ch11
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Syracuse University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
304
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
9
Uploaded by UltraAlligatorMaster1003
Chapter 11-Disclosing and Suppressing Evidence
learning objectives
1.
LO1 Explain the reasons why the process of discovery exists in both civil and criminal cases, but is significantly curtailed in the latter.
2.
LO2 Differentiate formal and informal discovery and the reasons why both are used in criminal cases.
3.
LO3 Identify the types of evidence subject to mandatory criminal discovery.
4.
LO4 Compare and contrast the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
5.
LO5 Summarize how the decision in Miranda v. Arizona
regulates the process of police interrogations of suspects.
6.
LO6 Explain the requirements governing the application for search warrants, the issuance
of search warrants, and the execution of search warrants.
7.
LO7 Identify the major exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.
8.
LO8 Analyze the effect of the exclusionary rule on the operations of the courtroom work group.
9.
LO9 Evaluate whether the exclusionary rule should be abolished.
discovery
formal, informal exchange of information between prosecution, defense o
lab reports, witness statements, confessions, police reports, etc
purpose is to ensure that there is no unfair advantage for either party o
under the adversarial system
adversarial system: truth will be reveal after/during trial
historically: civil trials were largely sporting events o
outcome dependent on the technical skills of lawyers
federal rules of civil procedure— adopted 1938 o
intended to eliminate “sporting” elements of trials
o
every party is entitled to full disclosure of all relevant information (unless it is privileged information)
o
discovery rules
law on the books: rules requiring disclosure
no general constitutional right to discovery in criminal cases o
court decisions, statues, court rules, etc. provide framework for criminal discovery
process
state v tune, 1953
o
concern that “requiring too much prosecutorial disclosure might result in the defendant’s taking undue advantage”
o
ex) defendant can perjure testimony or intimidate potential witnesses
federal rules of criminal procedure o
discovery for federal cases primarily governed by rules 12, 16, 26
o
provide defendant with rights to discovery concerning tangible evidence, tape recordings, books, papers, other documents including written/recorded statements,
defendant’s prior criminal record, results/reports of physical examinations, scientific tests, experiments, forensic comparisons, summaries of expert testimony
discoverable information depends on state
certain jurisdictions allow limited discovery o
limits vary
o
ex) trial court has the discretion to order prosecution to disclose defendant’s confession, other physical documents
o
ex) discovery of confessions, physical evidence is a matter of right but other stuff (witness statements, etc) is more difficult
liberal discovery rules o
a presumption strongly in favor of prosecutorial disclosure
o
mandatory disclosure by prosecutor → especially with respect to exculpatory evidence, impeachment material
exculpatory evidence: evidence that may be favorable to the defendant
discovery of exculpatory evidence/the brady rule o
brady rule: “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where he evidence is material either to guilt or punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution”
o
brady rule limited to admissible evidence
o
wood v bartholomew: scotus rules there is no requirement to turn over results of a
polygraph since polygraph are inadmissible
o
also only applies to material (cone v bell)
discovery of impeachment evidence o
jencks v united states, 1957
o
→ “the government must disclose any prior inconsistent statements of prosecutorial witnesses”
o
jencks act: congress adjusted the jencks holding; requiring prosecution to disclose
(after direct) any witness statement that is related to the case matter
o
burden on defense to request information
o
giglio v united states, 1972
o
→ all impeachment evidence must be disclosed
law in action: informational prosecutorial disclosure
discovery rules important to defense o
duh
in certain jurisdictions defense can go straight to prosecutor’s files and get information o
potential issue of getting the defendant to voluntarily disclose the information obtained by their attorney
o
verifies reliability
court theory that “an advance glimpse at the prosecutor’s case encourages a plea of guilty.” o
ex) defendants could only tell their counsel a part of what happened → defense attorney can use evidence from prosecutor to show defendant that a “not guilty” plea may be hopeless
o
→ sometimes prosecution will disclose information last minute → little use then
informational prosecutorial discovery greatly encourages pleas of guilty
law and controversy: requiring reciprocal disclosure
to obtain discoverable information: a party needs to make a timely motion before the court o
evidence must be shown to be material, and that the request is reasonable
reciprocal disclosure: automatic discovery for certain types of evidence without the necessity for motions, court orders
“Who must disclose to whom, however, varies significantly causing controversy in the criminal justice system.”
