COURT, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON
|
|
- Phyllis Lambert
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 COURT, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) No. ) v. ) DEFENDANT S MEMO ) IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR, ) JURY NULLIFICATION ) INSTRUCTION/DISCUSSION Defendant. ) ) FACTS On, defendant was arrested for. There was no victim nor property damage, therefore defendant requests the following jury nullification instruction be read to the jury because this prosecution is for a victimless crime: As jurors, in order to reach a just verdict, each of you has the responsibility to consider whether the defendant s actions have actually caused harm or otherwise violated someone else s rights. You may judge both the merits of the law under which the defendant has been charged, and the wisdom of applying the law to the defendant in this case. Even if a strict application of the law to the facts would indicate a guilty verdict, you have the authority to find the defendant not guilty. Exercise your judgment without passion or prejudice, but with honesty and understanding. If you decide that the defendant has broken the law, but that in good conscience you can not support a guilty verdict, you are not required to do so. ISSUES
2 I. DOES DEFENDANT HAVE A RIGHT TO A JUDGE S INSTRUCTION TELLING JURORS OF THEIR COMMON LAW RIGHT TO TRY THE LAW AS WELL AS THE FACTS OF THIS CASE? II. IF THE JUDGE DOESN T READ SUCH AN INSTRUCTION, DOES DEFENDANT S ATTORNEY THEN HAVE A RIGHT TO TELL THE JURY HIMSELF? 2
3 ARGUMENT I. RCW (1869) relates to the oath of jurors. It states that an oath... shall be administered to the jurors... that they... try the matter... according to the law and evidence... given them... This oath does not inform juries of their ancient common law right to try the matter according to their own conscience, regardless of the law and evidence... given them... United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 (1969); State v. Meggyesy, C.A. I, No s I & I, , 98 WJ W.A.R. 154 (1998). Further, Washington s Constitution states that Judges shall not charge juries with respect to matters of fact, nor comment thereon, but shall declare the law. WA Constitution, Art. IV, Sect. 16 (1889). Yet juries have a right to nullify the law in all criminal cases. United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 (1969). The only dispute is whether a judge must tell them of this right (or alternatively, whether judges must let defendant s attorney tell them), which American judges often did until 1895 when Sparf & Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895) ended this old and venerated practice. This very old Anglo-American common law right of juries to judge the law as well as the facts in a case is summed up: For more than six hundred years--that is since the Magna Carta in there has been no clearer principle of English or American... law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law and what was the moral intent of the accused: but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid that are in their opinion unjust... Lysander Spooner, An Essay on the Trial By Jury, p. 5-6 (1852) [emphasis in original]. 3
4 The great Magna Carta is the original source of a defendant s right to a jury and due process. A common translation of the relevant section of the Magna Carta (originally in Latin) follows: No freeman shall be arrested, or imprisoned,... or deprived of his liberties,... nor will we (the King) pass upon him, nor condemn him, unless by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. Magna Carta, at Sect. 29. Hence according to the Magna Carta of 1215, while the King may charge a person with wrongdoing, the King may not deprive her rights unless by judgment of her peers. The history of the common law right of juries to veto a law is well documented. See Creagan, Jury Nullification: Assessing Recent Legislative Developments, 43 Case Western Reserve Law Review, 3, (1993); Scheflin, Merciful Juries: The Resilience of Jury Nullification, 48 Wash. & Lee Law Rev. 165 (1991); Green, Verdict According to Conscience: Perspectives on the English Trial Jury, , (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985); Scheflin, Jury Nullification: The Right to Say No, 45 So. Cal. L.Rev. 168, (1972); Anonymous, Note: The Changing Role of the Jury in the Nineteenth Century, 74 Yale L. J. 170 (1964). That juries judged both the law and the facts was widely accepted in 17th and 18th century England. In Bushell s Case, 6 St. Tr. 999, 124 Eng. Rep (C.P. 1670), the jury refused to convict William Penn (founder of Pennsylvania) for preaching his Quaker religion in public. The judge, incensed by the jury s refusal to convict even though Penn had confessed, ordered the jury to jail until they convicted. Still, after two days, they refused. Then the judge fined them and ordered them back to jail until they paid. Bushell and three other jurors refused, and petitioned for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. 4
5 On granting the Writ, the English Court of Common Pleas in 1670 speaking through Chief Justice Vaughan, ruled: To what end must [the jury] undergo... if after all this they... must give a verdict by the dictates and authority of another man, under pain of fines and imprisonment... A man cannot see by another eye, nor hear by another ear, no(r)... infer... by another s... reasoning. Bushell, supra. In 1735, John Zenger, a newspaper publisher, was charged with printing defamatory information. The trial judge instructed the jury that even if the printed statements were true (note that the basic element of defamation is false information), it would no exculpate the defendant for libel. Mr. Zenger s attorney--quoting from Bushell--urged that if truth were not a defense, it ought to be, and that the jury should acquit anyway. And the jury did. J. Alexander, A Brief Narrative of the Case and Trial of John Peter Zinger, 100 Katz, E. (1963). Mr. Zenger s case and Bushell were catalysts in getting the 1st Amendment included in our federal constitution. The constitutions of 4 states, Maryland (Declaration of Rights, Art. 23), Georgia (Art. 1, Sec. 1, para. XI), Indiana (Art. I, Sec. 19), and Oregon (Art. 1, Sec. 16), provide that juries shall judge both the law and the facts. In Indiana, Holiday v. State, 257 N.E. 2d 679 (1970) held that the jury... (has an) obligation under Art. I, Sect. 19 of the Indiana constitution to determine both the law and the facts (italics original). Holiday at 682. The Oregon constitution provides that: In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the court as to the law... Oregon Constitution, Article I, Sect. 17. Washington State s Article IV, Sect. 16 states, on the other hand, that: 5
