PROF. CARLTON BAILEY
FALL 2010
Robert A. Leflar Professor of Law
Office Hours: Whenever Professor is in his office and not otherwise occupied!
Office Phone: 575-5615
Office Room #: 315 (Professor C. Bailey)
E-Mail Address: cbailey@uark.edu
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
COURSE NO. 4173
SYLLABUS*
INDEX
Page
I. ............................................................................... First Assignment: Reading, First Class
II............................ First Assignment: Textbook, Supplementary Reading List, & Syllabus
III. .................................................................................................A Guide to Case Analysis
IV. Grade, Classroom Attendance, Class Participation,
Extra Points Based on Film Clips, Professor’s Expectations,
Professor’s Responses to answers given in class, Attendance Policy ...................... 5
• Prof. Bailey's Office Hours, Telephone, and E-Mail Address ............................. 7
V. ................................................................................................................ Sample Scantron
VI. .......................................................................................... Sample Bluebook Cover Page
VII. ............................................. Exemplary Queries of a Criminal Procedure Examination
$ .............................................................................................................................................
$ .............................................................................................................................................
VIII. ........................................................................... Arkansas Bar Examination Questions
IX. ....................................................................................... Facts in Multiple Slayings Case
X. ..................................................................................................................... Incorporation
XI. ................................................................................ Fourth Amendment - (Reading List)
XII. .................................................................................. Fifth Amendment - (Reading List)
XIII. ............................................................................... Sixth Amendment - (Reading List)
XIV. Cases, Codes Annotated on the Web:
(See pp. 2-5 for a list of all cases on the Web)
**To the Web page: First: Home page for the University of Arkansas School
of Law; Second: Young Library - Link; Third: Reserve Materials - Link;
Fourth: Carlton Bailey - web resources; Fifth: Criminal Procedure - Link
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
* Copyright © Fall 2010
1
2-3
4
4
8
9
10
Part I Part II
Law Sc
11-11
12-17
18-24
25-28
29-31
I.
FIRST ASSIGNMENT
READ:
Every line of infra pages 2-11 of this Syllabus.
What is a “search”?
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
BOYD v. UNITED STATES — Prof. Bailey will lecture — (on the Web)
OLMSTEAD v. UNITED STATES — (on the Web)
KATZ v. U.S. — P. 349 CB
U.S. v. WHITE — P. 368 CB
OLIVER v. U.S. — (on the Web)
FOOTNOTES FROM OLIVER — (on the Web)
HESTER v. UNITED STATES — (on the Web)
U.S. v. DUNN — (on the Web)
CALIFORNIA v. CIRAOLO — (on the Web)
FLORIDA v. RILEY — (on the Web and p. 361 cb)
CALIFORNIA v. GREENWOOD — (on the Web and p. 374 cb)
SMITH v. MARYLAND — P. 378 CB Note #1
KYLLO v. UNITED STATES — (on the Web and p. 387 cb)
UNITED STATES v. KARO — P. 379 CB
DOW CHEMICAL v. U.S. — (on the Web)
UNITED SATES v. BOND — (on the Web)
ILLINOIS v. CABALLES — (on the Web)
FIRST CLASS
Be prepared to discuss the cases (a)-(j) assigned above. You will be asked to
apply [what you have read] the principles, reasoning and language from those
cases to a Film Clip to be shown on the First Day of Class. AND, please submit
upon entering class the answers for the Hypothetical Scenario found on pages 24 of this syllabus. Please submit your answers on the form found at page 4 of this
syllabus. Points (see page #6) earned from this exercise will count as Bonus
Points toward your Final Examination Score.
Hypothetical Scenario
On the afternoon of Wednesday, June 16, 2010, officers from the University of
Arkansas Police Department (UAPD) and the Fayetteville Police Department (FPD) met
at the UAPD office to discuss plans for drug enforcement and interdiction on or near the
University of Arkansas campus. Although there has only been one notable arrest (former
athlete arrested for snorting cocaine in an SUV near Dickson Street) for illicit drug use in
2
the past two years, the officers worried that the growth of the student population and the
influx of new and diverse populations would signal an up-tick in illicit drug distribution
and associated crimes.
