CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Class Fourteen. Today’s Topics Overview: “Protections” Impact of Acquittal...
-
Upload
bryana-earnest -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Class Fourteen. Today’s Topics Overview: “Protections” Impact of Acquittal...
Today’s TopicsToday’s Topics
Overview: “Protections”Impact of AcquittalD’s AppealSecond Trial of Convicted D
– “Same Offense”– D Responsible
Constitutional ProvisionConstitutional Provision
Fifth Amendment– [N]or shall any person be subject for the same
offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb
Applicable to state prosecutions [Incorporation Doctrine] in 1969
Common Fact PatternsCommon Fact Patterns
Second prosecution after acquittalSecond prosecution after convictionMultiple punishments
Acquittal Consequences for Acquittal Consequences for ProsecutionProsecution
Second prosecution barred -- even if acquittal was a mistake
No appeal from acquittal -- even if rulings supporting acquittal were incorrect
No new trial from jury verdict of acquittal
Determining if Court Action = Determining if Court Action = AcquittalAcquittal
United States v. Scott– Final determination of guilt/innocence
necessary– Contrast with mistrial– Contrast with dismissal
Determining if Court Action = Determining if Court Action = AcquittalAcquittal
Sanabria v. United States– Trial judge believed he was construing
indictment and ruling on merits
United States v. Martin Lemon– If trial judge enters judgment of acquittal before
jury reaches verdict, that determination is final
Defendant’s AppealDefendant’s Appeal
Issue: What is the double jeopardy effect of a reversal?
Concept: Results vary depending on the ground on which reversal is based [sufficiency vs. trial error]
Reversal: Insufficient Reversal: Insufficient EvidenceEvidence
Issue: Does it make a difference whether it is reviewing court or trial court/jury that determines evidence is insufficient– Remember: Finding of insufficient evidence at trial =
verdict of acquittal
Burks v. United States Jeopardy interest: Prohibits prosecution from
another opportunity to supply or muster evidence it failed to provide in first case
Sufficiency vs. Trial ErrorSufficiency vs. Trial Error
Reversal for trial error does not equate to decision that gov’t failed to prove its case– Implies nothing about guilt/innocence– Is determination that D has been convicted
through process that is defective– Therefore, no jeopardy bar for retrial
Balancing InterestsBalancing Interests
D has strong interest in fair determination of guilt free from fundamental error
Society has valid interest in ensuring guilty are punished.
Reversal: Trial Court ErrorReversal: Trial Court Error
Considering “improper” evidence in gauging sufficiency– Issue: What impact when legally competent evidence
is insufficient but trial judge erroneously allowed incompetent evidence to be introduced at trial [and the resulting combination was sufficient]
– Lockhart v. Nelson
Defective charging instrument– Montana v. Hall
Second Trial of Convicted DSecond Trial of Convicted D
Concept: Following valid conviction, the same offense cannot be prosecuted again
Problem: Determining what is the same offense– Examples: lesser included offense [think: aggravated
robbery with gun, non-weapon robbery]; closely related offenses [think: speeding and failure to use turn signal in same transaction]
Analytical Key: Blockburger Rule
Blockburger TestBlockburger Test
Asks whether each statutory provision contains an element the other does not
Blockburger ExamplesBlockburger Examples
Brown v. Ohio– Joyriding as lesser included of auto theft– Second conviction violated double jeopardy
Grady v. Corbin– Now abandoned “same conduct” test– Constitutional detour
Blockburger ExamplesBlockburger Examples
United States v. Dixon– Criminal contempt & possession drugs
Rutledge v. United States– Elements of conspiracy and “in concert” aspect
of CCE [continuing criminal enterprise]
Recap: Blockburger Recap: Blockburger ApplicationApplication
Separate– Crime One
A B C
– Crime Two A B D
Same– Crime One
A B C
– Crime Two A B C
Lesser Included– Crime One
A B C
– Crime Two A B
Remedy for ViolationsRemedy for Violations
Frequently, reversal and dismissal of results in second prosecution
“Reformation”– Morris v. Matthews [reduced to conviction for
lesser included offense] D burden: “reasonable probability would not have
been convicted of non-jeopardy barred offense absent presence of jeopardy-barred offense”
When D Responsible for When D Responsible for Multiple ProsecutionsMultiple Prosecutions
Concept: If D is responsible for multiple prosecutions, double jeopardy limitation not applicable– Jeffers v. United States [D opposed government
attempt to consolidate] Cf, Rutledge
– Ohio v. Johnson [D chose over gov’t objection to split offenses]
Caution: As matter of state law, later trial might raise question of cumulative punishments
Collateral Estoppel: Collateral Estoppel: BackgroundBackground
Multiple victims = multiple offenses
May be circumstances when even separate trials on distinct offenses are constitutionally barred --- when cases have ultimate fact in common
Constitutional basis: Due Process clause
Ashe v. Swenson: The FactsAshe v. Swenson: The Facts
Accused defendants– 1– 2– 3– 4
Criminal conduct– Robbery– Car theft
Crime Victims– 1– 2– 3– 4– 5– 6
Total possible charges per defendant: 7
Ashe FactsAshe Facts
Trial One [Victim X]– Gov’t evidence that D had been one of robbers was
weak– Jury returns verdict of not guilty– Verdict recites: “not guilty due to insufficient
evidence”
Trial Two [Victim Y]– Six weeks later
Collateral EstoppelCollateral Estoppel
Principle: when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit
Determining “Ultimate Fact”Determining “Ultimate Fact”
Consider– Pleadings– Evidence at trial– Charge [jury instruction]– Other relevant matter
Conclude whether a rational jury could have granted its verdict on an issue other than the fact on which D seeks to foreclose future litigation
Constitutional ProtectionConstitutional Protection
When Double Jeopardy prohibits successive prosecutions, it does so only when those prosecutions are brought by the same sovereign
Dual Sovereign = possibility of dual prosecutions– Theory: each sovereign has been offended
Inherent in American Federalism
LimitationsLimitations
If one sovereign acting as “tool” of another --- sham, or cover– Bartkus v. Illinois
Current event update: Supreme Court is considering issue this term
Test Your KnowledgeTest Your Knowledge
Is a state a separate sovereign from the federal government?
Is city separate sovereign from state in which it is located?
Are individual states in the Union dual sovereigns vis a vis one another?
Are Indian nations separate sovereign [recent Supreme Court decision]?
ScenariosScenarios
Trial ends prematurely
Mistrial declared
Examples: – Prosecutor improperly comments on D’s failure to
testify and D seeks mistrial– Prosecution’s key witness fails to appear in response to
subpoena– Jury is deadlocked and cannot reach verdict
AttachmentAttachment
Jury trial– When jury empaneled and sworn
Bench trial [to the court]– When court begins to hear evidence
Mistrial over D’s ObjectionMistrial over D’s Objection
Critical concept: Manifest necessityGeneral rule: If there is manifest necessary,
then there is exception to double jeopardy protections
Test: Manifest necessity exists when end of public justice are not served if there is no retrial
Mistrial on D’s MotionMistrial on D’s Motion
Generally, no double jeopardy bar
Exception: conduct by prosecutor intended to “goad” D into moving for mistrial
VindictivenessVindictiveness
Issue: What, if any, limitations are imposed on courts and prosecutors when a case is retried.
Example: More time added to second sentence following successful appeal.– Query: Is D being punished for exercising her
right to appeal.