6 Judges shall not charge juries with respect to matters of fact, nor comment thereon, but shall declare the law. The Washington State constitution is thus silent on whether juries can judge the law as well as the facts. What juries may do, should do, or must do, regarding the law is left open. But in Article I, Sect. 21 we find that the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate... By such a strong, absolutist word like inviolate, it would seem clear that the framers of Washington s constitution intended that traditional common law principles should be followed. In Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1 (1794), the Honorable Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Jay, charged the jury (when the Supreme Court still heard jury trials), as follows:... [I]t must be observed that... you have... a right to... judge both... the law as well as the fact in controversy... (W)e have no doubt you will pay that respect which is due to the opinion of the court: for as... it is presumed that juries are the best judges of facts; it is... presumable that the court are the best judges of the law. But still, both objects are lawfully within your power of decision. Throughout most of the 19th century jury nullification was commonly accepted by American courts and juries as a useful tool to end the harshness of unjust laws. For example, captured operators of the underground railroad in the pre-civil War border states were regularly charged with violating the Fugitive Slave Law of Juries regularly voted to nullify this unjust law, acquitting defendants tried under it. Scheflin, Jury Nullification: The Right to Say No, 45 So. Cal. L. Rev. 168, 177 (1972). Note that: Jury acquittals in the colonial, abolitionist, and post-bellum eras of the United States helped... hamper government efforts at social control. Barkan, Jury Nullification in Political Trials, 31 Social Problems at 38, October Juries may also have played a role in ending the Salem Witch Trials and Prohibition. 6
7 This all changed, however, in Sparf & Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 15 S.Ct L.Ed. 343 (1895) held that although juries have the right to judge both the facts and the law, they do not have the right to be informed by the Judge of this power. It is believed that the labor movement of the 1880 s and the corresponding social unrest that this caused fostered skepticism among legal scholars about jury nullification--a long and venerated institution in Anglo-American law up until Sparf. This is because juries at this time were refusing to convict their peers for violations of anti-strike laws that business interests had gotten passed, thus management sought to end this practice of jury nullification. Further, changes in federal civil service laws during this time fostered changes in the attitudes of federal judges. Hence, judicial contempt for the power of juries to second-guess judges grew. In Sparf, the defendants were charged with murder on the high seas under admiralty jurisdiction. Under admiralty law, if the jury convicted them of murder, death was mandatory. On the other hand, under common law, a jury could instead convict the defendant under a lesser charge, even if the evidence did not support it. In Sparf, the judge refused to give the lesser included instruction regarding manslaughter (which had no death sentence) requested by the defendants. During its deliberations, the jury gave clear indications--by way of colloquy with the judge--that it wanted to return a manslaughter verdict, but was advised against it by the judge s instructions. The jury finally returned a guilty verdict for murder. The United States Supreme Court upheld the conviction holding that juries must take the law from the court. The Sparf Court s paramount concern was with respect for judicial authority, even if it was erroneously exercised. This is apparently typical of admiralty cases. Dissenting Justices Gray and Shiras wrote: 7
8 Sparf, at (A)s the experience of history shows, it cannot always be assumed that judges will always be just and impartial, and free from the inclination, to which even the most upright and learned magistrates have been known to yield... And there is surely no reason why the chief... liberty of the citizen, the judgment of his peers, should be held less sacred in a republic than in a monarchy. The exceptions to Sparf lie in states with jury nullification clauses in their constitutions. In these four states--georgia, Indiana, Maryland and Oregon--lawyers are allowed to read to the jury from statutes and legal texts regarding jury nullification. See also Wilkerson v. State, 171 Md. 287, 188 A. 813 (1937); Griffin v. State, 154 Ga. App. 261, 267 S.E. 2d 867 (1980). The Sparf ruling exhibited a distrust for jurors who historically have dispensed justice through common sense instead of according to the law. By the court s ruling, jurors became subject to the inclinations of the court, when historically up to this point in time, the common law allowed them to view both the facts and the law in deciding to acquit or convict. The fundamental reason behind the right to trial by jury--which originated in the Magna Carta of was to protect individuals from the arbitrary injustices of Kings who often created political crimes out of otherwise non-violent and non-property violating acts. This last bastion of defense against a capricious King or arbitrary law--jury nullification--was now ended after Sparf because information was now screened from juries as judges now exclusively controlled the flow of that information. Nevertheless, the power of the jury to nullify a law and acquit a defendant, even against the great weight of the evidence has never been overruled. United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 (4th Cir. 1969); State v. Reed, 52 Or. 377, 389, 97 P.2d 627 (1908). In 1920, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes acknowledged that,... the jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138, 8