As a result, both departments decided to set-up plain clothes police surveillances
at various city and University restrooms. The departments would setup two (2) person
teams. Each team would consist of an officer from each department. One team member
would be a “spotter” and the other would be the “observer”. The “spotter’s” job
involved patrolling the entrance and exit to the restroom. Using a radio microphone on
his/her collar and a receiver in his/her ear, the “spotter” communicated the descriptions
(and the number) of persons entering and exiting the restroom to the “observer”. In turn,
the “observer” communicated to the “spotter” about the activities of those persons who
entered the restroom. If those persons engaged in illegal activities the “observer” would
send a message to the “spotter” and to the UAPD office for “back-up”.
On the University’s campus the “observers” were all located in the restroom’s
“plumbing access area”. The University’s “plumbing access area” lies between the
men’s restroom and the women’s restroom. The men’s room and women’s room are
located back-to-back with the commodes linked to a common plumbing “tree”. That
plumbing “tree” covers much of the space in the “plumbing access area”. As a result,
this area affords accessibility to the plumbing running from each individual commode
through the wall of the men’s and women’s rooms respectively. The “observer” had cut
out a camouflaged (could not be detected by a person in the stalls or any other part of the
restroom) “peephole” that allowed the “observer” to monitor activities in each restroom
stall and those in the “open” restroom area.
So, on June 18, 2010, Officer J. Crane was acting as a “spotter” at the law school
restrooms, his “observer” was Lt. Martin Banks. At 11:30 a.m. the officers were
“spotting” and “observing” the restrooms on the second floor near the courtroom Room 240. At about 11:35 a.m. Officer Crane saw a short (5'5") white male wearing a
green baseball cap with white “CELTICS” lettering on its front panel enter the men’s
restroom. Ten (10) seconds later, Lt. Banks confirmed that a man fitting that description
had entered stall #6 (the furthest stall from the entrance). Each stall was enclosed by three
walls and a door. The guy in the Celtics cap closed his door.
A few minutes after the guy in the Celtics cap entered stall #6, Officer Crane
alerted Banks that a tall (6'5") bearded man wearing a red cap with “HOGS” in white
lettering on its panel was entering the restroom. Lt. Banks answered, “Roger that! I see
him.” The tall man went to stall #6 and knocked 3 quick times, paused, and knocked one
more time. Lt. Banks saw the short man open the door. Once inside the stall with the
shorter man, the tall man closed the stall door. Lt. Banks saw the tall man pull up his
shirt. Around the tall man’s waist was a money belt. He took the money belt off his waist
and opened a compartment on it. Inside Lt. Banks could see 10 or 12 small plastic bags
filled with small white rock-like substances. In the meantime, the shorter man had
produced an envelope filled with Big Head hundred dollar bills. Lt. Banks alerted Officer
Crane that a drug transaction was “going down!” Officer Crane called the UAPD office
for back-up. As the tall man stepped out of the stall he was greeted by Officer Crane and
3
two fellow officers.
The tall man (Arthur Pennington) and the short man (Bradley Noland) were
arrested, handcuffed and searched. Pursuant to this search the police found (1) 25 baggies
of crack cocaine on Pennington; (2) an unregistered gun; (3) a key to a public storage
facility (inside that storage unit the police found 2 dead bodies and a photograph of a
smiling Pennington with these words, “Yeah, I killed both of them, signed, Arthur
Pennington”); and (4) $65,000 in cash, all Big Head Hundreds. On Brad Noland the
police found: (a) five baggies (exactly like the ones possessed by Pennington) of crack
cocaine; (b) an unregistered handgun; and (c) a list of persons who would receive the five
baggies.
First Written Assignment
[Copy this form, Complete it and Submit it to Professor Bailey on the First Day of Class place in the envelope entitled, “First Written Assignment”.]
A.
Were the Fourth Amendment Rights of the “Short man” (B. Noland)
implicated in this scenario?
2 ½ points
1.
Yes________ or No________
2 ½ points
2.
Cite a (only one (1)) case that supports your answer to A.1. above.
_______________________________________________________
B.
Were the Fourth Amendment Rights of the “Tall man” (A. Pennington)
implicated in this scenario?
2 ½ points
1.
Yes________ or No________
2 ½ points
2.
Cite a (only one (1)) case that supports your answer to B.1. above.
_______________________________________________________
C.
