Crim pro rule statements

Question 1

Valid arrest

Answer 1

A proper arrest is one that is based on probable cause

Question 2

Facts supporting probable cause

Answer 2

Facts supporting probable cause may come from a number of different sources including a police officer’s personal observations

Question 3

Validity of a warrantless search incident to arrest

Answer 3

A warrantless search is valid if it is reasonable in scope and if it is made incident to a lawful arrest

Question 4

Plain view doctrine

Answer 4

Under the plain view doctrine, if an item is in public view it may be seized without a warrant since there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for such an item

Question 5

Automobile exception

Answer 5

The fourth amendment does not require police to obtain a warrant to search a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity

Question 6

Custodial interrogation

Answer 6

Custodial interrogation is questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody

Question 7

Custody

And arrest

Answer 7

A perosn under arrest is, by definition, in custody and any police questioning of the person under arrest would thus be custodial interrogation

Question 8

Questioning of a suspect before Miranda

Answer 8

Questioning of a suspect by a police officer subsequent to an arrest must be preceded by Miranda warnings and a waiver of the suspect’s Miranda rights or those rights are violated

Question 9

Exclusionary rule

fruit of the poisonous tree

Answer 9

The Supreme Court has indicated that violations of Miranda do not necessarily support the fruit of the poisonous tre doctrine, at least with respect to subsequent statemnts by the defendant

Question 10

Effect of invoking 5A right to counsel

Answer 10

Interrogation of an arrestee must stop once the arrestee invokes the right to counsel under the 5th Amendment. The interrogation must stop until counsel is present.

Question 11

Double jeopardy and the states

Answer 11

The fifth amendment protection against double jeopardy applies to the states through the due process clause of the 14th amendment and protects against multiple punishments for the same offense

Question 12

Blockburger test

Answer 12

If a defendant’s conduct may be prosecuted as two or more crimes, then the blockburger test is applied to determine whether the crimes constitute the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.

Under this test, each crime must require the proof of an element that the other does not in order for each to be considered as a separate offense.

Question 13

What the double jeopardy clause prohibits

Answer 13

The double jeopardy clause generally bars successive prosecutions for greater and lesser included offenses.

A lesser included offense is one that does not require proof of an element beyond those required by the greater offense.

Question 14

Requirements of prosecution from due process clause

standard of proof

Answer 14

The due process clause requires that the prosecution prove all of the elements of a case beyond a reasoable doubt

Question 15

Mandatory presumptions and DP

Answer 15

A mandatory presumption regarding an element of an offense violates the due proces requirement. This could include either a conclusive presumption that cannot be reubtted or a rebuttable mandatory presumption

Question 16

Why conclusive presumptions that cannot be rebutted are bad

Answer 16

These kinds of presumptions would relieve the prosecution from having to prove an element of their case

Question 17

Why rebuttable mandatory presumptions are bad for DP purposes

Answer 17

These presumptions shift the burden of proof regarding an element of an offense

Question 18

Procedure for sentence enhancement

generally

Answer 18

Any fact, other than a prior conviction, that can be used to incrase a sentence beyond the statutorily prescribed maximum must be charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and established beyond a reasonable doubt

Question 19

Elements of crime vs. sentencing enhancements

Answer 19

A fact is considered an element of a crime, rather than a sentencing enhancement, when it can increase the maximum sentence imposed.

Question 20

Failure to abide by proper sentencing enhancing procedures

Answer 20

The failure to abide by the [sentencing procedure on another card] is a violation of the defendant’s due proess rights under the 5th amendment and 6th amendment rights to notice and a jury trial, both of which are incorporated against the states through the 14th amendment

Question 21

Miranda v. Arizona

Answer 21

In Miranda v. Arizona, the US Supreme Court held that a suspect had a constitutional right under the 5th Amendment not to be compelled to make incriminating statements in the police interrogation process.

Question 22

What can be done with incriminating statements in violation of Miranda

Answer 22

Any incriminating statement obtained as the result of custodial interrogation may not be used against the suspect at a subsequent trial unless the police provided procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self incrimination by informing the suspect of their Miranda rights

Question 23

Invoking right to counsel under Miranda

Answer 23

To invoke the right to counsel under the 5th Amendment, a suspect must make a specific, unambiguous statement asserting her desire to have counsel present. If a suspect makes an ambiguous statement regarding her right to counsel, the police are not required to end the interrogation or clarify whether the suspect wants to invoke that right.