9 (1920). Further, attempts to have the above-mentioned state constitution jury nullification clauses declared unconstitutional have failed. Wylie v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, 372 F.2d 742, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 863, rehearing denied, 389 U.S. 997, (1967). Even under this authority and line of reasoning, juries do not, however, have the additional positive power to convict of charges not filed against a defendant. This jury veto power may only be exercised in the negative direction of acquittal or conviction of a lesser included offense. Nor can juries make up a new law to convict a defendant, or repeal a law for future cases; this remains the job of legislatures. Hamilton v. State, 12 Md. App. 91, 277 A.2d 460 (1971), aff d, 265 Md. 256, 288 A.2d 885, cert. denied, 409 U.S (1972). Even so, as a matter of public policy, jurors informed of this authority to nullify will, by the very act of continued and repeated nullification of certain laws, help lawmakers determine which laws work and which ones do not. Likewise, jurors have been known to apologize to defendant for convicting them, and later become angry when they find out that they had the power to nullify, but were just not informed of it. Thus a juror s respect for a legal system that withholds information is reduced. We have had centuries of experience with jury veto power in Anglo-American law without an epidemic of juries letting defendant s off after committing non-victimless crimes against property or people. If jurors were regularly informed of their innate veto power, there is no reason to believe that juries would acquit on cases involving heinous, anti-social behavior. In other words, an epidemic of anarchy and free-wheeling law-breaking would not result from irresponsible juries. See Horowitz, The Effects of Jury Nullification Instructions on Verdicts and Jury Functioning in Criminal Trials, 9 Law & Human Behavior 25, (1985) that cites studies of the effects of giving jury nullification instructions to juries. These studies found that 9
10 responsible jury verdicts were the norm. Id. Further, the rate of obedience to the remaining laws, and respect for the judicial system as a whole, would probably increase under a judicial system tolerant of jury nullification instructions if for no other reason than that those convicted will know that they were truly and fairly judged by their peers. It is easy for the public to ignore an unjust law, if the law operates behind closed doors and out of sight. But when jurors have to use a law to send a man to prison, they are forced to think long and hard about the justice of the law. And when the public reads newspaper accounts of criminal trials and convictions, they too must think about whether the convictions are just. As a result jurors and spectators alike may bring to public debate more informed interest in improving the criminal law. Any law which makes many people uncomfortable is likely to attract the attention of the legislature. The laws on narcotics and abortion (this was written pre-roe v. Wade) come to mind--and there must be others. The public adversary trial thus provides an important mechanism for keeping the substantive criminal law in tune with contemporary community values. (Parentheses added.) David Bazelon, The Adversary Process--Who Needs It?, 12 Annual James Madison Lecture, NYU School of Law (April 1971), reprinted in 117 Cong.Rec.5852, 5855 (April 29, 1971). 10
11 II. If the Judge will not read the jury a nullification instruction, then in the alternative, defendant s attorney should be allowed to briefly inform the jury of their common law right to judge the law as well as the facts, since this prosecution is for a victimless crime. Accused persons in Washington have certain rights that are guaranteed. Washington Constitution, Art. I, Sect. 22. In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to... defend... Id. Encompassed within this right to defend one s self against state accusations is a defendant s right to a fair trial. Id.; United States Constitution, 5th and 6th Amendments. And within the due process right to a fair trial, a defendant has a right to argue his theory of the case. Id.; Mt. Vernon v. Quezada-Avila, 95 WJ W.A.R. 250, C.A. I, No I, ; City of Yakima v. Irwin, 70 Wn. App. 1, 851 P.2d 724, 730 (1993) citing State v. Mark, 94 Wn.2d520, 526, 618 P.2d 73 (1980); State v. Dania, 73 Wn.2d 533, 439 P.2d 403 (1968); Short v. Hoge, 58 Wn.2d 50, 56, 360 P.2d 565 (1961); Smith v. McDaniel, 53 Wn.2d 604, 610, 335 P.2d 582 (1959). By denying defendant the right to tell the jury her/his theory of the case, or at least one of her/his theories of the case--namely that her/his present prosecution for a victimless, political crime can and should be nullified by this jury--violates his/her due process and Art. I, Sect. 22 rights to a fair trial and to present her/his theory of the case. 11
12 CONCLUSION It should be clear that while judges may declare the law and advise jurors as to its interpretation and the methods of its application, they may not require jurors to blindly accept the judge s version of the law whether the jurors agree with it or not. All jury instructions, including those in the WPIC, at variance with this conclusion are themselves contrary to the common law of this state and nation as well as defendant s due process right to defend himself against state charges. In the case at hand--a prosecution for a crime where no victim or property was injured whatsoever--defense counsel will take exception to any and all jury instructions which require the jury to blindly follow the law as given. Further, a vigorous objection will be lodged against any voir dire question which implies that jurors must follow and obey such an instruction pursuant to an alleged constitutional duty. Such a duty does not exist under the laws of the State of Washington or the United States of America. Sparf v. United States, supra, a 19th century case, should be overruled by this court. There is persuasive authority at common law since the Magna Carta and more recently in four states. Further, two federal cases have explicitly questioned the ruling in Sparf. United States ex rel. McCann v. Adams, 126 F.2d. 774, (2nd Cir. 1942); United States v. Sisson, 294 F.Supp. 520, (D.Mass. 1968). Since this case involves a completely victimless act, defendant s jury nullification instruction should be read to the jury, or in the alternative defendant s attorney should be allowed to tell the jury about jury nullification in order to exercise defendant s rights to put on his/her theory of the case and to receive a fair trial. Respectfully submitted, 12
13 DATED this day of,. JEFF E. JARED # Attorney for Defendant 13
Restore. Rights. Trial by Jury JURIES INFORMED. the Bill of FULLY. with. Jury Power Information Kit!
