Foundations of Criminal Law   Civil Law – law regulating relationships between individuals; involves property, contracts, business disputes.   Substantive criminal law – law defining acts subject to punishment & punishments for those acts.   Procedural criminal law – defines rules governing how laws will be enforced.

Substantive Criminal Law   Seven Principles of Criminal Law Legality – act must be prohibited by law. Actus reus – an act or omission by the accused. Causation – causal relationship between act and harm suffered. Harm – act must cause harm to some legally protected value. Inchoate offense - an act can be deemed criminal if it could do harm that the law seeks to prevent (attempt, conspiracy)

Substantive Criminal Law Concurrence – the intent and act must be present at the same time. Mens rea – commission/omission of act must be accompanied by guilty state of mind. (intent) Exception to this is strict liability offenses Punishment

Substantive Criminal Law   Elements of a Crime   Statutory Definitions of Crime Federal and state penal codes Malice aforethought   Responsibility for Criminal Acts Mens rea crucial in establishing responsibility

Substantive Criminal Law Eight defenses based on lack of criminal intent Entrapment – government agents induced the person to commit the offense. Self-defense – in fear of immediate danger; level of force cannot exceed reasonable person’s perception of the threat. Necessity – break the law in order to save themselves or prevent some greater harm. Duress – coerced into committing the act.

Substantive Criminal Law Immaturity – children under certain age are not held accountable. Mistake – generally ignorance of law is no excuse, except in case of mistake of fact. Intoxication – person tricked into consuming a substance knowing.

Substantive Criminal Law Insanity – courts have used five tests o M’Naughten Rule – does not know right from wrong o Irresistible Impulse Test – could not control his conduct o Durham Rule – act caused by mental illness o Substantial Capacity Test – lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of conduct or to control it o Present Federal Law – lacks capacity to appreciate wrongfulness of conduct

Procedural Criminal Law   Defines how the state must process cases   Procedural due process – protecting the rights of the accused   U.S. Supreme Court has played a major role in defining procedural criminal law.

Bill of Rights   Ten Amendments added to the Constitution in 1791 outlining individual rights   For quite some time the Bill of Rights applied only to those cases involving the federal government, and did not apply to state criminal cases Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

Bill of Rights   Fourteenth Amendment and Due Process Ratified in 1868 “No State shall…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Has had a profound impact on criminal justice Powell v. Alabama (1932) – ruled that due process clause required courts to provide attorneys for poor defendants facing the death penalty. Basic standard of fundamental fairness

The Due Process Revolution   Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Supreme Court led revolution that changed meaning and scope of constitutional rights.   Process of incorporation – extension of the due process clause of the 14 th Amendment to make binding on state governments rights guaranteed in the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The Due Process Revolution   Warren court has received strong criticism   Accused of rewriting constitutional law that gave too many legal protections to criminals   Criticized for ignoring established precedents that defined rights in a limited fashion

The Fourth Amendment: Protection Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures   The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment: Protection Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures   Limits ability of police to search a person or property   Limits ability of law enforcement to detain a person without justification   Protects people’s privacy by barring “unreasonable” searches   Supreme Court must define what is “reasonable” or “unreasonable”

The Fourth Amendment: Protection Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures   Weeks v. United States (1914) – Court ruled the federal courts must exclude any evidence that was obtained through an improper search by federal law enforcement agents. (exclusionary rule)   Mapp v. Ohio (1961) – The Supreme Court expanded this rule to include searches by state and local law enforcement officers

The Fourth Amendment: Protection Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures   4 th Amendment rights narrowed during the chief justiceships of Warren Burger ( ) and William Rehnquist (1986-present).   United States v. Leon (1984) – Court created a “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule   Limited its applicability and gave police greater flexibility to conduct searches without obtaining a search warrant

The Fifth Amendment: Protection Against Self-Incrimination and Double Jeopardy   “No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,…nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;…

The Fifth Amendment: Protection Against Self-Incrimination and Double Jeopardy   “Self-Incrimination This protection is consistent with assumption state must prove defendant’s guilt. Validity of confessions Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) – attorney must be provided to suspects when they are taken into police custody. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) – Confessions made by suspects who were not notified of their due process rights cannot be admitted into evidence.

The Fifth Amendment: Protection Against Self-Incrimination and Double Jeopardy Justices were not trying to limit police officers’ ability to investigate crimes. Confessions can be unreliable Exclusionary rule applicable to violations of 5 th amendment as well as 4 th amendment. “Inevitable discovery rule” – Nix v. Williams

The Fifth Amendment: Protection Against Self-Incrimination and Double Jeopardy   Double Jeopardy Subject to only one prosecution or punishment for that offense in the same jurisdiction. However, single criminal act may violate a federal and state law; in this case can have two separate trials

The Sixth Amendment: The Right to Counsel and a Fair Trial   In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy right to a speedy, public trial, by an impartial jury…to be informed of nature and cause of accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and to have assistance of counsel for his defense.

The Sixth Amendment: The Right to Counsel and a Fair Trial   Right to Counsel Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) – made this requirement binding on the states, not just the federal government   Right to Speedy and Public Trial Public trial intended to protect accused from an arbitrary trial Speedy is vague, no specified time requirement   Right to an Impartial Jury Jury pool should be made up of cross section of the community

The Eighth Amendment: Protection Against Excessive Bail, Excessive Fines, and Cruel and Unusual Punishment   Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.   Release on bail; not all defendants are required to be released   United States v. Salerno – upheld provision of Bail Reform Act of 1984 that allows federal judges to detain without bail suspects who are considered dangerous to the public

The Eighth Amendment: Protection Against Excessive Bail, Excessive Fines, and Cruel and Unusual Punishment   Excessive Fines Austin v. United States (1993) – Court ruled forfeiture of property related to a criminal case can be analyzed for possible violation of Excessive Fines Clause   Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Constitutional Rights and Criminal Justice Professionals   Police, courts, corrections have had to develop policies and guidelines to inform criminal justice professionals about what they are and are not permitted to do while carrying out their job duties.   Recognize need for protection, but feel frustrated…   Is there a proper balance between the protection of constitutional rights and the ability of criminal justice officials to punish