half page answering this question
Criminal procedure – CJ320
Aaron Moses
Wichita state university
Chapter 13
The Courtroom
Examining the evidence
The case goes through one of two channels for official charging
Preliminary hearing
The prosecutor files an information or written formal charge that is reviewed by a judge at the preliminary hearing
Grand Jury
The prosecutor files a criminal complaint, and a grand jury composed of ordinary citizens decides whether to issue an indictment.
Indictment vs Information
Indictment States
Eighteen states, District of Columbia and Federal Government. Prosecutor may bypass the preliminary hearing by presenting evidence to a grand jury.
Information states
Twenty-eight states may bring felony charges based on a sworn statement and then proceed to a preliminary hearing.
GRAND JURY OUTCOMES
TRUE BILL
THE GRAND JURY AGREES THAT AN INDIVIDUAL HAS COMMITTED A CIRMINAL OFFENSE AND RETURNS A TRUE BILL THAT INDICATED THE VOTE OF THE GRAND JURORS SUPPORTING THE INDICTMENT.
NO BILL
THE GRAND JURY DECIDES THAT THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THAT AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO TRIAL AND ISSUES A NO BILL.
PRESENTMENT
THE GRAND JURY VOTES TO UNDERTAKE AN INVESTIGATION THAT GORS BEYOND THE INDICTMENT.
ARRAIGNMENT
TAKES PLACE AFTER CHARGING
DEFENDANT OFFERED THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENTER A PLEA.
NOT GUILTY – “I DIDN’T COMMIT THE CRIME”
NO GUILTY BY INSANITY – “I DID NOT KNOW THE NATURE OF THE QUALITY OF MY ACT.”
NOLO CONTENDRE – “I DO NOT WANT TO CONTEST MY CRIMINAL CHARGES.”
GUILTY – “I COMMITTED THE CRIME, AND LET ME DESCRIBE THE FACTS OF MY CRIME.”
PRETRIAL MOTIONS
OPPORTUNITY FOR DEFENDANT TO CHALLENGE SOME OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE STATE AND TO ENSURE THAT THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHTS ARE NOT VIOLATED. THESE MOTIONS ARE HEARD OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF A JURY AND PRIOR TO A TRIAL IF THERE IS ONE.
DISCOVERY
THE DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO REVIEW ALL EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM.
IT IS THE DUTY OF THE PROSECUTOR, THROUGH THE POLICE, TO ENSURE THAT ALL EVIDENCE IS PROVIDED TO THE DEFENDANT IN A TIMELY MANNER
CASES MAY BE THROWN OUT DUE TO DISCOVERY ISSUES
BRADY/GIGLIO DISCLOSURE
THE TRIAL PROCESS
OPENING STATEMENT
01
PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE LAY OUT THEIR CASE BEFORE THEY PRESENT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
02
WITNESSES ARE CALLED, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE MAY BE PRODUCED AND ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
CLOSING ARGUMENT
03
BOOKEND TO THE OPENING STATEMENT, SUMMARIZES THE CASE MADE DURING TRIAL
JURY INSTRUCTIONS
04
THE JUDGE INSTRUCTS THE JURY IN REGARD TO THE LAW THAT IS TO BE FOLLOWED
JURY DELIBERATION
05
THE JURY EVALUATES THE FACTS AND RETURNS A VERDICT
KEY TERMS
BURDEN OF PROOF
STANDARD THAT MUST BE SATISFIED FOR A CRIMINAL CONVICTION. LIES ON THE PROSECUTION.
REASONABLE DOUBT
COVICTION REQUIRES THE JURY FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
GUILTY PLEAS
PLEA BARGAIN
THE DEFENDANT AGREES TO PLEAD GUILTY IN RETURN FOR A “BENEFIT” FROM THE PROSECUTION.
BENEFITS
RESPONSIBILITY
THE DEFENDANT IS TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS
FLEXIBILITY
THE PLEA CREATES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE JUDGE TO ENGAGE IN CREATIVE SENTENCING ALTERNATIVES.
