1. The Criminal Justice Process
Unit 2, part 2
The Criminal Justice Process

2. Chapter 11: Defenses

3. For a conviction to occur in a criminal case, two requirements must be met
The prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the act in question
and that the defendant committed the act with the required intent

4. The defendant does not have to present a defense
He or she can simply force the government (the prosecutor) to prove its case
However, several defenses are available to defendants in criminal cases
For example, sometimes a criminal act may be considered excusable or justifiable
Defenses in this category include self-defense, defense of property, & defense of others

5. Possible Defenses
Alibi- evidence that the defendant was elsewhere at the time of the crime
Defense of Others- Right to use reasonable force to defend other people
Defense of Property- Right to use reasonable force to defend property
Duress- Acting as a result of coercion or a threat of immediate danger to life or personal safety

6. Possible Defenses
Elements of the crime were not all present- One of the required elements of the crime is missing
Entrapment- Evidence that defendant would not have committed the crime if not for the inducement of a police officer

7. Possible Defenses
Lack of Criminal Intent- Guilty mind required for the crime is missing
Mistake in Identity- Defendant was incorrectly identified as the perpetrator
Necessity- The defendant is compelled to react to an unavoidable situation in order to protect life
Self-Defense- Reasonable amount of force to protect oneself

8. DEFENSE CATEGORIES: No crime has been committed
Defendant did not commit the crime
Defendant committed a criminal act, but the act was excusable or justifiable
Defendant committed a criminal act but is not criminally responsible for his or her actions

9. No Crime Has Been Committed
The defendant may decide to try to prove that
(1) no crime was committed, or
(2) there was no criminal intent because the act was simply committed by mistake

10. Defendant Did Not Commit the Crime
When there is confusion or doubt about who committed a crime, the defendant may try to prove that there has been a case of mistaken identity & that he or she was not the person responsible for the crime
Today, DNA testing can sometimes be used to prove whether or not the defendant was responsible
In recent years, some people convicted of crimes have been able to prove their innocence because of this testing

11. Defendant Committed a Criminal Act, but the Act Was Excusable or Justifiable  
Sometimes a criminal act may be considered excusable or justifiable
This type of defense includes (13) self-defense & defense of (3) property & (2) others
The law allows people to use deadly force when their own or someone else's life is in danger
The law also permits people to use reasonable force to protect themselves, their property, & others from harm

12. Defendant Committed a Criminal Act but Is Not Criminally Responsible for His or Her Actions 
In this type of defense, the defendant acknowledges that he or she committed the act but argues that there are reasons the law should not consider the defendant criminally responsible
The law recognizes several reasons that may excuse a defendant from criminal responsibility
These defenses include (7) infancy, (8) intoxication, (9) insanity, (6) entrapment, (4) duress, & (12) necessity

13. Insanity Defense
The basic concept is that people who have a mental disease or disorder should not be convicted if they do not know what they are doing or if they do not know the difference between right & wrong
There is a difference between not guilty by reason of insanity (used by most states & the federal government) & not competent to stand trial that exists in some states

14. The accused’s mental state can be an issue in determining whether
The defendant is competent to stand trial
The defendant was sane at the time of the criminal act, &
The defendant is sane after the trial
The insanity defense applies only if the accused was insane at the time of the crime

15. How & when may a state determine that person found not guilty by reason of insanity should reenter society?
Who should make that decision?

16. Infancy Defense
The idea behind the infancy defense is similar to the insanity defense: People should not be convicted or punished if they do not know right from wrong
If a three-year old child plays with matches, starts a fire, & the house burns down, is it arson?
What if the child were eight years old?
Eleven years old?
Sixteen years old?
Would your answers differ if kids of the same age were fighting & one shot the other?

17. Intoxication
Defendants claim that at the time of the crime they were so drunk or high on drugs that they did not know what they were doing
Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a crime
However, it may be a valid defense if the crime requires proof of a specific mental state

18. Example: Grady is charged with assault with intent to kill
He claims he was drunk
If he can prove that he was so drunk that he could not have formed the intent to kill, his intoxication might be a valid defense
Grady can still be convicted of the crime of assault, because specific intent is not required to prove that crime
However, if Grady had decided to kill the victim before he got drunk or if he got drunk to get up enough nerve to commit the crime, the intoxication would not be a defense
This is because the required mental state (the intent to kill) existed before the drunkenness

19. Chapter 12
The Investigation

20. Arrest
Person suspected of crime is taken into custody.

21. In order to arrest… An officer usually needs: Warrant (Court Order)
Probable Cause (reasonable belief person committed crime, more than a suspicion, needs facts.

