POSC 130g Week 4 Lecture Notes
POSC 130g Week 4 Lecture Notes POSC 130
Popular in Law, Politics and Public Policy
Popular in Political Science
This 8 page Class Notes was uploaded by Adrianna Robakowski on Friday September 16, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to POSC 130 at University of Southern California taught by Alison Dundes Renteln in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 4 views. For similar materials see Law, Politics and Public Policy in Political Science at University of Southern California.
Reviews for POSC 130g Week 4 Lecture Notes
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 09/16/16
Lecture 9/13 POLICE Crime Control versus Due Process Herbert Packers Broken Windows Theory focusing crime control in areas where there already is crime (where this is one broken window, there will be another if we do not handle it) Police playing different roles Protecting Solving crimes Polic States Can’t have a rule or law where the police aren’t regulated EFFICIENCY + FAIRNESS (basic tension in legal system) Tradeoffs Courts aren’t always consistent Interrogations Due process Substantive Procedural = what procedures must be in place to preserve constitutional rights Fair notice requirement = people should know what their rights are People should have a chance to give their side in court No government procedure or law should be arbitrary or unfair Have public policies evolved to promote efficiency or fairness??? Landmark Cases Brown v. Mississippi (1936) = “third degree” as part of coerced confessions Melloy v. Hogan (1964) = 5th amendment applied to the states Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) = confessions obtained in violation of the 6th amendment Monroe v. Pape = allowed people to go to court for civil rights conduct (police brutality) Miranda v. Arizona Famous police warnings 54 vote 2 requirements (when you must be read the Miranda Rights): 1. The suspect must be interrogated 2. The suspect must be in custody Miranda was told… He had a right to remain silent Anything he said could be used against him in court Miranda wasn’t told… He was allowed to have a lawyer with him Chief Justice Warren “The restraint society must observe...the omissibility of statements...not to be compelled to criminate himself.” DECISION Right to consult with a lawyer and have him present during interrogation Absolute prerequisite to interrogation No amount of circumstantial evidence could get around this In reality, Miranda didn’t make much of a difference People still confessed because they want to be forgiven Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare = no man is bound to accuse himself Erosion of Miranda ??? What counts as interrogation? Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) Defendant claimed he had been interrogated Courts held that the police had no reason to believe the defendant would offer information after an appeal to his conscience Indirect Interrogation ??? Brewer v. Williams (1977)/Nix v. Williams (1984) Name changes because the suit is against the warden Man believed to have killed a little girl Lawyer said “don’t talk to anyone” (Des Moines) Local lawyer said “don’t say anything in the car to Des Moines”, no lawyer present in the car (Davenport) Detective said “there will be snow tonight, you should tell us where the body is, we’re driving past it, she should get a Christian burial, etc...but you don’t have to say anything” Williams was a religious man Defendant says where the body is Goes to the Supreme Court 2 times Amicus briefs to overrule Miranda 2nd time, inevitable discovery exception (is it inevitable that the evidence will be found anyway?) Fruit of the poisonous tree If you obtain “fruit” or evidence in an unconstitutional way, you can’t use it Adequacy of Warnings New York v. Quarles (1984) Miranda rights read AFTER Timing of warning “Public safety” exception When there is an emergency, police don’t have to read Miranda rights so that they can act more quickly Duckworth v. Eagan (1990) Told him he could have a lawyer “if and when” he went to court Told him the right rights to a lawyer later Supreme Court ruled that there is no need for a verbatim/literal warning Language Barrier = Whose burden to ensure understanding ??? Moran v. Burbine (1986) Interrelationship of 5th (self incrimination) and 6th (counsel) amendments Police do not inform suspect of lawyers availability... what is the significance of his omission? Failure of police to tell him the lawyer called did NOT infringe on his rights Mistake or deliberate deception, but suspects rights not implicated INTERROGATION IN HOSPITALS Chavez v. Martinez (2003) No 5th amendment violation Should Miranda apply? JUVENILES Inre Gault (1967) Due Process for juveniles Fare v. Michael C. (1979) no 5th amendment violation Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004) = Whether juvenile was “in custody” at police station J.D.P v. North Carolina (2011) = Students must receive Miranda warnings if questioned “No special treatment because of age” OVERTURNING MIRANDA? Dickerson v. U.S. (2000) Supreme Court upheld Miranda Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) Suspect must invoke right to remain silent Searches and Bodily Integrity Rochin v. California (1952) “Conduct that shocked the conscience” “Stomach pump” case Supreme Court didn’t use 5th amendment because it hadn’t yet been incorporated Based on due process clause Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Court creates exclusionary rule (anything that violates the constitution) If evidence is illegally obtained, it can not be used in the criminal process Fruit of the poisonous tree is a more specific doctrine US v. Leon (1984) Good faith exception = if police rely on search warrant that the magistrate had no business issuing, they can still use evidence they obtain Winston v. Lee (1985) “Surgical search” Bullet