Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
167 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Johnson v. Zerbst
|
Federal Right to counsel
|
|
Gideon v. Wainwright
|
Right to counsel in felony cases
|
|
Powell v. Alabama
|
Special Circumstances
|
|
Betts v. Brady
|
Special Circumstances
|
|
Argersinger v. Hamlin
|
Right to counsel if it ends in imprisonment
|
|
Scott v. Illinois
|
Right to counsel if it ends in ACTUAL imprisonment
|
|
Alabama v. LeReed Shelton
|
Extends to suspending sentences
|
|
Gerstein
|
If there is probable cause to detain
|
|
Rothgery v. Gillespie County
|
Initial appearance is when right to counsel attaches
|
|
Coleman v. Alabama
|
Preliminary hearing is a critical stage
|
|
Gagnon v. Scarpelli
|
No attorney required at later probabtion violation hearing
|
|
Caldwell v. Mississippi
|
must provide expert if it will be a significant issue at trial
|
|
Rey v. State
|
must make particularized showing for expert
|
|
Dowdy v. Commonwealth
|
require showing of prejudice in order to get expert
|
|
Faretta v. California
|
right to self representation
|
|
State v. Joseph Spencer
|
standby counsel doesn't violate that right
|
|
Martinez v. California
|
doesn't apply to direct appeal
|
|
Martel v. Clair
|
"interests of justice" standard for capital cases
|
|
Strickland v. Washington
|
To get relief for ineffective assistance, must show that (1) it fell beneath the reasonable minimum standard, (2) it made a difference on the outcome
|
|
Padilla v. Kentucky
|
Must inform ∆ about collateral consequence of deportation
|
|
Missouri v. Frye
|
Right to counsel during plea bargaining; failure to tell ∆ of plea
|
|
Lafler v. Cooper
|
Right to counsel during plea bargaining; ineffective advice leading to rejection of the offer
|
|
Bruno v. State
|
application of Strickland; no prejudice found
|
|
People v. Hernandez
|
presumed prejudice for conflicts of interest
|
|
Cuyler v. Sullivan
|
private attorneys also judged with Strickland
|
|
US v. Cronic
|
Recognizes exceptions to Strickland; can presume prejudice if no counsel at critical stage
|
|
State ex rel. Missouri Public Defender v. Pratte
|
must reprsent unless "unreasonable and oppressive"
|
|
State v. Leonard Peart
|
defense services so lacking that there's a rebuttable presumption that there's ineffective assistance of counsel for all ∆s
|
|
Kimberly Hurrell-Harring v. State
|
says that her real complaint wasn't about assistance of counsel, but about funding and this is more properly for the executive and judicial branches
|
|
State v. Delbert Lynch
|
Statute that requires appointed counsel to represent when there's no assurance of compensation is unconstitutional
|
|
U.S. v. Salerno
|
allows detention on basis of additional criminal acts by ∆ before trial
|
|
State v. Wallace Baynes
|
baynes was eligible for diversion; failure to do so was abuse of discretion
|
|
Bender test (abuse of discretion)
|
1. Not premised on all factors, 2. based on consideration of irrelevant or inappropriate factors OR 3. Amounted to clear error in judgment
|
|
State v. Culbreath
|
conflict of interest creates appearance of impropriety; private prosecution tainted entire investigation
|
|
Kristy Maddox v. State
|
instance where she wasn't sent to juvenile because of the violence of the crime
|
|
In re Gault
|
Federal required right to counsel for juvenile court
|
|
Wayte v. U.S.
|
selective prosecution must be because of and not despite in order to be overturned
|
|
U.S. v. Armstrong
|
∆ has burden of proof to show other people of different race weren't prosecuted
|
|
Commonwealth v. Khari Wilcox
|
grand jurors don't have to hear all the evidence to convict
|
|
Blueford v. Arkansass
|
can retry on larger offense even if jury says they agree; as long as there's no finding
|
|
U.S. v.DiFrancesco
|
not a double jeopardy violation to increase sentence
|
|
Afonse Bartkus v. Illinois
|
coordination of federal officials with state officials doesn't violate double jeopardy; dual sovereign
|
|
Petite v. U.S.