VICTIMS
THE PLEA AVOIDS SUBJECTING VICTIMS TO THE PAINFUL EXPERIENCE OF A TRIAL
COOPERATION
THE DEFENDANT MAY AGREE TO COOPERATE WITH THE POLICE IN OTHER INVESTIGATIONS
CHAPTER 14
SENTENCING AND APPEALS
PURPOSES OF PUNISHMENT
RETRIBUTION
PUNISHMENT BASED ON “JUST DESSERTS.”
DETERRENCE
PUNISHMENT WILL KEEP THE DEFENDANT FROM COMMITTING THE CRIME AGAIN
REHABILITATION
INTENDED TO REFORM THE DEFENDANT
INCAPACITATION
REMOVE OFFENDER FROM SOCIETY
RESTORATION
FINANCIAL RESTITUTION TO VICTIMS
APPROACHES TO SENTENCING
DETERMINATE SENTENCING
JUDGES HAVE LITTLE DISCRETION IN SENTENCING AND SPECIFICES THAT THE OFFENDER IS TO RECEIVE A SPECIFIC SENTENCE.
MANDTORY MINIMUM SENTENCE
JUDGES ARE REQUIRED TO SENTENCE AN OFFENDER TO A MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE REGARDLESS OF MITIGATING FACTORS.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCES
JUDGES HAVE DISCRETION WITHIN DEFINED LIMITS TO SET A MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM SENTENCE.
PRESUMPTIVE SENTENCING GUIDELINES
COMMISSION ESTABLISHED TO DEVELOP A FORMULA THAT USES VARIOUS FACTORS TO DETERMINE A SENTENCE
TYPICAL CRIMINAL APPEALS ISSUES
MOTION TO SUPPRESS
SELF-INCRIMINATION
EXONERATING EVIDENCE
DOUBLE JEAPORDY
SPEEDY TRIAL
JURY
JUDGE
DEFENSE ATTORNEY
PROSECUTOR
VERDICT
CHAPTER 15
COUNTERTERRORISM
PATRIOT ACT
ENACTED IN OCTOBER 2001
ACTUAL NAME IS UNITING AND STRENGTHENING AMERICA BY PROVIDING APPROPRIATE TOOLS REQUIRED TO INTERCEPT AND OBSTRUCT TERRORISM ACT OF 2001
PATRIOT ACT AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
SNEAK-AND-PEAK WARRANTS
INFORMATION AND RECORDS
DETENTIONS OF NONCITIZENS
FISA WARRANTS
DO NOT NECESSARILY NEED PROBABLE CAUSE LIKE OTHER WARRANTS
INITIALLY APPLIED ONLY TO ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
REQUIRES JUDICIAL SUPERVISION AND REVIEW
SNEAK-AND-PEAK WARRANT
PROCESS IS THE SAME AS A REGULAR WARRANT, EXCEPT FOR PROVIDING A COPY OF THE WARRANT TO THE PERSON WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY SEARCHED.
ALLOWS THE POLICE TO SERVE A “SECRET” SEARCH WARRANT AND NOTIFY THE PERSON LATER THAT THE WARRANT WAS SERVED.
TYPICALLY FOLLOWED BY A NORMAL SEARCH WARRANT LATER ON.
DISCUSSION QUESTION
WHICH METHOD OF SENTENCING DISUCSSED BY THE TEXT DO YOU BELIEVE TO BE THE BEST? WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THIS? USE A SOURCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.
THREE TOTAL POSTS REQUIRED TO RECEIVE FULL CREDIT. ONE INITIAL POST AND TWO RESPONSE POSTS TO YOUR PEERS.
MUST INCLUDE AT LEAST ONE SOURCE IN AT LEAST ONE OF YOUR POSTS.
DUE ON 12/10/19 BY 11:59PM
30 POINTS POSSIBLE
INFORMATION
WE WILL NOT MEET IN CLASS ON 12/10.
TEST TWO WILL OPEN ON 12/5 AT MIDNIGHT AND CLOSE ON 12/12 AT 11:59PM.
SAME GUIDELINES AS TEST ONE.
.MsftOfcThm_Accent1_Fill { fill:#4472C4; } .MsftOfcThm_Accent1_Stroke { stroke:#4472C4; }
.MsftOfcThm_Accent1_Fill { fill:#4472C4; } .MsftOfcThm_Accent1_Stroke { stroke:#4472C4; }