defense attorneys press for broader discover laws o
extent for required disclosure?
o
constitution limits reciprocal discovery in criminal cases (privilege against self-
incrimination)
o
→ requirements that the defense turn over statements from expert witnesses (that are not intended to be called to trial) could be constitutional
in the jurisdictions that allow the defendant to access discoverable information in the prosecution’s discretion, the defense still is obligated to disclose evidence in support of affirmative defenses o
ex) alibi defense: acknowledgement that the crime was committed but the defendant has proof (an alibi) saying that the defendant was not the perpetrator
o
→ defense has to disclose.a list of witnesses to support the alibi
jurisdictions with limited disclosure requirements: “a defendant who issues a discovery request to the prosecutor thereby automatically incurs the duty to disclose information to the prosecutor.”
suppressing evidence
the exclusionary rule
prohibits the prosecutor from using illegally obtained evidence during trial o
common law → “the seizure of evidence by illegal means did not affect its admissibility in court.”
o
“Any evidence, however obtained, was admitted as long as it satisfied other evidentiary criteria for admissibility, such as relevance and trustworthiness.”
o
(above) all changed after the exclusionary rule was first developed
weeks v united states → illegally obtained evidence
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
wolf v colorado → 4th amendment rights left to discretion of individual states
commonly associated with search and seizure of physical evidence under 4th amendment
exclusionary rule also applicable to interrogation, confessions that violate 5th amendment
to self incrimination, or 6th amendment right to counsel o
rule applies differently depending on type and severity of the constitutional violation
rule also applies to retrial confrontations between witnesses, suspects o
ex) improperly conducted police lineups
fruit of the poisonous tree o
evidence that is either direct or indirectly collected illegally
o
requires exclusion of evidence indirectly obtained as a result of a constitutional violation (derivative evidence)
o
ex: failure to administer miranda warning prior to interrogation resulting in confession → exclusionary rule prevents confession from being admitted into evidence
judges generally dislike excluding derivative evidence under the exclusionary rule o
takes up valuable time
four doctrines mitigating effects of “preventing the use of both illegally obtained evidence and the fruits derived from the illegality.” and can potentially permit the evidence to be used in trial o
good faith on warrant or statute reasonably believed to be valid but is later determined to be a defective warrant or unconstitutional statue →united states v leon, arizona v evans
o
independent source doctrine is applicable if the evidence is obtained through a source independent from unconstitutional police action → segura v united states
o
the inevitable discovery exception is when a court can admit evidence that is deemed to have been discovered anyways through independent and lawful means → nix v williams
o
attenuation is where “a court may admit evidence obtained in a manner that is so far removed from a constitutional violation such that the initial illegality is deemed to be sufficiently attenuated/weakened” → brown v illinois, won sun v united states
interrogations and confessions
the voluntariness standard
traditionally: english common law admitted all confessions, even as a result of torture o
rules changing this where confessions must be free and voluntary in order to be admitted into evidence
o
→ confessions resulting from torture are deemed untrustworthy
modern issue of confessions being obtained from length interrogations and psychological ploys
miranda and the fifth amendment
rights required to be disclosed under the miranda decision o
you have the right to remain silent
o
anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law
o
you have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him or her present with you while you are being questioned
o
if you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning, if you wish
court shifts burden of proof from the defense
miranda warning does not apply to everyone being arrested: only are required for custodial interrogations
limitations: “someone who desire the protections of the Fifth Amendment’s Self-
Incrimination Clause must affirmatively claim it by expressly invoking the privilege at the time he or she is relying on it (Berghuis v Thompkins, 2010; Salinas v Texas, 2013). Although a suspect need not recite any specific phrase to invoke the privilege—like saying “I invoke my Fifth Amendment rights” or “I assert my privilege against self-
incrimination”—it is clear that the suspect must say something that puts law enforcement officers on notice that he or she is refusing to answer questions.”
another limitation: only applies to “evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature” → schmerber v california o
do not need to be given before obtaining non-testimonial evidence, aka blood samples, handwriting exemplars, etc
interrogations and the sixth amendment
sixth amendment provides “all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”
fellers v united states opinion: “The right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment differs from the right to counsel under Miranda that flows from the Fifth Amendment. The sole purpose of the right under Miranda is to insure that a suspect’s will is not overborne by coercive police interrogation tactics while the suspect is in custody. Thus, it exists to prevent compulsory self-incrimination only when a suspect is subject to custodial interrogation. In contrast, the Sixth Amendment is not concerned with compulsion in the self-incrimination context; rather, it protects those facing criminal adversarial proceedings in court. Thus, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is triggered (”attaches”) when formal criminal proceedings “have been initiated against him whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.”