Does this scenario implicate the Fourth Amendment Rights of any other
members of the law school community?
2 ½ points
1.
Yes________ or No________
2 ½ points
2.
Cite a (only one (1)) case that supports your answer to C.1. above.
_______________________________________________________
4
II.
TEXTBOOK, SUPPLEMENTARY READING LIST, AND SYLLABUS
Criminal Procedure (Investigation and Right to Counsel)
by Allen, Hoffman, Livingston and Stuntz. [REQUIRED]
Cases on the Web!! [REQUIRED]
Syllabus: By Professor Carlton Bailey [REQUIRED]
Please collect the Syllabus room 183B.
Supplementary Reading List:
LaFave and Israel, Criminal Procedure (West) [NOT REQUIRED]
Saltzburg, American Criminal Procedure (West) [NOT REQUIRED]
(Your selection! Whatever works for you!)
III.
A GUIDE TO CASE ANALYSIS
After reading each case in the casebook the following questions should be
answered:
1.
What are the facts of the case? (Include the procedural facts). What was the
court's holding?
2.
What rule(s) may be extracted from the appellate court's holding? What are
the exceptions to that rule?
3.
How did the rule develop and why did it develop? What are the vital policy
considerations behind the court's ruling? (What policies are frustrated by
the rule?)
4.
Are there conflicting policy considerations?
5.
Is the rule to be limited to the facts of this case or do the underlying policy
considerations permit use or expansion of the rule to other fact situations?
6.
Is the rule sound (practical)?
5
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
IV. GRADE AND CLASSROOM ATTENDANCE POLICIES*
A. FINAL GRADE COMPONENTS – A TOTAL OF 600 POINTS
The final grade in the course will be based on:
1.
Final Examination--------------------------------------------------- -350 Points
a)
Long Fact Pattern------------------------------------------- -100 Points
b)
Multiple Choice--------------------------------------------- -250 Points
2.
Answer to True/False Query***----------------------------------- -100 Points
3.
Film Clips, Writing Assignments, Responding
(or failing to respond) to questions during class----------------- -150 Points
4.
Redoing First Film Clip or redoing the First
5.
6.
7.
B.
Written Assignment (not both!!) }by Sept. 15, 2010
Ambassadors--------------------------------------------------------- ------------?
Attendance/classroom participation (or lack
thereof). See E attendance policy, pp. 6-8 of syllabus.---------- ------------?
Exceeding the number of times allowed to write
“I am unprepared today”
TOTAL 600 points
CLASSROOM PARTICIPATION POLICY*
(Film Clip on first day of class = IV.A.3. ____ points!)
(Query after Elstad on the web = Bonus ____ points!)
(Due no later than noon, Monday, October 18, 2010)
Students are expected to be fully prepared for each class. A student who is
unprepared faces the possibility of a grade reduction. Failing to respond when
called on is an example of being unprepared. A student may be excused from
Classroom Participation by signing the “not prepared today” sheet before class
begins. A limit of two (2) Excuses!
A.
***True/False Query
Recent United States Supreme Court opinions have provided needed clarity and
specificity to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement.
1.
True _____ or False _____
Please submit a response to office # 183-B, no later than noon, Monday,
October 18, 2010. Your response should not exceed 150 words.
6
*CLASS DISCUSSIONS/LECTURES MAY NOT BE TAPE RECORDED!
** Please see and understand pages 6-8 of the Syllabus!
7
D.
PROFESSOR’S EXPECTATIONS FOR CLASSROOM DISCUSSION
Students may contribute to class discussions and earn classroom participation
points by:
1.
Providing a statement of essential facts;
2.
Identifying issue(s) to be decided by the court;
3.
Identifying the test(s), precedent(s), or rule(s) the court used to resolve
the issues or the ones the court should have used;
4.
Explaining whether that test/precedent/rule was followed specifically,
modified slightly, modified a lot - [Is it the same rule?];
5.
Identifying any other basic (Black letter law) principles or any other
insights gleaned from the opinion;
Answering the professor’s invitation to cogitate on this. . . ;
6.
E.
7.
Posing a question to your professor in the “I still don’t get it” file
(available each day in the class);
8.
Reading an excerpt from an assigned case and then interpreting the
meaning of that passage.
