1. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Chapter Two

2. Learning Objectives Know the meaning of federalism as it applies to criminal justice. Identify the constitutional basis for the exercise of federal criminal jurisdiction. Identify the limits of federal criminal jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Know the meaning of reliable, relevant, and competent evidence. List some differences between accusatorial and inquisitional systems. State the requirements of the Brady rule. State the requirements of the U.S. Supreme Court’s rule for lost or destroyed evidence. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

3. Federalism in the United States The United States uses a form of government called federalism, which was first presented at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Federalism means that the central government has the power and authority to handle national problems, and the states have the power to regulate local needs and problems. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

4. Federalism in the United States Federalism allows for diversity and flexibility at state and local levels of government. States are primarily responsible for public safety and can enact laws they believe are most effective in providing for public order and an efficient, effective criminal justice system. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

5. Federalism and the Law of Evidence The powers of the U.S. Congress, the President, and the U.S. Supreme Court are limited to those powers granted in the Constitution. Each state is sovereign, and the officials of each state have the powers granted to them by the Constitution of that state.  Each state has its own criminal codes and codes of criminal procedure and evidence. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

6. Federalism and the Law of Evidence State codes and the ruling of state courts must conform to the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.  State laws and state court rulings may provide additional rights. The Federal Rules of Evidence were enacted in 1975 by Congress.  Most states have adopted rules of evidence almost identical to the federal rules. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

7. Federalism and the Law of Evidence Each state retains the power to interpret and modify the rules of evidence. The meaning and application of the federal rules of evidence can vary between federal courts and state courts. The federal rules of evidence and most state rules of evidence apply in both civil and criminal trials. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

8. Tenth Amendment and Individual Rights The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states or the people.  This distinction reinforces the basic concept of federalism. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

9. Bond v. U.S. 131 S. Ct. 2355 (2011) Defendant argued that her actions were totally local in nature and thus were reserved to the states or the people under the Tenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant could not raise the Tenth Amendment as a defense. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that in proper circumstances, one can claim the federal statute violated the Tenth Amendment. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

10. State and Federal Jurisdiction Over Crimes in the United States Most crimes committed in the United States are violations of state criminal codes. Some crimes are federal offenses in violation of the federal criminal code.  A small percentage of criminal offenses are violations of both the federal criminal code and a state criminal code. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

11. State and Federal Jurisdiction Over Crimes in the United States The U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government a general police power, nor has there ever been federal criminal common law.  Common law is the set of unwritten legal rules that have been developed over many years by courts and judges. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

12. State and Federal Jurisdiction Over Crimes in the United States All federal crimes have to be statutory crimes enacted by Congress. States have general police power to regulate in providing for domestic tranquility. Criminal codes and rules of evidence are enacted by state legislatures and are found in the codified laws of each state. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

13. State and Federal Jurisdiction Over Crimes in the United States Criminal laws may be enacted by the federal government in the following areas:  To protect itself, its officials and employees, its property, and the administration of its authorized functions;  To regulate interstate and foreign commerce;  To protect civil rights; and  To enact criminal laws for places beyond the jurisdiction of any state. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

14. State and Federal Jurisdiction Over Crimes in the United States Congress may pass criminal laws under the Commerce Clause only if a prohibited activity:  Uses the “channels” of interstate commerce, e.g., by taking place in more than one state;  Uses the “instrumentalities” of interstate commerce, e.g., telephone lines or the postal service; or  Has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

15. Gonzales v. Raich 125 S. Ct. 2195 (2005) Users and growers of medical marijuana brought an action to declare the federal Controlled Substances Act unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Commerce Clause permits Congress to regulate local marijuana production because the activity “substantially affects” interstate commerce. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

16. State and Federal Jurisdiction Over Crimes in the United States The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a), requires convicted sex offenders to register in the states where they live and to which they travel. Offenders who failed to register in another state when traveling often filed federal suits claiming that Congress lacked the power to pass SORNA laws. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

17. United States v. Kebodeaux 133 S. Ct. 2496 (2013) A former military serviceman was convicted of failing to register under SORNA based on a conviction of a sex offense while in the service. The court held that Congress has the power to enact SORNA under the Necessary and Proper Clause.  This clause authorizes Congress to pass laws necessary to obtain the object of permissible legislation. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