|
precludes later prosecution in different jurisdiction if one has already begun unless 1. substantial federal interest, 2. interest unvindicated, 3. conduct is federal offense and evidence sufficient for conviction
|
|
Blockburger v. U.S.
|
same elements test
|
|
Taylor v. Commonwealth
|
can be charged with both theft and assault
|
|
Grady v. Corbin
|
same conduct
|
|
U.S. v. Dixon
|
go back to blockburger
|
|
Ashe v. Swenson
|
same transaction
|
|
White
|
Single intent and goal
|
|
Ex Parte Philip Taylor
|
if jury made finding on alcohol intoxication, can't bring another case on marijuana intoxication
|
|
Bruton v. U.S.
|
if co-∆ confession implicates ∆, and co-∆ doesn't testify at trial, admission of confession violates right to confrontation
|
|
Brady
|
must disclose evidence favorable to the accused if that evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment
|
|
Gilgio
|
impeachment information must be disclosed under Brady
|
|
Smith v. Cain
|
must disclose any favorable treatment in return for testimony
|
|
People v. Alan Beaman
|
To apply Brady: 1. evidence favorable, 2. suppression willful or inadvertant, 3. accused prejudiced
|
|
Arizona v. Youngblood
|
only against bad faith failure to retain evidence
|
|
Hickman v. Taylor
|
work product doctrine
|
|
State v. John Lucious
|
shouldn't have allowed ∆ access to all the scientific files of prosecution
|
|
U.S. v. Marion
|
speedy trial applies only after accused of a crime
|
|
Commonwealth v. Scher
|
20 year delay didn't violate right to due process
|
|
Beckwith v. Anderson
|
no speedy trial violation because ∆ was responsible and didn't relaly aassert right; no prejudice
|
|
U.S. v. Lovasco
|
Must show that 1. there was prejudice and 2. there was no good reason for it
|
|
Barker v. Wingo
|
1. length of delay, 2. reason for delay, 3. assertion of right, 4. prejudice
|
|
People v. Lumzy
|
no agreement, no breach
|
|
People v. Evans
|
can't change sentence you agreed to
|
|
People v. Linder
|
can change if the sentence had no cap
|
|
Raymond Espinoza v. Hon. Gregory Martin
|
cannot implement policies to automatically reject all plea bargains without considering whether stipulated sentence is better in lihgt of circumstances
|
|
State v. Brimage
|
having different district guidelines violated the mandate of uniformity
|
|
State v. Patrick William Casey
|
allowing the victim to speak after plea accepted satisfied his rights
|
|
Henderson v. Morgan
|
must explain critical elements
|
|
Moore v. Michigan
|
must have counsel for pleas or waive counsel
|
|
North Carolina v. Alford
|
can have knowing, intelligent, voluntary plea even if asserting innocence
|
|
Godinez v. Moran
|
must be mentally competent to plea
|
|
State v. Landour Bouie
|
judicial interference had a coercive effect, making plea not valid
|
|
Strauder v. West Virginia
|
Equal protection challenge about excluding blacks from jury
|
|
Norris v. Alabama
|
quashed statute because in statute it excluded blacks from serving, even though thtey are legally eligible
|
|
Taylor v. Louisiana
|
Right to challenge; violates right to impartial jury
|
|
Duren v. Missouri
|
test to show discrimination: 1) distinctive group, 2) representation not the same in group and in society, 3) due to systematic exclusion
|
|
Ham v. South Carolina
|
no constitutional rule requiring racial inquiry
|
|
Aldridge v. U.S.