Phone 1-800-TEL JURY for a free Jury Power Information Kit! Find out how ordinary people, as trial jurors, can repair years of legislated special-interest damage to our rights, simply by saying NO! to
More informationTO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL State of California. DANIEL E. LUNGREN Attorney General
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL State of California DANIEL E. LUNGREN Attorney General OPINION : : No. 93-1206 of : : May 24, 1994 DANIEL E. LUNGREN : Attorney General
More informationSTAAR OBJECTIVE: 3. Government and Citizenship
STAAR OBJECTIVE: 3 Government and Citizenship 1. What is representative government? A. Government that represents the interests of the king. B. Government in which elected officials represent the interest
More informationCA NO , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 10-50219, 11/23/2018, ID: 11097492, DktEntry: 193, Page 1 of 20 CA NO. 10-50219, 10-50264 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 10-1320 In The Supreme Court of the United States ALEX BLUEFORD, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ARKANSAS, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Arkansas Supreme Court BRIEF OF CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY
More informationA Guide to the Bill of Rights
A Guide to the Bill of Rights First Amendment Rights James Madison combined five basic freedoms into the First Amendment. These are the freedoms of religion, speech, the press, and assembly and the right
More informationProcedure - Is Accused "Present" at Trial While Testifying Under the Influence of Tranquilizers
William & Mary Law Review Volume 3 Issue 2 Article 24 Procedure - Is Accused "Present" at Trial While Testifying Under the Influence of Tranquilizers Emeric Fischer William & Mary Law School Repository
More informationacquittal: Judgment that a criminal defendant has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
GlosaryofLegalTerms acquittal: Judgment that a criminal defendant has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. affidavit: A written statement of facts confirmed by the oath of the party making
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 18-650 In the Supreme Court of the United States Miguel Cabrera-Rangel, v. Petitioner, United States of America, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationLaw Related Education
Law Related Education Copyright 2006 by the Kansas Bar Association. Revised 2016. All rights reserved. No use is permitted which will infringe on the copyright w ithout the express written consent of the
More informationThe Elephant in the Room: Attorney Accountability for Jury Nullification Arguments in Criminal Trials
California Western Law Review Volume 52 Number 2 Article 3 5-1-2016 The Elephant in the Room: Attorney Accountability for Jury Nullification Arguments in Criminal Trials Kimberly Del Frate Follow this
More informationUnit 4 Assessment Amending the Constitution
Unit 4 Assessment Amending the Constitution 1. Which 1 st Amendment right does the freedom to gather and associate imply? a. speech b. assembly c. religion d. the press 2. The Fourth Amendment prevents
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 11-168 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JAMES M. HARRISON, Petitioner, v. DOUGLAS GILLESPIE, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the
More informationORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE
THE STATE v. Indictment No. 14SC126099 JARVIS TAYLOR Defendant ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE The above matter is before the Court on the
More informationCase 1:11-cr JB Document 115 Filed 04/23/13 Page 1 of 79 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Case 1:11-cr-02860-JB Document 115 Filed 04/23/13 Page 1 of 79 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. No. CR 11-2860 JB KEITH MICHAEL
More informationJudicial Branch 11/11 11/14
Judicial Branch { 11/11 11/14 What Supreme Court case desegregated American schools by striking down the separate, but equal doctrine? Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Warmup Warmup Supreme Court PPT
More informationCourt Records Glossary
Court Records Glossary Documents Affidavit Answer Appeal Brief Case File Complaint Deposition Docket Indictment Interrogatories Injunction Judgment Opinion Pleadings Praecipe A written or printed statement
More informationCourtroom Terminology
Courtroom Terminology Accused: formally charged but not yet tried for committing a crime; the person who has been charged may also be called the defendant. Acquittal: a judgment of court, based on the
More informationConstitutional Convention Unit Notes
Constitutional Convention Unit Notes Civics Textbook: Government and Society - Text p. 5 Cue four reasons why society needs a government Notes 1. Law and Order Government makes laws to protect citizens
More informationSTUDY GUIDE Three Branches Test
STUDY GUIDE Three Branches Test NAME (Remember to review your notes and class materials as well as this guide.) 1 Circle, highlight, check, or underline the correct answers, or fill in the blanks. 1. The
More informationCOUNSEL JUDGES. Kiker, Justice. Lujan, C.J., and McGhee and Compton, JJ., concur. Sadler, J., not participating. AUTHOR: KIKER OPINION
1 STATE V. NELSON, 1958-NMSC-018, 63 N.M. 428, 321 P.2d 202 (S. Ct. 1958) STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. David Cooper NELSON, Defendant-Appellant No. 6197 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1958-NMSC-018,
More informationCh. 20. Due Process of Law. The Meaning of Due Process 1/23/2015. Due Process & Rights of the Accused
Ch. 20 Due Process & Rights of the Accused Due Process of Law How is the meaning of due process of law set out in the 5th and 14th amendments? What is police power and how does it relate to civil rights?