once right to counsel is invoked, authorities cannot engage in conduct designed to elicit an incriminating response without the presence of counsel
→ sixth amendment prevents the use of secret investigatory techniques o
ex: placing informant in jail cell with a suspect
o
→ fifth amendment does not prevent this
defendant can waive their right to counsel, similar to the fifth amendment
interrogations and the fourteenth amendment
neither miranda nor the right to counsel replaces the voluntariness tests → fifth and sixth amendments work in conjunction with the due process requirement
“[T]he failure to provide Miranda warnings in and of itself does not render a confession involuntary” → new york v quarles
satisfaction of miranda requirements is not conclusive, even if it is relevant in considering
the voluntariness of a confession
statements made after miranda warning can still be inadmissible if it is proven that they were coerced
applying the law of interrogation
fifth amendment: right against self-incrimination
english common law: involuntary confessions are inadmissible in court
brown v mississippi: physical coercion used to obtain confessions violates the due process clause of the 14th amendment
ashcraft v tennessee: psychologically coerced confessions are not voluntary → inadmissible
griffin v california: if a defendant exercises their right to silence, the prosecutor may not ask the jury to draw an inference of guilt from the defendant’s refusal to testify in his own
defense
miranda v arizona: 5th, 14th amendment rights; miranda warning
harris v new york: voluntary statements taken in violation of miranda are inadmissible only as substantive evidence, but admissible if used to impeach if they contradict their earlier statements
michigan v mosley: miranda did not create “a per se proscription of indefinite duration upon any further questioning by any police officer on any subject, once the person in custody has indicated a desire to remain silent” → a second attempt at custodial interrogation is permissible as long as a significant amount of time passes between the two attempts and miranda warnings are administered again
north carolina v butler: miranda warnings need to be given in a language that the subject can understand
rhode island v innis: a “spontaneous” statement made by a suspect before miranda is admissible as long as the statement is not made in response to police questioning
search and seizure
fourth amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure o
reasonableness clause
o
physical intrusion onto an individual’s property by police
o
also “when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider ‘unreasonable’ is infringed”
o
a meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interest in some property
unreasonable search and seizure
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
o
law enforcement infringes upon property rights or a reasonable expectation of privacy for search and seizure without complying with the warrants clause of the fourth amendment
o
→ second clause establishes illegality of search and seizure unsupported by probable cause
“even if there is probable cause, a warrant that describes with particularity the items police intend to search or seize is required to conduct a search and seizure unless a recognized warrant exception applies.”
probable cause is usually necessary
stop and frisk exception: reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (lower standard of proof than probable cause) o
and if they have a suspicion that a suspect is armed, may gain immediate control of a weapon
exigent circumstances: “would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts”
search warrants
a written document signed by a judge or magistrate authorizing law enforcement to conduct a search
applying for a search warrant o
officer decides it’s necessary
o
prepares an application
o
affidavit (written statement of facts sworn to before the magistrate)
o
warrant
alternative procedures o
deputy prosecutor prepares application based on information provided by law enforcement
o
officer prepares all documentation, then submits to prosecution who reviews before submission
only judicial officers like judges, magistrates, justices, etc
some jurisdictions have an on-call “duty judge” available 24/7 to issue warrants
rejections for search warrant applications are rare
requirement of particularity o
warrant must describe with particularity “the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
o
warrants must be as detailed as possible
o
specific addresses, vehicle and home details, etc
executing search warrants o
executed in a timely manner
o
scope of activity must be limited to what the permit allows
o
executed at a reasonable time of day
o
knock and announce their presence before entering the premises, wait 10-20 seconds to enter
o
police may only remain on the premises only for as long as it is reasonably necessary to conduct the search
o
avoid excessive force
post-execution of warrant o
once the item of interest is seized, legal justification for the officer’s intrusion ends → leave in a timely manner
evidence seized needs to be secured “in a manner that preserves the chain of custody” o
proper chain of custody allows prosecutor to show evidence was collected and maintained properly
warrant exceptions o
majority of searches are conducted without a warrant
o
learning objectives
1.