removed Bodily integrity If it only requires local anesthesia, not general anesthesia, they can remove the bullet Lecture 9/15 JURIES Function: finding facts vs. applying the law Selective Incapacitation = deterrence, trying to deter people from breaking the law Promote crime control Peter Greenwood research Profile of individuals who are thought to be repeat offenders Logic = if you knew these people in advance and locked them up for a long time, you could prevent crimes Two people, same crime, different sentences because one fits the profile Robinson v. California Supreme Court made it clear that it is the ACT and not the PEOPLE they are that is punishable Deterrence = only justified if you are punishing the right person Rehabilitation Retribution = a person punished because they deserve it Proportionality, only punished as much as someone deserved ALL THEORETICALLY LINKED Midterm Q: WHAT IF SOCIAL SCIENCE WERE ACCURATE AND YOU COULD PREDICT WHO WOULD COMMIT CRIME? Inchoate crime = intent and conspiracy No act Predictive policing = identifying high crime areas and focusing in on the (PREDPOL) Crime prediction software Castlerock v. Gonzales = 72 ruling Police department can’t be sued for failing to enforce restraining orders Mother had a restraining order against exhusband He takes children to an amusement park, doesn’t call or bring them home She went to the police, and they didn’t help her at all He shoots at the police, they kill him and end up finding the dead children in the trunk of his car [International scrutiny of the US due to police brutality] JURIES 95% of all criminal cases end in a plea bargain Is it consistent with due process??? Attorneys work out a deal and pressure the defendant to accept Once it is accepted, the defendant can not change his or her mind Distinct feature of our legal system Is it more efficient??? Is it fair??? Midterm Q: 12 ANGRY MEN Independence of the Jury Juries provide a check on the government Jurors can reject unjust laws or the unjust application of laws Can say no without saying why Jury nullification Right to trial by jury (Duncan v. Louisiana) is an incorporated right (criminal cases) Right to have a trial in civil cases is not incorporated Open trials! Anyone can come and watch Ensure the presence of the jury and public Role of dissent If jury decides to acquit in a criminal case, there can be NO appeal Historically, the decision had to be unanimous In civil cases, the judge will sometimes take the case away from the jury Directed verdict No question about the facts, judge takes in away from the jury JNOV = judgement notwithstanding the verdict After jury has deliberated Prefer this because if the judge messes up, they can just reinstate what the jury said and don’t have to have a new trial Size of the damage award Remittitur = judge can reduce the jury award Additur = judge can increase the jury award Trial of William Penn (1670) William Penn and William Mead = defendants Charged with disturbing the peace Judge issued to jury, said they had to convict them and would not be dismissed until they were convicted Jurors stood their ground The Williams were REALLY prosecuted for being Quakers Meetinghouses closed by the government so they could only meet in the streets Jurors were locked up and fined “Contempt of court” [compare to Throckmorton case 91954)] John Peter Zenger Case (1735) Leading case for freedom of the press, Zenger published something criticizing the governor of New York Government had Zenger's lawyers disbarred on technicalities, so he got a new lawyer who was clearly on the governor’s side Andrew Hamilton volunteered to represent Zenger The question whether the articles were libel was left for the judge, not the jury Intertwining of fact and law To require the jury only to give a special verdict and not a general verdict usurps the rights of the jury Laws that were good in England aren’t good enough for America Jury says NOT guilty 80% of jury trials all over the world take place in the US Right to a Trial by Jury 1. Early textual basis a. Magna Carta (1212), clause 39 b. Trojans had juries ?! 2. U.S. Constitution a. Article III (3) b. 5th amendment requires an indictment by a grand jury c. 6th amendment requires a speedy, public trial d. 7th amendment allows a trial by jury in civil matters (not incorporated) Midterm Q = How would you fix the jury? Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) No jury trial because Louisiana only provided one if the penalty could be hard labor or capital punishment 6th amendment rights are incorporated JURY SELECTION 1. Pool DMV, voter rolls, local census lists, taxpayers 2. Voir dire = process to weed out biased jurors a. 12 jurors...12 disciples? 3. Bases for Removal: a. Causes b. Peremptory Challenge 4. U.S. Citizen, at least 18, read/write and speak in English, doesn’t have criminal history of more than 1 year in prison, must have lived in jurisdiction for at least a year 5. Women and minorities traditionally excluded from pools a. Misuse of peremptory challenges RACISM Swain v. Alabama (1965) All white jury convicts African American man of raping a 17 year old white women Two blacks excused for cause and all others removed by peremptory challenge Independent State Grounds People v. Wheeler (1978) Batson v. Kentucky (1986) Overturned Swain v. Alabama Shifts burden of proof to the other side Dissenting opinion: Marshall, why do we have peremptory challenges? Extension of the Batson Ruling: Civil litigation Defendant need not belong to same ethnic group as those struck from jury Gender Refusal to extent in language case Hernandez v. New York (1991) Should the rule apply to other characteristics like religion and sexual orientation? Midterm Q: Should the defense be able to remove (gays, Christians, etc.) group of people based on the case (LGBT, religion, etc.)?
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'