18. Law Enforcement in the American Federal System In the United States, there are more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies. Most are at the local levels of government (city, counties, towns, etc.).  Local law enforcement agencies enforce city and county ordinances in addition to the criminal laws of their states. State rules of evidence are used in both municipal and state courts. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

19. Law Enforcement in the American Federal System Law enforcement agencies working at the state level of government are generally created by state law to enforce state criminal laws or to enforce hunting, fishing, health, sanitation, fire, and other state codes. Federal law enforcement officers work with federal law agencies created by Congress to enforce specific laws assigned to their agencies. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

20. Estimates of Reported Crimes in the United States ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

21. Courts and Trials in the United States Federal and state courts.  These courts handle about 95 percent of all criminal trials in the United States. Military courts.  These courts are for members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Military commissions.  These courts were established in 2004 for “enemy combatants” held by the U.S. military. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

22. The American Adversary System ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

23. The American Adversary System The function of the criminal trial within the American court system is to provide a venue for determining the facts upon which the guilt or innocence of the accused is based.  The main actors in the courtroom are the judge, the jury, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney. In the American adversary system, the prosecutor and the defense attorney seek to establish the facts in opposition to each other. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

24. The American Adversary System During a trial, both the prosecutor and the defense attorney have two main goals:  To present the facts that are the most advantageous to their position, and  To make it difficult for their opponent to do the same. The prosecutor attempts to prove his or her case “beyond a reasonable doubt by an unanimous jury.” The defense attorney’s duty is to represent his or her client “zealously within the bounds of the law.” The judge and jury come to the trial uncommitted. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

25. The American Adversary System Witness testimony and physical evidence are presented within the framework of the rules of evidence and court procedure. Witnesses are questioned by each side and evidence admitted during the trial can be challenged. The trial judge presides neutrally over the trial and is responsible for safeguarding both the rights of the accused and the interests of the public. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

26. The American Adversary System The function of the jury is to determine the truth. The rules of evidence are in place to ensure that the evidence presented to the jury by both adversaries is relevant, reliable, and competent. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

27. Relevant, Reliable, and Competent Evidence The prosecution and the defense seek to present the facts that are most advantageous to its position. Evidence that is not relevant, not reliable, or not competent is not admissible and cannot be used in trial. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

28. Relevant Evidence Relevant evidence is direct or circumstantial evidence that has a tendency to make a material issue before the court more or less probable. Rule 403 allows for relevant evidence to be excluded if it may:  Unfairly prejudice a party;  Confuse the jury; or  Waste the court’s time. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

29. State v. Payano 768 N.W.2d 832 (Wis. 2009) The defendant was charged with drug possession. The prosecution may not introduce evidence by a witness claiming to have seen the defendant in possession of drugs on other occasions. The prosecution may introduce testimony of a witness claiming that the defendant had illegal guns and drugs in his apartment the day before the defendant discharged a gun and hit a police officer who was attempting to enter the apartment. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

30. Reliable Evidence Reliable evidence is evidence that possesses a sufficient degree of believability.  Evidence which is deemed unreliable is inadmissible at trial. Reliable and admissible evidence is required to justify charging a person with a crime. Each state has the authority to commence a criminal prosecution if sufficient evidence is available to justify the criminal charge. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

31. Holbrook v. Flynn 475 U.S. 560 (1986) The Court held that central to a fair trial is the principle that “one accused of a crime is entitled to have his guilt or innocence determined solely on the basis of the evidence introduced at trial, and not on grounds of official suspicion, indictment, continued custody, or any other circumstances not adduced as proof at trial.” Each state has authority to commence a criminal prosecution if sufficient evidence is available to justify the criminal charges. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

32. Fry v. Piller 127 S. Ct 2321 (2007) Defendant was convicted of murder after two successive mistrials. During trial defendant tried to introduce testimony that a third party had committed the murders. The trial judge excluded one of the witnesses from testifying. The defendant appealed and filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal court and ultimately to the Supreme Court. The Supreme court granted certiorari to consider the scope of review of constitutional error in habeas corpus cases. The Court affirmed the lower court’s holding denying habeas relief, holding that even if the testimony was wrongly excluded, a trial judge’s decision to exclude evidence can only be overturned if it has a “substantial and injurious effect” on the jury verdict. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