PROFESSOR’S RESPONSES TO ANSWERS GIVEN IN CLASS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
“KUDOS” - Can’t get much better. (Very insightful - potential to teach
own class!);
“EXCELLENT” - Accurate, a tad insightful;
“GOOD OR ABSOLUTELY” - Accurate though not insightful;
“OK” - Satisfactory;
“YOU DON’T MEAN THAT?” - Less than satisfactory;
“UNPREPARED OR FAILING TO ANSWER” - See V.B. p.4.
8
F.
ATTENDANCE POLICY
Students are expected to attend classes regularly. Excessive absenteeism will
result in grade reduction.
After a fourth (4th) absence, the Professor may subject the student to a single
grade reduction. More than five (5) absences may result in a full letter
reduction. Students who are absent seven (7) or more times will receive a failing
grade. Excuses must be submitted to Professor Bailey’s assistant in Room 183B
no later than 48 hours after the missed class. Excuses are accepted only after the
fourth (4th) absence and then only in the Professor's discretion. [Excuses will not
be evaluated until after the final examination.]
PROFESSOR BAILEY’S GENERAL INFORMATION
Students are encouraged to visit Professor Bailey at any time during the semester to
discuss their classroom performances, film clips, or any other aspect of the course. You may
also e-mail queries to Professor Bailey. (Try to keep them short!)
OFFICE HOURS:
9:00 - Noon on Wednesday or Friday or whenever you find the
Professor in his office, # 315.
OFFICE PHONE:
575-5615
E-MAIL ID:
cbailey@uark.edu
BEFORE/AFTER CLASS:
Students may submit
Questions/Comments/Suggestions
(See the Query Form on the web)
“I STILL DON’T GET (??)”: File folder will be available at Professor Bailey’s assistant
desk in room 183B and a folder will be available at
each class session.
If you claim any disability that you believe will preclude you
from complying with the requirements of this course, please see
Associate Dean for Students, James Miller in office #194 or call him
at (575-5618).
9
10
11
12
Book 1/2
13
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
VII. EXEMPLARY QUERIES OF A CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EXAMINATION
(These queries are based on the newspaper article concerning Cassandra Small, See infra pp. 16 of
Syllabus)
PART I - MULTIPLE CHOICE
Brock has asked the court to exclude any references to the Wal-Mart employee's out-of-court identification
and Scooter's identification or the dog's apparent reaction to him during the lineup. In determining whether to
sustain Brock's objection and motion to exclude these out-of-court identifications, Judge Storey must consider:
(a)
whether Brock was formally charged;
(b)
the effect of both the dog and the Wal-Mart employee making simultaneous identifications;
(c)
whether either had previously identified Brock; or
(d)
the nature and gravity of the criminal offense.
Of these four (4) considerations, the ones most applicable under present law include:
1.
(a) and (d) only
2.
(d) only
3.
(a) and (c) only
4.
None of the alternatives as presented in 1-3 above.
PART II - SHORT ANSWER QUERY
What case or cases best inform Judge Storey about whether he should permit the Wal-Mart employee to
make an in-court identification? Explain.
14
15
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
1788 - (In the Beginning)
1789 - (James Madison Bill of Rights)
Criminal Defendant
THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION
BILL OF RIGHTS
(1)
The power of Congress to punish counterfeiting securities (government
bonds), current coins, piracies and felonies committed
on the high seas, and offenses against the United States
(Art. I, Sec. 8, 9);
(2)
the preservation of the writ of habeas corpus (Art. I, Sec. 9);
(3)
the prohibition against bills of attainder (conviction without trial) and ex
post facto laws (making criminal acts retroactive) (Art.
I, Sec. 9--repeated in Art. I, Sec. 10 against state
powers);
(4)
providing for trial by jury and venue (Art. 3, Sec. 2--later strengthened by
the 6th Amendment);
(5)
the power of Congress to punish treason and the evidentiary requirements
(Art. 3, Sec. 3);
(6)
the requirement that citizens of each state be afforded all the privileges and
immunities by the other states (Art. 4, Sec. 2); and
the extradition provision (Art. 4, Sec. 2).
(7)
16
Contained within the 462-word Bill of Rights are approximately 25
constitutional guarantees; of these, 12 rights directly apply to the criminal process.