Question 24

Effect of invoking right to counsel

Answer 24

Once the right to counsel is invoked, all interrogation must stop until counsel is present

Question 25

Incarceration and custody

Answer 25

Imprisonment alone does not necessarily create a custodial situation within the meaning of Miranda. The questioning of a prisoner who is removed from the genral prison population, about events that took place outside the prison, is not categorically custodial for Miranda purposes

Question 26

Determining whether interrogation of an inmate is custodial

Answer 26

A standard, objective totality of the circumstances analysis applies when an inmate is interviewed, including consideration of the language that is used in summoning the prisoner to the interview and the manner in which the interrogation is conducted.

Question 27

Reinterrogating a suspect who invoked their right to counsel

Answer 27

The police may reopen interrogation of a suspect who has asserted his 5th Amendment right to counsel if there has been a 14 day or more break in custody, such as the release back into the general prison population for a suspect who has been incarcerated for another crime.

Question 28

Remirandizing after a break in custody

Answer 28

In [reinterrogating] circumstances, the officers must give fresh Miranda warnings and get a valid waiver before beginning questioning.

Question 29

Discussions before being mirandized

Answer 29

Once a custodial interrogation begins, anything the defendant says is inadmissible until the defendant is informed of their Miranda rights and the defendant waives those rights.

Question 30

Requirements of Miranda warnings | content and verbatim repetition

Answer 30

The warnings, which must be given before interrogation begins, need not be a verbatim repetition of the language used in the Miranda decision, but simply must reasonably convey the rights required by Miranda

Question 31

What if a suspect makes an ambiguous invocation of right to an attorney

Answer 31

If a suspect makes an ambiguous statement regarding the right to counsel, the police are not required to end the interrogation or clarify whether the suspect wants to invoke the right. However, once that right to counsel is invoked, all interrogation must stop until counsel is present.

Question 32

Testimonial communications | under Miranda

Answer 32

To be testimonial, the communication must relate to a factual assertion or disclose information.

Question 33

When is someone in custody for Miranda | test

Answer 33

Custody can only be established if a reasonable person under similar circumstances would believe they were in custody

Question 34

Reinitiating interrogation after invoking right to counsel

Answer 34

If a suspect voluntarily initiates communication with the police after invoking their right to counsel, a statement made by the suspect that is not made in response to the interrogation may be admissible.

Question 35

what kind of statements reinitiate interrogation

Answer 35

Initiating communication does not include comments relating to routine incidents of custody Statements that clearly indicate a willingness to speak about matters relating to the investigation are deemed to initiate communication

Question 36

Respecting invocation of right to counsel after release from custody

Answer 36

The obligation for the police to honor the invocation of the Miranda right to counsel terminates 14 days after the suspect is released from custody

Question 37

6th Amendment right to counsel

Answer 37

The 6th Amendment, as applied to the states through the 14th Amendment, provides the accused with the right to counsel in criminal prosecutions

Question 38

When does 6A right to counsel attach

Answer 38

The right attaches at all critical stages of a prosecution after formal proceedings have begun, such as an indictment or a formal charge.

Question 39

Right specificity of 6A

Answer 39

The 6th Amendment right to counsel does not attach before the accused is formally charged, and the right is offense specific, so it only applies to the specific offense at issue in formal proceedings

Question 40

5th amendment

Answer 40

The 5th Amendment, as applied to the states through the 14th Amendment, provides the accused with the right to consult with an attorney and have an attorney present during a custodial interrogation.

Question 41

Effect of miranda warnings

Answer 41

Once a custodial interrogation begins, anything the defendant says is inadmissible until the defendant is informed of his miranda rights and the defendant waives those rights.