More informationNo. 999 of Oaths, Affirmations and Statutory Declarations Act Certified on: / /20.
No. 999 of 9998. Certified on: / /20. INDEPENDENT STATE OF No. of 9998. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. PART I OATHS. 1. General provision. 2. Witness s oath. 3. Voir Dire. 4. Interpreter s oath. PART II AFFIRMATIONS.
More informationHANDBOOK FOR TRIAL JURORS SERVING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
HANDBOOK FOR TRIAL JURORS SERVING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS Prepared for the use of trial jurors serving in the United States district courts under the supervision of the Judicial Conference
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 10-1320 In The Supreme Court of the United States ALEX BLUEFORD, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ARKANSAS, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Arkansas Supreme Court BRIEF OF CONSTITUTIONAL
More informationOverview of the Jury System. from the Perspective of a Korean Attorney. From the perspective of a Korean attorney, the jury system
Lee 1 Hyung Won Lee Judge William G. Young Judging in the American Legal System 10 May 2013 Overview of the Jury System from the Perspective of a Korean Attorney I. Introduction From the perspective of
More informationLegal Definitions: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z A
Legal Definitions: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z A Acquittal a decision of not guilty. Advisement a court hearing held before a judge to inform the defendant about the charges against
More informationHOW DO THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND EIGHTH AMENDMENTS PROTECT RIGHTS WITHIN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM?
32 HOW DO THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND EIGHTH AMENDMENTS PROTECT RIGHTS WITHIN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM? LESSON PURPOSE Four of the first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights address the rights of criminal defendants.
More informationCriminal Law--First Degree Murder--Separate Offenses--Two Sentences Imposed
Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 15 Issue 3 1964 Criminal Law--First Degree Murder--Separate Offenses--Two Sentences Imposed Norman J. Rubinoff Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev
More informationJURY NULLIFICATION: THE CONTOURS OF A CONTROVERSY*
JURY NULLIFICATION: THE CONTOURS OF A CONTROVERSY* ALAN SCHEFLINt AND JON VAN DYKEf CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION... 52 II. H ISTORICAL SUMMARY... 56 A. T HE EARLY PERIOD... 56 B. THE NINETEENTH CENTURY REVISION...
More informationAmerican Criminal Law and Procedure Vocabulary
American Criminal Law and Procedure Vocabulary acquit: affidavit: alibi: amendment: appeal: arrest: arraignment: bail: To set free or discharge from accusation; to declare that the defendant is innocent
More informationConstitutional Convention Unit Notes
Constitutional Convention Unit Notes Civics Textbook: Government and Society - Text p. 5 Cue four reasons why society needs a government Notes 1. Law and Order Government makes laws to protect citizens
More informationAPPRENDI v. NEW JERSEY 120 S. CT (2000)
Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 10 Spring 4-1-2001 APPRENDI v. NEW JERSEY 120 S. CT. 2348 (2000) Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/crsj
More informationCIVIL LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS
CIVIL LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS I. PROTECTIONS UNDER THE BILL OF RIGHTS a. Constitutional protection of fundamental rights is not absolute b. Speech that threatens national security or even fundamental rights
More informationTest Bank for Criminal Evidence Principles and Cases 8th Edition by Thomas J. Gardner and Terry M. Anderson
Test Bank for Criminal Evidence Principles and Cases 8th Edition by Thomas J. Gardner and Terry M. Anderson Link download full: https://digitalcontentmarket.org/download/test-bank-forcriminal-evidence-principles-and-cases-8th-edition-by-gardner-and-anderson/
More informationCivil Liberties & the Rights of the Accused CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
Civil Liberties & the Rights of the Accused CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES In the U.S. when one is accused of breaking the law he / she has rights for which the government cannot infringe upon when trying
More informationSTUDY GUIDE Chapter 04 TEST
SS.912.C.3.11 STUDY GUIDE Chapter 04 TEST Score: 1. Those rights that are so fundamental that they are outside the authority of government to regulate are known as a. civil liberties. b. civil rights.