For your convenience, a list of these guarantees appears below:
(1)
no unreasonable searches and seizures (4th
Amendment);
(2)
grand jury indictments required for capital
and infamous (felony) crimes (5th
Amendment);
(3)
the prohibition against double jeopardy (5th
Amendment);
(4)
the privilege against self-incrimination (5th
Amendment);
(5)
the right to a speedy trial (6th Amendment);
(6)
the right to a public trial (6th Amendment);
(7)
the right to a jury trial (6th Amendment);
(8)
the right to confront prosecution witnesses
(6th Amendment);
(9)
the right to present defense witnesses (6th
Amendment);
(10)
the right to counsel (6th Amendment);
(11)
no excessive bail or fines (8th Amendment);
(12)
no cruel or unusual punishments (8th
Amendment).
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
BARRON v. BALTIMORE, 7 Peters 247 (1833)
1866 - (The Fourteenth Amendment)
5TH AMENDMENT
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
" ... nor shall private
property be taken for
public use, without just
compensation."
The 39th Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1866. Section 1 of that
Amendment contains three (3) important clauses, chiefly composed by Representative
John A. Bingham of Ohio:
"No State shall make or
enforce any law which
shall abridge the
privileges and immunities
of citizens of the United
States [the privileges and
immunity clause]; nor
shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty,
or property without due
process of law [the due
process clause]; nor deny
to any person within its
17
jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws [the
equal protection clause]."
18
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES, 16 Wallace 36 (1873)
HURTADO v. CALIFORNIA, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)
[Privileges and Immunity Clause]
5th Amendment requirement of grand jury indictments.
19
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PALKO v. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319 (1937)
5th Amendment double jeopardy — "... nor shall any person be subject for
the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;"
"Implicit in a concept of ordered liberty"
(1)
"To abolish [certain rights] is not to violate a 'principle of justice so
rooted in the traditions and conscience of our
people as to be ranked as fundamental'." (Text)
(2)
"Is that kind of double jeopardy to which the [Conn.] statute has
subjected [Palko] a hardship so acute and
shocking that our polity will not endure it?"
(Text)
(3)
"Does [this kind of double jeopardy] violate those ‘fundamental’
principles of liberty and justice which lie at the
base of all our civil and political institutions?"
(Text)
20
NO INCORPORATION
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
TOTAL
SELECTIVE
21
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
NEO
22
23
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
READING LIST
FOURTH AMENDMENT
The circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourth Amendment indicate the
nuances in the language used cannot readily be construed as clear evidence of the framer's intent.
It appears that the House never consciously agreed to the present form of the Amendment. As
proposed by the Committee of eleven, the provision read:
"That right --- to be secured in their persons, papers, houses, and
effects shall not be violated by warrants issuing --That was corrected to read:
"The right --- to be secure --- against unreasonable searches and
seizures not be violated by warrants issuing.
At that point, Mr. Benson objected to the words, "by warrants issuing" as not being
sufficient. His proposal that they be altered to read: "and no warrant shall issue" lost by a
considerable majority. However, Benson, as Chairman of the Committee appointed to arrange
the Amendments, reported his version (the rejected version) of the Amendment. His alteration
was never noticed and was subsequently agreed to by the Senate and ratified by the states in that
form.
I.
FOURTH AMENDMENT
A.
What is a "Search"?
1.............................................................................................. Boyd v. United States
Prof. Ba
2........................................................................................ Olmstead v. United States
(on the
3.............................................................................................................. Katz v. U.S.
p. 349 c
4............................................................................................................ U.S. v. White
p. 368 c
5............................................................................................. Oliver v. United States
(on the
6.......................................................................................... (Footnotes from Oliver)
(on the
7.............................................................................................................U.S. v. Dunn
(on the
8.............................................................................................Hester v. United States
(on the
9................................................................................................ California v. Ciraolo
(on the
10...................................................................................................... Florida v. Riley
(on the
24
B.
11........................................................................................California v. Greenwood
(on the
12................................................................................................. Smith v. Maryland
p. 387 c
13...................................................................... Dow Chemical Co. v. United States
(on the
14............................................................................................ Kyllo v. United States
(on the
15............................................................................................. United States v. Karo
p. 379 c
16............................................................................................ United States v. Bond
(on the
17................................................................................................. Illinois v. Caballes
(on the
Probable Cause
18...............................................................Probable Cause and the Warrant Process
pp. 420
a. (What is this about?)
