Trial Flashcards
Capital Murder Sentencing
The due process clause guarantees a criminal defendant’s right to have an impartial jury determine whether the defendant is guilty of every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Apprendi v. New Jersey that any fact that exposes a criminal defendant to a greater punishment than authorized by the jury’s guilty verdict is an element that must be submitted to and found by the jury.
This holding has been applied to state capital-murder sentencing schemes that require a finding of at least one aggravating circumstance at either the guilt or penalty phase before the death penalty can be imposed.
Therefore, a capital-sentencing scheme violates Apprendi if it:
1) allows a jury to render an advisory sentence recommending the death penalty without specifically finding an aggravating circumstance AND
2) permits the judge to then make that finding independently.
That is because such a scheme strips the defendant of the right to have the jury make the critical findings necessary to impose the death penalty.
Can an accomplice to felony murder be sentenced to death?
An accomplice to felony murder who did not kill, attempt to kill, or intend to kill cannot be sentenced to the death unless the accomplice
(1) significantly participated in the commission of the underlying felony AND
(2) acted with reckless indifference to human life.
Can mandatory presumptions be used against a criminal defendant to establish an element of the charged crime?
NO.
Mandatory presumptions cannot be used against a criminal defendant to establish an element of the charged crime. Due process prohibits the use of mandatory presumptions—i.e., conclusions that must be drawn from basic facts—against a criminal defendant regarding an element of the charged crime.
- Such use would violate the defendant’s due process rights by relieving the prosecution of its burden to prove every element of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
The law distinguishes between:
1) permissible inferences – which allow the fact finder to reach a conclusion once a party proves an underlying fact or set of facts AND
2) mandatory presumptions – which compel the fact finder to reach a conclusion from basic facts unless and until it is rebutted.
What must the prosecution show for an in-court identification testimony that stems from an improper out-of-court identification?
The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine generally prohibits the introduction of evidence derived from unconstitutional government conduct. But the poison from an improper out-of-court identification is removed when the prosecution can show that the in-court identification testimony is nevertheless reliable.
Due process requires the suppression of unreliable testimony identifying the defendant as the perpetrator of the charged crime since it may inhibit the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
In-court identification testimony may be unreliable if it stems from unnecessarily suggestive out-of-court identification procedures arranged by police.
Therefore, such in-court identification testimony is admissible only if the prosecution demonstrates that it is sufficiently reliable—i.e., poses no substantial likelihood of misidentification.
Does due proces require that the government prove every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt?
Jury instruction note
Due process requires that the government prove every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Therefore, when the defendant asserts a defense (e.g., alibi) that negates an element of the crime, the burden of proof must remain on the prosecution to prove that element.
In other words, the burden may not be shifted to the defendant to disprove the element.
To be proper, a jury instruction must reflect this constitutional requirement.