More informationCase , Document 34, 12/19/2018, , Page1 of United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Case 18-3430, Document 34, 12/19/2018, 2459331, Page1 of 25 18-3430 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT In Re: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner,
More informationCONSTITUTION of the COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
CONSTITUTION of the COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Article Preamble I. Declaration of Rights II. The Legislature III. Legislation IV. The Executive V. The Judiciary Schedule to Judiciary Article VI. Public
More informationSS.7.C.3.3 and SS.7.C.3.8 Judicial Branch: Article III
SS.7.C.3.3 and SS.7.C.3.8 Judicial Branch: Article III ****At the end of this lesson, I will be able to do the following: recognize the structure of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. compare
More informationCase 1:17-cr TSE Document 216 Filed 06/15/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 1545 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Case 1:17-cr-00106-TSE Document 216 Filed 06/15/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 1545 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LAMONT
More informationHEADNOTE: Criminal Law & Procedure Jury Verdicts Hearkening the Verdict
HEADNOTE: Criminal Law & Procedure Jury Verdicts Hearkening the Verdict A jury verdict, where the jury was not polled and the verdict was not hearkened, is not properly recorded and is therefore a nullity.
More informationCHAPTER 2 ORIGINS OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT SECTION 1: OUR POLITICAL BEGINNINGS
CHAPTER 2 ORIGINS OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT SECTION 1: OUR POLITICAL BEGINNINGS OUR POLITICAL BEGINNINGS Basic Concepts of Government Early settlers brought ideas of government or political systems with them.
More informationNo. 104,429 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. ERIC L. BELL, Appellant, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 104,429 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS ERIC L. BELL, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The district court should use two steps in analyzing a defendant's
More informationINDIANA HIGH SCHOOL STATE HEARING QUESTIONS
Unit One: What Are the Philosophical and Historical Foundations of the American Political System? 1. What is meant by the Revolution? The War? That was no part of the Revolution the Revolution was in the
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No P. versus
Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 09/21/2017 Page: 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 17-14027-P KEITH THARPE, WARDEN, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison, versus
More informationGov t was needed to maintain peace. Gov t is not all powerful Power is limited to what the people give to it
Ordered Government Gov t was needed to maintain peace Limited Government*********** Gov t is not all powerful Power is limited to what the people give to it Representative Government Gov t should serve
More informationFull file at
Test Questions Multiple Choice Chapter Two Constitutional Democracy: Promoting Liberty and Self-Government 1. The idea that government should be restricted in its lawful uses of power and hence in its
More informationv. DCA CASE NO: 2D L.T. CASE NO: CRC CFANO-D SThT OF FLORIDA, ppellee.
WALTER E. WILLIAMS, Appellant, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE SECOND DISTRICT STATE OF FLORIDA v. DCA CASE NO: 2D17-3550 L.T. CASE NO: CRC-92-02284-CFANO-D SThT OF FLORIDA, ppellee. O APPELLANT'S
More informationJUROR INSTRUCTIONS ALONG W/ QUESTIONS & ANSWERS FOR POTENTIAL JURORS
JUROR INSTRUCTIONS ALONG W/ QUESTIONS & ANSWERS FOR POTENTIAL JURORS As a Juror, there are certain responsibilities you will be asked to fulfill. A Juror must be prompt. A trial cannot begin or continue
More informationJuries Can Put the Law Aside. By Edward W. Silver
Leveling The Playing Field Juries Can Put the Law Aside and Do the Right Thing By Edward W. Silver Perhaps the greatest secret of American criminal law is that under our Constitution a jury can bring in
More informationThe Coming of Independence. Ratifying the Constitution
C H A P T E R 2 Origins of American Government 1 SECTION 1 SECTION 2 SECTION 3 SECTION 4 SECTION 5 Our Political Beginnings The Coming of Independence The Critical Period Creating the Constitution Ratifying
More informationHOW A CRIMINAL CASE PROCEEDS IN FLORIDA
HOW A CRIMINAL CASE PROCEEDS IN FLORIDA This legal guide explains the steps you will go through if you should be arrested or charged with a crime in Florida. This guide is only general information and
More informationThe Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms Introduction - Sources of Rights and Freedoms In this section you'll learn about the importance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and human rights legislation
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 543 U. S. (2004) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LAROYCE LATHAIR SMITH v. TEXAS ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS No. 04 5323. Decided November
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Scott v. Cain Doc. 920100202 Case: 08-30631 Document: 00511019048 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit
More informationS15A1505. ROLLF v. CARTER. When the statutory law establishes different punishments for the same
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: March 7, 2016 S15A1505. ROLLF v. CARTER. BLACKWELL, Justice. When the statutory law establishes different punishments for the same offense, courts sometimes apply
More informationThe Bill of Rights. Part One: Read the Expert Information and highlight the main ideas and supporting details.
The Bill of Rights Part One: Read the Expert Information and highlight the main ideas and supporting details. Expert Information: The Anti-Federalists strongly argued against the ratification of the Constitution
More informationGuided Notes: Articles of the Constitution. Name: Date: Per: Score: /5
Name: Date: Per: Score: /5 Directions: Complete the outline of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution in groups. Then report to the class on your section. ARTICLE 1: The Legislative Branch Article 1: The Legislative
More informationAmericans...please consider if you will... Spectators NO MORE!!! The People are the Final Arbiters.