19.......................................................................................... Draper v. United States
(on the
20..................................................................................................... Aguilar v. Texas
(on the
21.........................................................................................Spinelli v. United States
(on the
22...................................................................................................... Illinois v. Gates
p. 426 c
23.
C.
Bornelas v. United States
24............................................................................................... Maryland v. Pringle
p. 442 c
25......................................................................................... Massachusetts v. Upton
(on the
26.............................................................................................. The Warrant Process
p. 377-7
27................................................................................................ Wilson v. Arkansas
p. 452 c
28........................................................................................... United States v. Banks
p. 453 c
29......................................................................................................... Notes # 4 & 5
p. 457 c
30............................................................................................... Hudson v. Michigan
(on the
31..................................................................................................... Wilson v. Layne
p. 458 c
The Exclusionary Rule — (What happens if the Fourth Amendment is violated?)
32.......................................................................................... General Considerations
p. 334 c
33.......................................................................................... Weeks v. United States
(on the
34................................................................................................... Wolf v. Colorado
(on the
35......................................................................................................... Mapp v. Ohio
p. 326 c
36............................................................................................. United States v. Leon
p. 683 c
37.........................................................................................Herring v. United States
(on the
38................................................................................................ Franks v. Delaware
(on the
39.................................................................................................... Hill v. California
(on the
25
D.
Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement - ("Exigent Circumstances")
40.......................................................................... Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden
p. 299
41................................................................................................. Mincey v. Arizona
p. 463 c
............................................................................................................................................................
E.
41(a)
42................................................................................................... Vale v. Louisiana
(on the
43........................................................................................................ Sequra v. U.S.
(on the
44............................................................................. Notes on exigent circumstances
pp. 404
45............................................................................................... Welsh v. Wisconsin
p. 470 c
46............................................................................................... Illinois v. McArthur
p. 475 c
Exigent Circumstances and the Automobile
47.......................................................................................... Carroll v. United States
(on the
48............................................................................................ Chambers v. Maroney
(on the
49............................................................................................. United States v. Ross
p. 492 c
50.................................................................................................. Cardwell v. Lewis
(on the
51............................................................................................... California v. Carney
. (on th
26
F.
G.
H.
Containers
52................................................................................................... U.S. v. Chadwick
(on the
53............................................................................................... Arkansas v. Sanders
(on the
54............................................................................................................ U.S. v. Ross
p. 492 c
55...........................................................................................Wyoming v. Houghton
p. 503 c
56............................................................................................ California v. Acevedo
p. 493 c
57.......................................................................................................... U.S. v. Johns
(on the
Police discretion and Profiling
58............................................................. Text - “Pre-textual” Search Whren v. U S
p. 597 c
59................................................................................................ Chicago v. Morales
p. 609 c
60................................................................................................ State v. Sullivan (I)
(on the
61............................................................ Explanation of Sullivan I and Sullivan II
(on the
“Plainview” Exception
62............................................................................................... Horton v. California
p. 485 c
63.................................................................................................... Arizona v. Hicks
p. 480 c
64.......................................................................................United States v. Jacobsen
(on the
......................................................................................................................................................... I.
Public A
65....................................................................................................... U.S. v. Watson
p. 511 c
66.................................................................................... Atwater v. Lago Vista et al
p. 518 c
67...................................................................................................Virginia v. Moore
(on the
68..................................................................................................... Gerstein v. Pugh
(on the
69...................................................................... County of Riverside v. McLaughlin
p. 515 c
70.
See Part M infra at page 26 of syllabus - Fifth Amendment
71...............................................................................................Payton v. New York
p. 516 c
72........................................................................................ United States v. Santana
(on the
73...................................................................................................... Steagald v. U.S.
p. 517 c
74........................................................................................Washington v. Chrisman
(on the
......................................................................................................................................................... J.
Standin
75................................................................................................ Minnesota v. Olson
p. 698 c
76................................................................................................Minnesota v. Carter
p. 698 c
27
K.
L.
M.
