Due Process Flashcards
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)
Black kid fought with white kid; black kid asked for jury trial, got denied, + then got convicted via bench trial + got 60 days imprisonment;
RULE: A crime potentially punishable by a prison term of six months or more requires a jury trial (doctrine of selective incorporation).
Right to a jury trial is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s
due process clause and thus applies to state prosecutions
A D charged with multiple offenses adding up to >6mo is not entitled to a jury
e. excessive bail remain unincorporated
Hurtado v. California (state)
RULE: 5th Amendment right to grand jury in a felony does not apply to state court. Thus, grand jury is not constitutionally required for state proceedings.
Fifth Amendment says that no one can be tried for a felony offense without first having a grand jury indictment. They couldn’t just throw you in jail and wait until you gave up. California had no grand jury and SCOTUS refused to incorporate and said grand jury process promotes liberty and fairness, but is not essential to due process.
However, most states use grand juries.
Incorporation generally
Not every guarantee in bill of rights that has to do with crim pro applies to the states. See Hurtado.
Total Incorporation Theory
everything in the federal Bill of Rights is applied to states.
Due Process Theory
Due process theory: there needs to be a trial (????)
Selective Incorporation Theory
Selective incorporation: some of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights are fundamental to fairness that it should apply to the states. The ones that are not fundamental do not apply.
Residual Due Process Theory
In addition to the bill of rights, some rights are so fundamental that they also apply to the states even though they are not listed in the Bill of Rights (unenumerated rights); e.g., abortion rights.
The more traditional a principle is (right to jury trial) the more fundamental it can be viewed as. Courts are willing to interfere with state law on fundamental issues, not small details.
Pate v. Robinson (narrowed by Medina + Cooper)
Due Process requires that a defendant must be competent to stand trial. A state cannot force a mentally incompetent person to stand trial. PoE Standard.
The standard of competence is that the defendant have an actual understanding of the
proceedings against him and have sufficient ability to consult with his lawyer with a
reasonable degree of rational understanding.
Example of right not enumerated in BoR, but still incorporated by 14th amendment. (doctrine of unenumerated rights/residual due process)
Medina v. CA (narrows Pate)
CA procedure requiring defendant to prove incompetence by preponderance
of evidence did not offend Due Process
While Bill of Rights regulates due process (can’t force crazy person to stand trial), doesn’t govern details so state gets to determine this (e.g., how do you adjudicate if someone is crazy/who has the burden of proof).
Cooper v. OK
Oklahoma procedure requiring defendant to show his incompetence by clear and convincing evidence (between preponderance + proof beyond reasonable doubt) violated Due Process
While 14th amendment doesn’t specify proof, it cannot be clear and convincing against the defendant
NY state: CPL 730
If a judge thinks person isn’t mentally competent, judge is required to hire a psychiatrist to evaluate defendant but needs to talk to defense counsel too. 703 test: have to do discussion with defendant about how they feel and what their mental process is. Ask them what day is it/time/your name/what’s going on/where are you/etc).