Americans...please consider if you will... Feed back invited Spectators NO MORE!!! The People are the Final Arbiters. Endowed by their Creator The People are the Final Arbiters. All political power is
More informationThe Criminal Justice System: From Charges to Sentencing
The Criminal Justice System: From Charges to Sentencing The Key Principles The aim the system is to protect and to regulate society, to punish offenders and to offer rehabilitation; The Government, through
More informationAntifederalist No. 84. On the Lack of a Bill of Rights
Antifederalist No. 84 On the Lack of a Bill of Rights By "Brutus." When a building is to be erected which is intended to stand for ages, the foundation should be firmly laid. The Constitution proposed
More informationUnit 4 Writing the Constitution Concepts to Review
Unit 4 Writing the Constitution Concepts to Review CAUSE AND EFFECTS OF MAJOR ERAS AND EVENTS IN U.S. HISTORY THROUGH 1877 Writing the Constitution Shays Rebellion Philadelphia Convention 1787 Great Compromise
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 15-931 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- THE STATE OF NEVADA,
More informationMagruder s American Government
Presentation Pro Magruder s American Government C H A P T E R 2 Origins of American Government 2001 by Prentice Hall, Inc. C H A P T E R 2 Origins of American Government SECTION 1 Our Political Beginnings
More informationassault does not qualify as a most serious offense under the persistent offender statute and because
I 4 " EO COURT D A' Prr' F'= LS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGT ''' S I QN if DIVISION II ` AN 11: 4 ST/ SHIN STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, No. 43179-3 -I1 BY v. LORENZO WEBB, PUBLISHED
More informationCRIMINAL LAW JURISDICTION, PROCEDURE, AND THE COURTS. February 2017
CRIMINAL LAW JURISDICTION, PROCEDURE, AND THE COURTS February 2017 Prepared for the Supreme Court of Nevada by Ben Graham Governmental Advisor to the Judiciary Administrative Office of the Courts 775-684-1719
More informationJohn Peter Zenger and Freedom of the Press
John Peter Zenger and Freedom of the Press Should someone be prosecuted for criticizing or insulting a government official even if the offending words are the truth? Should a judge or a jury decide the
More information1. Which of these was the earliest document to contain principles of limited government that were later reflected in the United States Constitution?
1. Which of these was the earliest document to contain principles of limited government that were later reflected in the United States Constitution? Magna Carta. Petition of Right. English Bill of Rights.
More informationBecause the king ultimately claimed all the land, he considered himself above the law. This was tolerated until 1215, when King John was forced by
Because the king ultimately claimed all the land, he considered himself above the law. This was tolerated until 1215, when King John was forced by the nobles to sign the Magna Carta. This contract subjected
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. Third District Case No. 3D LEONARDO DIAZ, Petitioner, THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. Third District Case No. 3D01-1486 LEONARDO DIAZ, Petitioner, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
More informationMens Rea Defect Overturns 15 Year Enhancement
Mens Rea Defect Overturns 15 Year Enhancement Felony Urination with Intent Three Strikes Yer Out Darryl Jones came to Spokane, Washington in Spring, 1991 to help a friend move. A police officer observed
More informationSTRUCTURE OF A CRIMINAL TRIAL: (FELONY)
TRIAL: (FELONY) STRUCTURE OF A CRIMINAL Crimes are divided into 2 general classifications: felonies and misdemeanors. A misdemeanor is a lesser offense, punishable by community service, probation, fine
More informationDePaul Law Review. DePaul College of Law. Volume 10 Issue 1 Fall-Winter Article 16
DePaul Law Review Volume 10 Issue 1 Fall-Winter 1960 Article 16 Constitutional Law - Statute Authorizing Search without Warrant Upheld by Reason of Equal Division of Supreme Court - Ohio ex rel. Eaton
More informationCOMMON LAW v. CIVIL LAW By Brent Williams; (brief history)
REBUTTALS TO ANTI-AMERICAN BAR INDOCTRINATED POSITIONS: COMMON LAW v. CIVIL LAW By Brent Williams; (brief history) Two fundamental traditions of law and government are active among humanity, each manifesting
More informationGrade 7 History Mr. Norton
Grade 7 History Mr. Norton Section 1: A Loose Confederation Section 2: The Constitutional Convention Section 3: Ideas Behind the Constitution Section 4: Ratification and the Bill of Rights Grade 7 History
More informationUnit US Constitution
Unit 2 ---- US Constitution Articles of Confederation How was power divided between fed/state? Most power held by states, little power in federal government. Big Gulp or Dixie Cup? Weakness of the Articles
More informationThe trial of a German printer named John Peter Zenger in August 1735 helped
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: THE TRIAL OF PETER ZENGER Grade 5 United States History and Geography I. Introduction The trial of a German printer named John Peter Zenger in August 1735 helped establish one of
More informationCOURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEHIGH COUNTY CRIMINAL DIVISION. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) V. ) Case No. ) ) GUILTY PLEA COLLOQUY
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEHIGH COUNTY CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) V. ) Case No. ) ) GUILTY PLEA COLLOQUY You or your attorney has indicated that you may want to plead guilty to
More informationBench or Court Trial: A trial that takes place in front of a judge with no jury present.
