1. Civil Liberties in the Criminal Justice System

2. Constitutional Provisions
Fourth Amendment:
search and seizure clause bars government from engaging in unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, houses, papers and effects
warrant provision provides the government must demonstrate probable cause before a warrant will be issued by a judge

3. Fifth Amendment
grand jury provision requires government to obtain a grand jury indictment in order to charge a person with a capital offense an “otherwise infamous crime”
Double Jeopardy Clause provides that government may not punish a person twice for the same offense
self incrimination provision states that, within a criminal case, a person cannot be forced to provide testimony against themselves
due process clause provides that the federal government may not deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law

4. Sixth Amendment
speedy trial provision provides right to a speedy trial
public trial provision -- individuals are also entitled to a public trial
jury trial clause -- right to have case decided by an impartial jury in jurisdiction where crime was allegedly committed
information clause requires government to notify defendants of the nature and cause of the criminal charges
confrontation clause provides accused with the right to confront any witnesses providing testify against them
compulsory process clause allows defendants to compel witnesses to appear on his or her behalf
assistance of counsel provision provides accused with right to have counsel assist in defending against criminal charges

5. Eighth Amendment
excessive bail provision states that the amount of bail (the collateral imposed by a court as a condition for pretrial release of the defendant) cannot be excessive
excessive fines provision provides that a fine (a post- conviction punishment in the form of monetary payment) cannot be excessive
cruel and unusual punishment clause provides that government may not inflict cruel and unusual punishment upon individuals

6. Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
Seizures and Arrest
Determined based on the totality of the circumstances (the overall context of detention)
Assessment of reasonableness – what a reasonable person would believe under the circumstances
Need for probable cause--sufficient and trustworthy information to reasonably believe that a person has committed a crime
Atwater v. Lago Vista (2001)

7. Arrests v. Detentions
investigatory detention -- a relatively brief stop of an individual for purposes of conducting a reasonable investigation of possible criminal activity
Requires reasonable suspicion -- less stringent standard than probable cause
“Terry-stop” – stop and frisk

8. Evidentiary Searches and Seizures
Must have governmental conduct
The person must have a reasonable expectation of privacy
Search must be reasonable
A search warrant is one measure of reasonableness
Kyllo v. United States (2001)

9. Exceptions to Warrant Requirement
search incident to a lawful arrest
consent searches
plain view doctrine
stop and frisk exception
plain-feel exception
exigent circumstances exception
hot-pursuit rule
automobile exception

10. Requirements of a Valid Warrant
Four primary considerations:
whether warrant issued by neutral and detached judicial authority;
whether warrant was based on a finding of probable cause;
whether warrant provides sufficiently detailed instructions to police about person or places to be searched and the items to be seized;
whether the warrant was properly executed.
Good Faith Exception to Valid Warrant
United States v. Leon (1984)

11. Right Against Self-Incrimination
Designed to bar police from employing unreasonable tactics against suspects during custodial criminal investigations
Applies to testimony or statements, not to physical evidence
Applies when police engage in custodial interrogations of suspects

12. Basic Requirements Need for government conduct
Person must be in custody
custodial requirement
Need for interrogation
excludes basic questions asked by police during the “booking” process – name, address, age, etc.

13. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Must inform suspects that:
they have the right to remain silent;
anything they say can and will be used against them in court;
they have the right to presence of an attorney; and
if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for them.

14. If right to remain silent is asserted
Prior to or during an interrogation
police must immediately stop questioning person regarding the particular offense for which he is being interrogated
Can restart questioning if:
suspect initiates such questioning on his own;
police seek to ask questions about another offense; or
police “scrupulously honor” the suspect’s request not to talk, wait a sufficient amount of time before trying to continue the questioning, and not coerce the suspect into resuming the questioning.

15. If right to counsel is asserted
Rule
Police must cease all questioning – even that related to other offenses – until an attorney is provided or until the suspect initiates, on his or her own accord, additional conversation.

16. Exceptions Public safety exception Grand jury testimony;
New York v. Quarles (1984)
Grand jury testimony;
Voluntary (as opposed to involuntary) statements may be used to impeach;
harmless error (an error made during trial that ostensibly does not change the outcome of the case).

17. The Exclusionary Rule
Weeks v. United States (1914) Mapp v. Ohio (1962) “Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.”

18. The Right to Counsel
Applies during “critical stages” of the prosecution
“where substantial rights of a criminal accused may be affected.”
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Critical stages include felony trials, misdemeanor cases where imprisonment is actually imposed, arraignments, post-charge lineups, post-charge interrogations (regardless of whether they are custodial), and appeals as a matter of right.

19. Right to Counsel, cont. Scott v. Illinois (1979)
“Critical Stages” do not include misdemeanor trials when actual imprisonment is not imposed, the taking of handwriting and voice exemplars, photo identifications, discretionary appellate proceedings, parole hearings, and habeas corpus proceedings.

20. Right Against Double Jeopardy
Fifth Amendment
“[no person shall] be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”
Only applies to criminal proceedings, not civil cases.
Jeopardy “attaches”
During a jury trial -- when jury is sworn to duty
During bench trial -- when the first witness is sworn for testimony

21. Exceptions to Double Jeopardy
Dual sovereignty doctrine
Manifest Necessity (a compelling need to stop the trial prior to a verdict being reached)
hung jury
Mistrial
Blockburger test for “same offenses”
Two or more criminal charges are not the same offense if each charge requires proof of an additional criminal element (another form of intent or an additional act)

22. Right to a Fair Trial Generally – a catch-all term Includes
right to a public trial
right to a speedy trial
Doggett v. United States (1992)
right to jury trial
Applies to “serious offenses”
Recent cases involving sentencing
Blakely v. Washington (2004)
United States v. Booker (2005

23. Right to Due Process
Brady v. Maryland (1963) entitled to any exculpatory evidence
Giglio v. United States (1972),the Court ruled that, upon request, a defendant is also entitled to materials within the prosecutor’s possession that may be used to impeach government witnesses
Bars selective prosecution – the process of selecting a person for criminal charge based on a prohibited criterion
Batson v. Kentucky (1986) – bars the exclusion of jurors based on race
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., (1994) – bars the exclusion of jurors based on sex

24. Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Ensures proportionality of punishment
Proportionality doctrine
Coker v. Georgia (1977)
Modern debate over “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” laws
Bans “status crimes” -- personal characteristic offenses
Powell v. Texas (1968)

25. Cruel and Unusual Punishment, cont.
Death penalty or capital punishment
Furman v. Georgia (1972)
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
Recent cases:
Atkins v. Virginia (2002) – mentally retarded
Roper v. Simmons (2005) – minors
Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008) – rape cases
Also applies to unreasonable prison and other confinement conditions

26. Eighth Amendment’s Other Provisions
Excessive bail provision
Provides that amount of bail cannot be excessive
Excessive Fine provision
Provides that fines cannot be excessive
Supreme Court has yet to formally apply these provisions to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause
May run afoul of other constitutional standards, including equal protection