LO1 Explain the reasons why the process of discovery exists in both civil and criminal cases, but is significantly curtailed in the latter. Discovery is designed to give both parties to a legal dispute a good idea about the evidence that will be presented at trial. Not only does this exchange of information prevent surprises, but also it facilitates resolutions without trial, such as the settlement of a civil case or plea bargain in a criminal case. Discovery, however, is limited in criminal cases, since the prosecution bears the burden of persuasion to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defendant is protected against being forced to incriminate
himself/herself. If the defense had to disclose evidence to the prosecution, the privilege against self-incrimination would be rendered meaningless.
2.
LO2 Differentiate formal and informal discovery and the reasons why both are used in criminal cases. Formal discovery in criminal cases concerns the exchange of information mandated either by the rules of procedure or applicable law. The crux of mandatory discovery in criminal cases concerns prosecutorial disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense. Informal discovery concerns the disclosure of information not mandated by law. It occurs frequently because it often facilitates a prompt resolution of a dispute without the need for trial (i.e., either the prosecutor drops the charges in light of exculpatory evidence disclosed to it by the defense, or the defendant pleads guilty once the strength of the prosecution’s case becomes evident).
3.
LO3 Identify the types of evidence subject to mandatory criminal discovery. All potentially exculpatory evidence must be disclosed to the defense. This includes any prior inconsistent statements of prosecutorial witnesses, as well as all impeachment evidence that might cast doubt on a witness’s credibility.
4.
LO4 Compare and contrast the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. The exclusionary rule bars evidence from being used in the prosecution’s case-in-chief if it was obtained in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights. The
fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine bars derivative evidence found as a result the violation of a defendant’s constitutional right from being used in the prosecution’s case-in-chief unless the evidence is so far attenuated from the constitutional violation that its use would not offend due process.
5.
LO5 Summarize how the decision in Miranda v. Arizona
regulates the process of police interrogations of suspects. ************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
****************************************
Before a suspect in police custody is interrogated, the suspect must be informed of his or her rights under the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause, namely that the suspect has the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during an interrogation. Moreover, the suspect must be told that the consequence of voluntarily waiving these rights will result in the prosecution being able to use anything that the suspect says at trial. If the suspect invokes his or her Miranda
rights, questioning must stop.
6.
LO6 Explain the requirements governing the application for search warrants, the issuance
of search warrants, and the execution of search warrants. When law enforcement officers want to conduct a search for evidence, the Fourth Amendment generally requires them to seek a warrant. They apply for a warrant by swearing to the facts they know, usually an affidavit. A magistrate then considers those facts to determine
whether there is probable cause to authorize the search of a particular place or person for particular evidence connected to a specific crime. If such a warrant is issued, the police must execute the warrant quickly and in a reasonable manner.
7.
LO7 Identify the major exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Police may conduct warrantless searches when granted consent to search by someone with actual or apparent authority to grant such consent; when incident to a
lawful arrest; when items are in plain view or in open fields; when probable cause exists to search a motor vehicle; or when emergency situations make it impracticable for police to seek and obtain a warrant first.
8.
LO8 Analyze the effect of the exclusionary rule on the operations of the courtroom work group. Because pretrial motions to suppress evidence are relatively rare, the exclusionary rule does not generally impact the operations of the courtroom work group in most cases. However, when questions about the constitutionality of a search
or seizure arise, the defense attorney takes charge of the situation by filing a motion to suppress. In somewhat of a role reversal, these motions have the effect of putting prosecution on the defensive. Moreover, they ultimately cause a judge to have to rule
on the credibility of testimony offered by law enforcement officers. Depending on whom the judge believes, the relationships within the courtroom work group can be significantly strained.
9.
LO9 Evaluate whether the exclusionary rule should be abolished. Supporters of the exclusionary rule argue that the rule is the only effective deterrent against police misconduct. Thus, they assert that the rule must be preserved in order to guarantee that our constitutional rights are honored. In contrast, those who want to see the exclusionary rule abolished argue that the threat of civil lawsuits should be enough to deter police misconduct. Moreover, they assert that the rule “costs” too much, in that it operates to prevent juries from considering highly relevant evidence, which, in turn, sometimes operates to allow the guilty to go free.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help