77..................................................................................................... Rakas v. Illinois
p. 698 c
78...................................................................................... Simmons v. United States
(on the
79............................................................................................ Rawlings v. Kentucky
(on the
Search Incident to Arrest
80...............................................................................................Chimel v. California
p. 532 c
81................................................................................................... Maryland v. Buie
(on the
82.................................................................................................... U.S. v. Robinson
p. 538 c
83.................................................................................................... Knowles v. Iowa
p. 550 c
84............................................................................................... Gustafson v. Florida
(on the
85............................................................................................... New York v. Belton
p. 541 c
86...................................................................................... Thornton v. United States
p. 541 c
87...................................................................................................... Arizona v. Gant
(on the
Consent Searches
88......................................................................................Bumper v. North Carolina
(on the
89....................................................................................Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
p. 668 c
90................................................................................................... Ohio v. Robinette
p. 678 c
91................................................................................................... Florida v. Jimeno
p. 678 c
92........................................................................................ United States v. Matlock
(on the
93............................................................................................... George v. Randolph
(on the
94...............................................................................................Illinois v. Rodriguez
p. 676 c
95....................................................................................................... Ornelas v. U.S.
p. 437 c
“Reasonableness” — less than Probable Cause to “Stop”
96....................................................................................Camara v. Municipal Court
(on the
97.......................................................................................................... Terry v. Ohio
p. 557 c
98.
(on the w
Hiibel v. 6th Jud. Dist. Ct of Nev., Humboldt City
99................................................................................................ Illinois v. Wardlow
p. 583
100...............................................................................................Adams v. Williams
(on the
101......................................................................................................... Florida v. JL
p. 578 c
102....................................................................................... Pennsylvania v. Mimms
p. 575 c
103........................................................................................ United States v. Sharpe
p. 574 c
104................................................................................................. Michigan v. Long
p. 576 c
105....................................................................................... Minnesota v. Dickerson
p. 577 c
28
N.
O.
106.............................................................................................New York v. Burger
p. 656
107........................................................................................ Dunaway v. New York
p. 570 c
108................................................................................................... Hayes v. Florida
(on the
Test for “Articulable Suspicion”
109........................................................................................ United States v. Cortez
(on the
110................................................................................................ Alabama v. White
p. 578 c
Profiles, Consensual or “Terry” Stops (“Seizure”)
111.............................................................................................. U.S. v. Mendenhall
(on the
112......................................................................................................... U.S. v. Place
p. 366 c
113............................................................................................... Illinois v. Caballes
(on the
114................................................................................................... Florida v. Royer
p. 571 c
115.....................................................................................................INS v. Delgado
p. 401 c
116..................................................................................... United States v. Sokolow
p. 590 c
29
P.
Q.
R.
S.
“Seizure” of Person – “Chase” Context
117.................................................................................... Brower v. County of Inyo
p. 405 c
118........................................................................................ Michigan v. Chesternut
(on the
119................................................................................................. Florida v. Bostick
p. 394 c
120...................................................................................... United States v. Drayton
p. 399 c
121......................................................................................... California v. Hodari D
(on the
122.......................................................................................... Brendlin v. California
(on the
123............................................................................................. Tennessee v. Garner
p. 658 c
124...................................................................................................... Scott v. Harris
(on the
Search and Seizure of Persons – Special Conditions
125.................................................................................................. Ybarra v. Illinois
(on the
126.......................................................................................... Michigan v. Summers
(on the
127........................................................................................... New Jersey v. T.L.O.
p. 624 c
128............................................................................................... Safford v. Redding
(on the
129....................................................................... Vernonia School District v. Acton
p. 641 c
130........................................................................................ Ferguson v. Charleston
p. 643 c
131.............................................................. Text cb (Other “Special Needs” Cases)
pp. 612
Inventory Searches
132........................................................................................... Cady v. Dombrowski
p. 468 c
133.................................................................................. South Dakota v. Opperman
p. 550
134.............................................................................................. Illinois v. Lafayette
(on the
135.............................................................................................. Colorado v. Bertine
(on the
136.................................................................................................... Florida v. Wells
(on the
137...................................................................................................... Welch v. State
(on the
Road Blocks
138.............................................................. Border and Highway Safety Regulation
p. 804-1
139.............................................................................................. Delaware v. Prouse
p. 625 c
140................................................................................................... Michigan v. Sitz
(on the
141........................................................................... City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
p. 626 c
142.................................................................................................. Illinois v. Lidster
p. 635 c
30
T.