33. Competent Evidence Competent evidence includes relevant, reliable evidence that is not otherwise rendered inadmissible.  Communications between a patient and a treating physician are considered privileged and thus inadmissible.  Evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement is inadmissible. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

34. The American Accusatorial System The United States and most of the English- speaking democracies in the world use the accusatorial system in criminal investigations and in criminal trials. Under this accusatorial system, suspects and defendants have an absolute right to remain silent about matters that could incriminate them.  Most European countries and other democracies of the world use the inquisitorial system, in which defendants do not have the absolute right to remain silent. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

35. The Inquisitorial System In some European countries, special judges are responsible for investigating serious crimes and questioning witnesses and suspects. Countries that use the inquisitorial system rely more heavily on obtaining confessions to solve crimes. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

36. Disclosing Information in the Adversary System al When a criminal charge has been made, the prosecution and the defense begin separate investigations of the facts. The U.S. Supreme Court has placed limits on the unwillingness of the parties to share information with the other side.  Many of the rules that compel disclosure apply to the prosecution, but some compel the defense to disclose information to the prosecution. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

37. Notice of Alibi Statutes An alibi defense alleges the defendant could not have committed the crime that is charged because the defendant was at another place at the time the crime was committed. Most states have notice of alibi statutes that require defendants who plan to use an alibi defense to serve notice on the prosecutor within a certain period of time before trial. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

38. Duty to Disclose Evidence Showing the Innocence of the Accused Evidence that tends to show innocence is called exculpatory evidence. A prosecutor has a duty to disclose evidence favorable to an accused upon request where the evidence is material to the defendant’s guilt or innocence (the Brady rule). o This requirement is extended to law enforcement officers as well. o Steckler v. Greene (1999), Banks v. Dretke (2004), and Smith v. Cain (2012) further define the limits of exculpatory evidence. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

39. Brady v. Maryland 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963) Despite a request from defense counsel, the prosecution withheld a statement by an accomplice who had admitted to killing the victim. The real issue was the suppression of the statement favorable to the accused upon the request of that information; this was deemed a violation of due process since the evidence was material to both guilt or punishment. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

40. Lost, Misplaced, and Destroyed Evidence The U.S. Supreme Court has established rules concerning the government’s duty to preserve evidence. The court held that lost, misplaced, or destroyed evidence is not a violation of due process unless:  The loss was due to bad faith on the part of the police or other law enforcement official.  The evidence was likely significant to the defendant’s case. If a Brady violation is discovered, the penalty is severe, including a new trial or a dismissal of charges. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

41. Use of False or Perjured Evidence The deliberate use of false or perjured evidence in an attempt to obtain a criminal conviction is a crime. This conduct could also be the basis for a civil lawsuit in which compensatory and punitive damages could be awarded.  Mooney v. Holohan (1935)  Miller v. Pate (1967) ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

42. Mooney v. Holohan 294 U.S. 103, 55 S. Ct. 340 (1935) The U.S. Supreme Court made it very clear that a conviction obtained by the knowing use of false testimony or false evidence is a denial of due process of law and will be reversed. The Court held that “such a contrivance … is inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice as is obtaining of a like result by intimidation.” ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

43. Miller v. Pate 386 U.S. 451 (1967) The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the defendant’s murder and rape conviction because during the trial the prosecutor repeatedly referred to “blood-stained shorts” during the trial when the prosecutor knew, but did not reveal to the court or defense, that the red stain was actually paint. The Court held that the prosecution had “deliberately misrepresented the truth” and had used false evidence during the trial. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

44. Civil Commitment Civil commitment can be authorized under state or federal statutes to involuntarily confine a person who is deemed a present danger to themselves or others because of mental health problems or sexual predator histories, among other circumstances.  Most states have mental health laws authorizing involuntary, short- term mental observations of persons with mental illness.  Longer detentions requested by the government require them to prove the potential for violence beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court has held that civil commitment of mentally ill, sexually dangerous prisoners beyond the date of release is constitutional if the government can show proof of dangerous behavior in the past among other factors. U.S. v. Comstock (2010). ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.