, potentially violating the Eighth Amendment.
Court Ruling: The Court determined that the management of jails and prisons is better left to the executive branch, including prison administrators and sheriffs.
Outcome for Detainees: While the detainees in this specific case did not find immediate constitutional recourse through the court, the case established how remedies should be sought. Subsequent successes were found through the legislature, city and county councils, and later court rulings.
The Right to Counsel: Gideon versus Wayne right
Historical Context: The right to counsel is a fundamental part of pretrial procedure. While individuals with money can hire private lawyers, specific mandates exist for those who cannot.
Miranda Rights Connection: Under the Fifth Amendment, Miranda requires informing suspects of their right to a lawyer. This includes the right to a furnished lawyer, a standard that was not established until after the Gideon case.
Gideon versus Wayne right (1963): Established the mandate that anyone too poor to afford a lawyer must have one provided by the state.
Critical Stages: A defendant is entitled to a lawyer at every "critical stage" of criminal proceedings, which includes everything following the formal charging of the defendant.
Indigent Determinations: "Indigent" is the legal term for a poor person. The criteria for being declared indigent vary:
Some jurisdictions use Federal Poverty Guidelines.
Other courts or counties use expanded versions of these guidelines, such as or of the federal poverty level, viewing the original guidelines as too narrow.
Limitations on the Right: Indigent defendants do not have the right to a lawyer of their choice. They must accept the attorney appointed by the court.
Public Defender Systems:
Marion County: Features a separate public defender agency with full-time and part-time lawyers.
Smaller Counties: Often hire local private attorneys on a part-time basis to fulfill appointment requirements.
Standards for Effective Counsel: Strickland versus Washington
Sixth Amendment Right: The right to counsel implies a right to "effective" counsel.
Post-Conviction Challenges: It is a common legal challenge for a person to be convicted and then appeal on the grounds that their trial attorney was ineffective, violating Sixth Amendment rights.
The Strickland Two-Prong Test: To prove ineffective assistance, the court looks at two factors:
Reasonable Competence: Was the attorney reasonably competent? This is a relatively low standard; the attorney must perform minimal duties to defend. They do not need to be the "smartest" or "brilliant," nor are they expected to never make a mistake.
Prejudice: If the attorney was incompetent, did that incompetence affect the finding of conviction? There must be a showing that the attorney's failure made an actual difference in the outcome.
Pillow versus Beard Case Example:
Defendant was convicted of murder, and the state sought the death penalty.
During the death penalty phase (a separate proceeding from the trial), the appointed defense lawyers offered very little evidence.
The state possessed evidence regarding prior crimes; the defense reportedly failed to even read the state's evidence.
The defense failed to present mitigating factors, such as the defendant's mental health issues and history of alcoholism.
Result: The defendant received the death penalty but appealed. The new lawyers found the missing evidence. The Supreme Court ruled the Strickland test was not met because defense counsel failed the first prong (they weren't reasonably competent due to the failure to even read the state's intended evidence). The case was reversed for a new trial with new counsel.
Judicial Anecdote on Ineffectiveness: In a drug case, a public defender called the defendant as a witness without prior coordination and asked, "You've never done this before, have you?" The defendant, who had many previous convictions, said "no." This "opened the door" for the state to bypass Fifth Amendment protections and question his criminal record, leading to conviction. The presiding judge (the speaker) set that conviction aside.
Double Jeopardy: Fifth Amendment Protections
Definition: The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being liable for the same offense more than once.
Attachment of Jeopardy: Jeopardy "attaches" (begins) as soon as the jury is selected and sworn. In a bench trial (trial before a judge), it attaches when the judge begins hearing evidence.
Exceptions to Double Jeopardy: Double jeopardy does not apply in the following scenarios:
Mistrials: Specifically when a jury is "hung" (unable to reach a decision).
Dismissals: When a judge dismisses the case for certain reason during the pretrial phase (the state can often refile).
Complexity of Application: Double jeopardy typically addresses cases where there is a prior conviction or where the state attempts to charge two overlapping crimes based on the "same operative facts" or the same conduct.
Reneco versus Lett: A Supreme Court case involving a hung jury where the judge declared a mistrial. The defendant was retried and convicted. The defendant appealed, claiming double jeopardy. The Supreme Court ruled that trial courts have the discretion to declare a mistrial, and therefore retrying the case does not violate double jeopardy.
Speedy Trial Rights
Sixth Amendment: Guarantees the right to a speedy trial, or the case must be dismissed.
Start Date: The clock for a speedy trial starts when the defendant is formally charged.
Timeframes:
Federal System: Trial must occur within .
State Systems (e.g., Indiana):
If the defendant is in jail: Trial must be held within .
If the defendant is not in jail: Trial must be held within .
Tolling/Extensions: The countdown stops or time is extended if:
The defendant requests continuances or necessary pretrial hearings.
Mental health testing is required for the defendant.
Other necessary pretrial matters occur.
Judicial Priority: Speedy trials take precedence on the court calendar; judges must move other cases out of the way to ensure Sixth Amendment rules are not violated.
Change of Venue and Motions to Suppress
Shepard versus Maxwell (1960s):
A significant case involving Dr. Shepherd (the inspiration for "The Fugitive").
Shepherd was convicted of his wife's murder but claimed an intruder was responsible.
The Cleveland area newspapers and media created massive "prejudicial publicity."
Ruling: The US Supreme Court established a standard of prejudicial coverage. If a defendant cannot receive a fair trial due to media saturation, the trial can be moved to a different part of the state (motion for change of venue).
Motion to Suppress:
A pretrial request to the judge to exclude evidence.
Common grounds include lack of reasonable suspicion for a stop, lack of probable cause for a warrant, unreasonable search/seizure, or failure to provide Miranda warnings.
General Standard: Due Process, defined as fundamental fairness.
Outcome: Granting a motion to suppress can lead to the dismissal of the case if the state cannot proceed without the suppressed evidence.
Summary of Essential Topics
Fourth Amendment: Requires that detained suspects be brought to court promptly.
Sixth Amendment: Includes the right to effective counsel and a speedy trial.
Fifth Amendment: Covers double jeopardy protections (subject to judicial discretion in mistrials).