|
more dangerous to allow disqualified people to serve as jurors
|
|
State v. Reche Smith
|
Court didn't err when they didn't give additional peremptory challenges
|
|
Batson
|
cannot be sued to exclude jurors by race; 1) show part of racial group, 2) used challenges to remove people of ∆'s race, 3) any other relevant facts/circumstances
|
|
Rodney Lingo v. State
|
held that prosecution gave valid reasons for dismissal
|
|
Hernandez v. NY
|
expands to hispanics
|
|
JEB v. Alabama ex rel TB
|
expands to women
|
|
Georgia v. McCollum
|
by defendant
|
|
Commonwealth v. Tuey
|
first established dynamite charge
|
|
Allen
|
asking minority to reconsider
|
|
Brasfield
|
can't ask about numerical division
|
|
Spencer Charge
|
non-coercive charge instructing jurors to be true to their convictions, but reconsider their original views
|
|
Williams v. Florida
|
6 person jury okay
|
|
Ballew v. Georgia
|
5 person jury not
|
|
State v. Sherrie Tucker
|
numerical system not okay
|
|
Johnson v. Louisiana
|
9-3 okay
|
|
Burch v. Louisiana
|
5-1 not
|
|
Globe newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct. for Norfolk County
|
press has right to be in court
|
|
State v. Barry Garcia
|
proper closure of the court; partial, so you can use "substantial reason" test
|
|
Waller
|
considering closing: 1. advancing overriding interest likely to be prejudiced, 2. no braoder than necessary, 3. consider reasonable alternatives
|
|
U.S. v. Klem
|
kid who previously testified in court didn't properly make motions to exclude face-to-face testimony
|
|
Winegeart v. State
|
test is whether jury applied instruction in an unconstitutional manner
|
|
Victor v. Nebraska
|
don't have to use any particular words in instruction on reasonable doubt
|
|
Taylor v. Kentucky
|
refusal to instruct on presumption of innocence is violation of due process
|
|
Kentucky v. Whorton
|
only have to instruct on presumption if instruction is skeletal
|
|
Francis v. Franklin
|
split between mandatory presumption v. permissible inference
|
|
Sandstrom v. Montana
|
conclusive presumptiosn are a due process violation
|
|
State v. Johnny Rufus Belcher
|
inference of intent was half truth and a mandatory presumption; not okay
|
|
Romeo v. State
|
disguise violated ∆'s right to confrontation
|
|
Maryland v. Craig
|
must show emotional trauma for child victims
|
|
Crawford v. Washington
|
split between testimonial and non-testimonial statements
|
|
Commonwealth v. Bacigalupo
|
violated confrontation rights to use nickname
|
|
Richardson v. Marsh
|
can redact to alllow confession
|
|
Gray v. maryland
|
can't be obvious blank
|
|
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusettes
|
sworn reports of analysts are testimonial evidence
|
|
Johnny Carroll v. State
|
inquiry into past crimes permissible to show intent
|
|
Griffin v. California
|
can't comment on ∆'s choice not to testify
|
|
Doyle v. Ohio
|
can't talk about pretrial silence after Miranda
|
|
Fletcher v. Weir
|
okay to talk about post-arrest silence if there's no Miranda
|
|
People v. Derek Andrades
|
if ∆ wants to perjure, ∆ attorney only has to allow narrative form
|
|
People v. Victor Reichman
|
allowing false testimony knowingly is a violation of ethical code
|
|
Nix v. Whiteside
|
attorney doesn't have to remain silent when they know their client is going to commit perjury
|
|
Miller v. Alabama
|
8th amendment prohibition against life in prison without possibilty of parole for juvenile homicide offenders
|
|
McCleskey v. Kemp
|
"baldus" study not enough to show discriminatory purpose of legislation
|
|
Freddie Stephens v. State
|
can't use statistics by themselves to support an inference of discrimination
|
|
Commonwealth v. Albert Shiffler
|
need chance to redeem himself to be subject to 3 strikes rule
|
|
Taggart Parrish v. State
|
court had to answer the question of if the ∆ substantially assisted
|
|
State v. Antwon Johnson
|
allow testimony about gang involvement when demonstrating community impact
|
|
Booth v. Maryland; South Carolina v. Gathers
|
limited introduction of victim evidence
|
|
Griffin v. illinois
|
must provide ∆ with free transcript if necessary for appeal
|
|
Douglas v. California
|
get counsel for initial appeal
|
|
Anders Brief
|
truncated brief allowed when attorney thinks the appeal is frivolous
|
|
Mosley v. State
|
rejects anders and adopts aba position
|
|
Ross v. Moffitt
|
no right for discretionary appellate review
|
|
US v. Sanges
|
double jeopardy limits appeal
|
|
Jackson v. Virginia
|
standard of review: whether any reasonable trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt
|
|
Fahy v. Conneticut
|
erroneous admission of illegal seized can was not harmless; reasonable possibility contribute to conviction
|
|
Chapman v. California
|
federal constitutional error can be harmless; must be able to declare belief beyond a reasonable doubt
|
|
Arizona v. Fulminante
|
structrual defects v. trial errors; harmless error to involuntary confessions
|
|
People v. Budzyn
|
extraneous factors might have affected trial
|
|
Sullivan v. Louisiana
|
whether verdict was not attributable to error
|
|
Kotteakos v. U.S.