22. Problem 12.1 p. 136 Drugs in the airport
A: Did the police have probable cause?
Yes, informant’s tip was credible.
Should the police have obtained a warrant prior to arrest?
They could have but they didn’t need to-probable cause existed.
C: African American on train scenario?
Some courts may allow it (drug courier profile)

23. Stop & Frisk Can occur when:
Reasonable suspicion that person is armed (must be more than a hunch)
Standard of proof is lower than probable cause.

24. Problem 12.2 p. 137 Unlucky Couple
If officer Ramos chases Lonnie, will she have probably cause to stop and arrest him?
Officer has reasonable suspicion to stop care and investigate further. Depending on what officer observes in plain view they could be arrested for alcohol violations but not for burglary.
Officers can search vehicles during DUI arrests, not for speeding violations.

25. Problem 12.3 p. 139 The Dangerous Car Chase
A: What arguments can Harris make that his rights were violated?
Excessive force for speeding, no bystanders in the chase, no indication that Harris was a threat to others.
B: What arguments can Officer Scott make that his use of force did not violate Harris’s rights?
Harris threatened innocent pedestrians and motorists, he ignored officer’s commands, ramming car was less excessive than shooting, reasonable that officers make split second decisions.
C: How should this case be decided? Explain.
Supreme Court ruled in favor of the officers, termination of high speed chase doesn’t violate 4th Amendment.
It would be unreasonable to shoot suspect though.

26. Determining the Reasonableness of a Search/Seizure
Ask Question: Did the person have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
Ex. Garbage isn’t private
Court must balance public’s need to privacy vs. justice’s need to collect evidence.

27. Exclusionary Rule
Evidence gathered in an unreasonable search can’t be used at trial against the defendant.

28. Problem 12.4 p. 141 Violation of 4th Amendment? A: Bus stop search
No, mere presence in high crime area is not enough to establish reasonable suspicion
B: Hotel Wastebasket
No reasonable expectation of privacy, therefore probable cause is unnecessary
C: Ex-boyfriend finds drugs
Evidence is admissible, 4th amendment only protects you from the government. However boyfriend is criminally/civilly liable for B/E
D: Search of apartment after arrest outside
Arrest was reasonable, police must obtain warrant to search home if they made the arrest outside.
E: Roommate gives permission to search
Unlawful search. Roommate can only consent to search of common areas of apartment. Sandi retains reasonable expectation of privacy in bedroom.

29. Search Warrants Police must follow these rules:
File affidavit with a judge (sworn statement of facts)
Provide probable cause
Follow person, place, and time limit of warrant (can’t search 1 year later, can’t search dresser if looking for TV)
Can take evidence & illegal items in plain view
Must knock & announce purpose and authority (can no-knock if like at stake or evidence is likely to be destroyed)

30. Searches without Warrants
During an arrest (pockets & car)
Stop & Frisk (suspicious & likely armed)
When consent if given
Borders and Airports (reduced expectation to privacy)
Vehicles (believed to contain contraband)
Plain view (place where officer has a right to be)
Hot pursuit
Emergencies (bomb threat, see smoke, hear scream)
Schools (reasonable suspicion-lockers, backpacks, purses)

31. Role Play: Fingers McGee p. 145
One student portrays Fingers McGee
3 students portray officers and leave room.

32. Miranda v. Arizona
Confessions not admissible if not voluntary and trustworthy
Miranda Rights must be read before questioning (only to those in custody)
Based case on:
5th Amendment (protection against self-incrimination) – government is supposed to bear burden of proof
6th Amendment (right to an attorney) – protection of accused vs. protection from crime.

33. Miranda v. Arizona Impact

34. Problem p. 154
Role Play:
3 judges
Alvarado
Detective

35. Problem p. 154
Miranda Case
A: Strongest arguments that Alvarado should have been given Miranda warnings?
Reasonable person would not have felt free to leave room, younger suspects feel less free to leave, interview was 2 hours long, mother’s request to be in room was denied = custody
B: Strongest arguments that there was no need to read Miranda warnings?
Transported to station by parent, mother was just outside room, offered breaks, free to leave (did at end of interview), hard for police to change Miranda procedures for suspect’s age.
Result: Split court (5-4) ruled Alvarado was not in custody and did not have to be read his rights.

36. End of Chapter 12
The Investigation