GLOSSARY Adversarial System: A justice system in which the defendant is presumed innocent and both sides may present competing views of the evidence (as opposed to an inquisitorial system where the state
More informationOUR POLITICAL BEGINNINGS
CHAPTER 2 Origins of American Government SECTION 1 OUR POLITICAL BEGINNINGS The colonists brought with them to North America knowledge of the English political system, including three key ideas about government.
More informationSTATE HEARING QUESTIONS
Unit One: What Are the Philosophical and Historical Foundations of the American Political System? 1. What is meant by the Revolution? The War? That was no part of the Revolution. The Revolution was in
More informationLESSON S OBJECTIVES Explain the powers that the const. Gives to congress Explain the enumerated powers of congress, the necessary and proper and
Lesson 12.2 LESSON S OBJECTIVES Explain the powers that the const. Gives to congress Explain the enumerated powers of congress, the necessary and proper and general welfare clauses, and the reason for
More informationIn The Supreme Court Of The United States
No. 14-95 In The Supreme Court Of The United States PATRICK GLEBE, SUPERINTENDENT STAFFORD CREEK CORRECTIONS CENTER, v. PETITIONER, JOSHUA JAMES FROST, RESPONDENT. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
More informationThe Bill of Rights Institute
Provides an introduction and overview of the Bill of Rights, including the Founders understanding of the rights of Englishmen, British law, and natural rights philosophy. This unit also examines the Federalist
More informationStrickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668 (1984), still control claims of
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Does the deficient performance/resulting prejudice standard of Strickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668 (1984), still control claims of ineffective assistance of post-conviction
More informationPresent: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Hassell, and Keenan, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice
Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Hassell, and Keenan, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice OLAN CONWAY ALLEN OPINION BY v. Record No. 951681 SENIOR JUSTICE RICHARD H. POFF June 7, 1996 COMMONWEALTH
More informationJury Nullification: Law Versus Anarchy
Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Law Reviews 11-1-1997 Jury Nullification: Law Versus
More informationOhio Bill of Rights. 02 Right to alter, reform, or abolish government, and repeal special privileges (1851)
Ohio Constitution Preamble We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution. Bill of
More informationDistrict Court, S. D. Georgia. Nov. Term, 1867.
Case No. 18,312. [35 Ga. 336.] 1 UNITED STATES V. BLODGETT. District Court, S. D. Georgia. Nov. Term, 1867. GRAND JURY OATH PRESCRIBED BY ACT 1862 AIDING REBELLION WHO MAY CHALLENGE WHEN CHALLENGE TO BE
More informationCourt of Criminal Appeals November 20, 2013
Court of Criminal Appeals November 20, 2013 In re McCann No. Nos. AP-76.998 & AP-76,999 Case Summary written by Jamie Vaughan, Staff Member. Judge Hervey delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Presiding
More informationAn End to the Twelve-Man Jury
University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Law Review 7-1-1970 An End to the Twelve-Man Jury Lawrence H. Goldberg Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr
More informationAmerican Government. Topic 8 Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights
American Government Topic 8 Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Section 5 Due Process of Law The Meaning of Due Process Constitution contains two statements about due process 5th Amendment Federal
More information5. SUPREME COURT HAS BOTH ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Liberties and Civil Rights Chapters 18-19-20-21 Chapter 18: Federal Court System 1. Section 1 National Judiciary 1. Supreme Court highest court in the land 2. Inferior (lower) courts: i. District
More informationTHE JUDICIAL BRANCH. Article III. The Role of the Federal Court
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH Section I Courts, Term of Office Section II Jurisdiction o Scope of Judicial Power o Supreme Court o Trial by Jury Section III Treason o Definition Punishment Article III The Role of
More informationEnsuring Justice through Juror Discretion
LIBERTAS INSTITUTE ADVANCING THE CAUSE OF LIBERTY IN UTAH PUBLIC POLICY BRIEF Ensuring Justice through Juror Discretion SUMMARY The pursuit of justice is plagued with many problems overcriminalization,
More informationOriginal Meaning: Freedom of Speech or of the Press
Original Meaning: Freedom of Speech or of the Press by P.A. MADISON on October 18th, 2008 Source: http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/10/freedom_of_speech_and_of_the_press/ Summary: Freedom of Speech or
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 537 U. S. (2002) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RICHARD E. EARLY, WARDEN, ET AL. v. WILLIAM PACKER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
More informationIN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS AND IN THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF JASPER COUNTY, TEXAS
IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS AND IN THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF JASPER COUNTY, TEXAS EX P A R T E Texas Court of Criminal Appeals JOHN WI L L I A M K I N G, Cause No. WR-49,391-03
More informationCircuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CJ UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2017
Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CJ171506 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2503 September Term, 2017 DONALD EUGENE BAILEY v. STATE OF MARYLAND Berger, Friedman,
More information