Question 42

Invoking right to counsel

Answer 42

The defendant must invoke the right to counsel by making a specific, unambiguous statement asserting his right to have counsel present

Question 43

Effect of invoking right to counsel

Answer 43

Once the right to counsel is invoked, all interrogation must stop until counsel is present

Question 44

What if invocation of counsel is ambiguous

Answer 44

If the defendant's statement is ambiguous, police are not required to end interrogation

Question 45

Waivign right to counsel after invoking it

Answer 45

Even if the right to counsel is successfully invoked, the defendant waives his right if he voluntarily initiates communication with the police after the right is invoked

Question 46

Right to remain silent

Answer 46

The 5th amendment provides the accused with the right not to be compelled to make incriminating statements during custodial interrogation.

Question 47

Invoking right to remain silent

Answer 47

The defendant must make a specific, unambiguous statement asserting his right to remain silent. Merely remaining silent does not invoke the privilege

Question 48

Effect of invoking right to remain silent

Answer 48

If a defendant invokes his right to remain silent, the interrogator must honor that request.

Question 49

Waiving invoked rights

Answer 49

Once a miranda right is invoked, a defendant may knowingly and voluntarily waive their right to remain silent

Question 50

Burden of proof for miranda waivers

Answer 50

The burden is on the government to show that the waiver was both knowing and voluntary based on the totality of the circumstances.

Question 51

When is a confession involuntary

Answer 51

A confession is involuntary only if the police coerced the defendant into making a confession.

Question 52

Waiving right to silence

Answer 52

A suspect waives his right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police.

Question 53

Do cops have to let you know your lawyer is coming?

Answer 53

Once the right to remain silent has been waived, the police are under no obligation to inform the defendant that defense counsel is trying to reach him

Question 54

unintentional homicide

Answer 54

An unintentional homicide committed by the defendant's criminal negligence is involuntary manslaughter

Question 55

criminal negligence

Answer 55

Criminal negligence is grossly negligent conduct that puts another person at a significant risk of injury or death.

Question 56

standard of care to constitute criminal negligence

Answer 56

Criminal negligence is a substantial deviation from ordinary negligence -- i.e., the standard of care a reasonable person would have used. BUT criminal negliegnce is less than the extremely reckless conduct required for depraved heart murder

Question 57

MPC requirements for involuntary manslaughter

Answer 57

Involuntary manslaughter in some jurisdictions and under the model penal code only requires the defendant's conduct to have been reckless

Question 58

reckless under MPC

Answer 58

reckless conduct is defined as a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law abiding person would observe in the actor's situation

Question 59

Awareness of risk and MPC involuntary manslaughter

Answer 59

This approach to involuntary manslaughter requires a defendant to be actually aware of the risk their conduct poses.

Question 60

connection between act and death for involuntary manslaughter

Answer 60

For a finding of involuntary manslaughter, there must be a causal connection between the defendant's criminally negligent or unlawful act and the death.

Question 61

When does a criminal D act recklessly

Answer 61

A defendant acts recklessly by acting with a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a material element of a crime exists or will result from his conduct

Question 62

Causation for homicide

Answer 62

To prove homicide, the prosecution must show that the defendant caused the victim's death. The prosecution must prove that the defendant's act was both the actual and proximate cause of death

Question 63

Setting in motion forces that lead to death

Answer 63

When a defendant sets in motion forces that lead to the death of the victim, the defendant is the actual cause of death

Question 64

When is a death foreseeable

Answer 64

Death is foreseeable when it is the natural and probable result of a defendant's conduct.

Question 65

Foreseeability of 3rd party actions

Answer 65

Actions by a third party are generally foreseeable

Question 66

Unforseeable intervening events

Answer 66

An unforeseeable event that led to the death breaks the chain of causation and relieves the defendant from liability

Question 67

Majority/MPC rule on accomplices

Answer 67

Under the majority and MPC rule, a person is an accomplice in the commission of an offense if he intentionally assists with the crime and acts with the purpose of promorting or facilitating the commission of the offense. Mere knowledge that another itnends to commit a crime is not enough. The accomplice must intend that his acts will assist or encourage criminal aim

Question 68

accomplice liability for reckless/negligent crimes

Answer 68

When a crime committed by the principal only requires the principal to act recklessly or negligently, a person may be an accomplice to that crime if they merely act recklessly or negligently with regard to the principal's commission of the crime, rather than purposefuly or intentionally.