1. Adjudication Process Computer photospread.wmv Douglas Warney.wmv De Luna.wmv

2. Differing views of justice Myth of the adversarial process – it’s stacked against the poor Justice as a “confidence game” – prosecutors, defense and judges are really in it for themselves “Bureaucratic justice” – focus on processing defendants through the system rather than fairness – Assumption of guilt, emphasis on plea-bargaining – Overlook trial errors to arrive at preconceived findings – Decisions influenced by personal views rather than the law

3. Judicial discretion Judges have major impact on the outcome of criminal cases – Interpret the law – Rule on the admissibility of statements and physical evidence before and during trial Miranda v. Arizona (1966): If custodial interrogation must read rights Exclusionary rule (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961): Evidence gathered in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible Conduct that “shocks the conscience”: Due Process clause, Fourteenth Amendment Right to counsel: Sixth Amendment – Great influence on plea bargaining (must approve) – Supervise attorneys before and during a trial – Provide jury instructions

4. Judicial misconduct Judges are people – “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” – Can make life difficult for defense and prosecution Impose personal views and idiosyncrasies Retaliate for perceived slights Poor performance due to laziness or substance abuse – Sometimes engage in traditional corruption California Commission on Judicial Performance – discipline imposed during 2006 California Commission on Judicial Performance – discipline imposed during 2006 – Removal of L.A. County Superior Court judge Kevin A. Ross Removal of L.A. County Superior Court judge Kevin A. Ross – Removal of Santa Barbara County judge Diana R. Hall Removal of Santa Barbara County judge Diana R. Hall – Scroll down the cases for public censures and admonishments

5. Wrongful arrest and conviction

6. “Showups” – One-on-one situation soon after crime When a suspect was quickly detained – Must be as neutral an event as possible Suggestibility – “in the back of a patrol car” Pressures from other witnesses and police Lineups and photospreads – Similar features – Random placement – Suspect should not stand out – Reasonable number of qualifying participants Those whose general characteristics resemble the accused person Six is a good minimum – Interview witnesses separately Do not suggest suspect is present Do not reinforce a “correct” choice Biggest problem – faulty eyewitness identification

7. Another problem – mistaken testimony and false confessions Coercive and improper interrogation – Fear and confusion – Desire to please police – Suggestibility – Faulty recall – Peer pressures Particular problem with... – Mentally disabled – Youths – Persons facing serious charges – Poor persons – Defendants with prior records

8. UCI Professor Wins Major Award Elizabeth Loftus, Professor of Psychology at UCI, was awarded the $200,000 Grawemyer prize in Psychology for her research debunking repressed memory syndrome. “The psychologist has shown that people not only forget but also falsely remember, meaning that they sincerely and vividly can recall events that never happened when information suggested to them becomes entwined with their memory of what actually happened. She points out that the individual may not be able to separate the real threads of memory from the added strands of suggestion.” Dr. Loftus, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, has consulted on many high-profile criminal cases, including the Oklahoma City Bombing, where the FBI mistakenly arrested an innocent security guard.

9. Exonerations Nearly 200 based on DNA alone – Cardozo Innocence Project Cardozo Innocence Project – California Innocence Project California Innocence Project – Truth in Justice Truth in Justice Many exonerated were on death row -- strong indications several were executed – Carlos de Luna Carlos de Luna – Cameron Willingham Cameron Willingham Major issue: biological evidence only present in 20 percent of serious crimes – What of the innocent in other cases? – Related issue – the guilty remain free to continue offending Exoneration standard is very high – Burden on defendant – Must get a habeas corpus hearing, then demonstrate innocence by “clear and convincing evidence” – Not enough to demonstrate that there is no longer “evidence beyond a reasonable doubt”