Criminal Procedure Criminal procedures are debatable on what is more effective and how to implement such policies. Due Process and Crime Control are two different models that explain the criminal procedure policy of the United States, and they will be discussed in this paper. Along with how the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments impact both of these models. The final subject of this paper will be how the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states. The Due Process Model is a process that works on the assumption that the criminal justice system has errors, and because of those errors a defendant is not guilty until proven otherwise.
“Probable Cause is a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.” When determining whether probable cause has been established many questions will arise, not only to see if all necessary procedures were being followed by the officer but also to make sure that the citizen’s rights were not violated. Many of the case laws that have taken place have done so because they feel like in some way or another their rights had been violated or they were not treated fairly these are the cases that change laws or the
2. The name of the suspect is important to have because if we don’t have his name on the warrant then how would the suspect know if it was for him. 3. Details stating what we are allowed to take from the home or facility. If the warrant is not stating what we can get.
The discovery stage is next, where the parties will try to find evidences, which will be presented against each other or on each side. Questions are asked by each party in writing from each other, which is process through the legal document known as interrogatories. The questions or findings may also be done through oral counseling, known as deposition. When the discovery process is complete the defendant will file a motion of summary judgment. This will allow the defendant to reject the case, due to not enough evidences to support the claim presented by the plaintiff.
Third, the defense presents that the defendant was being interrogated. For these reasons, the defense will prove why Mr. Vega’s bracketed statement should be considered inadmissible within the court. Just because the contact between an officer and suspect begins as voluntary, doesn’t mean it remains that way. A change in circumstances can transform a voluntary conversation into custodial interrogation, as per the ruling in People v. Aguilera. This is what happened during the interaction between Adrian and Officer Wright.
Braithwaite, supra, the Supreme Court held that reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony. The determination is to be made based on the totality of the circumstances as previously indicated in Stovall v. Denno, supra. The factors to be weighed against the corrupting effect of the suggestive procedure are as set forth in Neil v. Biggers, supra, summarized by the court in Manson to include: "...the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness's degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level or certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and confrontation." 432 U.S. 98, 114. Similar standards had previously been adopted by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Lathan (1972), 30 Ohio St. 2d
Legislative Facts- Can be subdivided into three areas, legislative history of a relevant statute, interpretation of nonlegal facts used in a relevant legislative process, and information about the impact of extant law. Adjudicative Facts- include, but are not limited to, common definitions, pronunciation, idioms, slang, and body language. Political Facts & Matters of Law Why do officers have the right to temporarily detain private citizens? In your opinion, should the officers have this right? Use cases and court proceedings to support your opinion.
If a judge perceives that the plea bargain is too lenient the judge has the right to reject the plea and order of the prosecuting and the defense to renegotiate. Defendants that are pleading guilty as a result of the plea agreement must acknowledge their plea in open court. Defendant who pleads guilty after the plea has been negotiations do not surrender their right to an appeal; their conviction goes to the Appellate Division of Superior Courts. Also if a defendant pleading guilty to a crime
Police officers must establish probable cause in order to lawfully make an arrest, obtain a warrant for an arrest, conduct a search of someone's person, or search and seize someone's property. Similarly, a prosecutor must convince a grand jury that there is probable cause to bring a case to trial. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals, the test for establishing probable cause is showing that "facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime." Examine each key phrase in the test to determine exactly what elements are needed to establish probable
This is true for several reasons. In some circumstances civil penalties may be available. In that instance, the criminal prosecutor must decide whether civil remedies are sufficient in the context of the particular defendant’s actions. If so, then the prosecutor might decide that criminal charges are unwarranted second, where parallel state and federal criminal proceedings can be brought, a prosecutor must decide whether additional criminal punishment for the same conduct is appropriate. A state prosecutor may decide to bring a parallel proceeding if there is no statutory or case law prohibiting such a proceeding.