|
error didn't influence or had slight effect
|
|
Calder v. Bull
|
manifestly unjust consequences: 1. aggravating the crime, 2. altering the rules of evidence
|
|
Marion Reynolds Stogner v. California
|
ex post facto clause bars revival of claims excluded by statute of limitations
|
|
People v. Kurtis Washington
|
free standing claim of innocence can be matter of due process under state constitution
|
|
Herrera v. Collins
|
free standing claim of innocence not due process issue under federal constitution
|
|
Wainwright v. Sykes
|
cause and prejudice standard
|
|
Fay v. noia
|
can bring claim; view ∆ as deliberating waiving appellate review process
|
|
U.S. v. Frady
|
∆ must show how the procedure worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage
|
|
Commonwealth v. Taibu Modamu Grant
|
allows ineffective counsel claims on collateral review
|
|
Hubbard rule
|
bring it up at the first instance; e.g. during appeal
|
|
Teague v. Lane
|
don't apply new rules to habeas review unless it places conduct beyond states' power to criminalize or is a watershed rule of criminal procedure
|
|
Boykin Hearing
|
ensure that they understand what's going on in a guilty plea
|
|
When will counsel be provided for felonies
|
Always.
Johnson v. Zerbst, Gideon v. Wainwright |
|
When will counsel be provided for misdemeanors?
|
Always for federal.
For the majority of states when there's actual imprisonment. Scott v. Illinois. Other approaches: 1. Track federal 2. Add additional crimes (e.g. VT) 3. Let judge decide (e.g. FL) |
|
At what point in the process is counsel required?
|
1. Initiation of adversarial proceedings
2. Critical stage |
|
Is counsel provided for bail hearings?
|
Usually no. Half do provide in urban centers only.
|
|
Is counsel provided for psych exams?
|
No right to it in over 20 states.
|
|
Is counsel provided for sentencing?
|
Yes. You must provide, unless it is a probationary hearing upon violation of probation.
|
|
Is counsel provided for appeal?
|
For the initial appeal.
|
|
Do you have to provide an expert?
|
Federal: Yes, if it is significant
State: for those who make particularized showings; might also require showing of prejudice |
|
What are the 3 Mechanisms to decide forum?
|
Judicial waiver
Statutory exclusion Concurrent jurisdiction |
|
When is the grand jury required?
|
Federal right always.
No incorporation in the states. Mostly optional, but some have it required for at least some charges. Others leave it to the legislature. |
|
Timing of initial hearing
|
Federal: Within 48 hours
Majority: "reasonable" time (10-20 days) |
|
When does Jeopardy attach?
|
At the initial trial when jury is sworn or when the witness is sworn for bench trials.
|
|
When to sever joint trials?
|
1. Evidence admitted against one defendant is factually incriminating to another
2. There's harmful rub-off effect 3. Disparity in the amount of evidence 4. Defense antagonistic |
|
What does materiality under Brady mean?
|
Federal law: Reasonable probability it would have changed the outcome.
Majority: 30 states adopt the federal standard. Minority of states adopt a more favorable standard. |
|
What are the Barker factors
|
1. length of delay
2. Reason for delay 3. Assertion of right 4. Prejudice to defendant |
|
What are the prosecutorial guidelines to sentencing?
|
US Sentencing Commission: Real offense sentencing
Redbook: takes away a lot of usual discretion Thornburgh bluesheet: don't drop unless you cannot prove it Terwiliger bluesheet: Increased review; moved away from emphasis on types of bargains Reno: Can consider other factors (E.g. proportionality, if it achieves purposes) Ashcroft: Most serious, provable offense Holder: Should advocate wihtin range |