U.
Fruit of Poisonous Tree
143.................................................................................. Wong Sun v. United States
p. 709 c
144.................................................................................................. Brown v. Illinois
(on the
145.................................................................................... United States v. Ceccolini
p. 718 c
Miscellaneous Cases and Acts
............................................................................................................................................................
146.
............................................................................................................................................................
147.
............................................................................................................................................................
148.
............................................................................................................................................................
149.
31
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
FIFTH AMENDMENT
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime unless on a
presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or
in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in
any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.
[MAKE SURE YOU READ THE WEB VERSION OF THESE CASES!]
II.
FIFTH AMENDMENT
A.
Scope of the Fifth Amendment
............................................................................................................................................................
1.
2........................................................................................ Counselman v. Hitchcock
p. 754 c
3...................................................................................................... Brown v. Walker
p. 757 c
4..........................................................................................Kastigar v. United States
p. 762 c
5........................................................................................... Schmerber v. California
p. 291 c
6.............................................................................................. New Jersey v. Portash
p. 786 c
7...................................................................................... United States v. Afflebaum
p. 787 c
8................................................................................................... California v. Byers
p. 789 c
9.
Baltimore City Department of Social
Services v. Bouknight ..................................................................... p. 791 cb
32
B.
C.
Police Interrogation - When Does the Fifth Apply? (The Sixth Amendment
Option)
10............................................................................................ Bram v. United States
p. 806 c
11............................................................................................. Brown v. Mississippi
p. 807 c
12........................................................................................ Massiah v. United States
p. 813 c
13................................................................................................Escobedo v. Illinois
p. 817 c
Massiah in “Custody” or in Jail
............................................................................................................................................................
D.
14.
15...................................................................................................Maine v. Moulton
p. 931 c
16................................................................................................ Kuhlman v. Wilson
p. 930 c
The Rule and the Familiar Warnings
............................................................................................................................................................
17.
............................................................................................................................................................
18.
............................................................................................................................................................
19.
............................................................................................................................................................
20.
21...............................................................................................Duckworth v. Eagan
E.
p. 859 c
What is “Interrogation”?
............................................................................................................................................................
22.
............................................................................................................................................................
23.
............................................................................................................................................................
24.
F.
What is Custody?
............................................................................................................................................................
25.
............................................................................................................................................................
26.
............................................................................................................................................................
27.
G.
Invoking Miranda's Second Level (Silence or Counsel)
............................................................................................................................................................
29.
............................................................................................................................................................
30.
............................................................................................................................................................
31.
32..................................................................................................Fare v. Michael C.
p. 870
33...............................................................................................Oregon v. Bradshaw
p. 866 c
34..................................................................................................... Wyrick v. Fields
(on the
35............................................................................................ Davis v. United States
p. 868 c
36...............................................................................................Michigan v. Jackson
33
p. 932 c
............................................................................................................................................................
37.
............................................................................................................................................................
38.
39............................................................................................. McNiel v. Wisconsin
p. 937 c
............................................................................................................................................................
40.
............................................................................................................................................................
41.
............................................................................................................................................................
42.
H.
Waiving Miranda Rights
............................................................................................................................................................
I.
44................................................................................................... Moran v. Burbine
p. 874 c
45................................................................................................. Colorado v. Spring
p. 873 c
Waiving Massiah Rights
46................................................................................................ Brewer v. Williams
J.
43.
p. 920 c
Inevitable Discovery
............................................................................................................................................................
47.
............................................................................................................................................................
48.
K.
"Public Safety" Exception to Miranda
............................................................................................................................................................
49.
............................................................................................................................................................
50.
L.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree and Miranda
............................................................................................................................................................
M.
51.
Admissibility of a confession while a citizen is under arrest or “in detention”
52.
18 U.S.C.S. Fed. R. Crim. P. 5
53.
18 U.S.C.S. § 3501
............................................................................................................................................................
54.
............................................................................................................................................................
55.
............................................................................................................................................................
56.
N.
"Free Will" and Waiver of Miranda Rights
............................................................................................................................................................
O.
“Harmless” Constitutional Error
............................................................................................................................................................
P.
57.
Impeachment With a Product of a Miranda Violation
34
58.
............................................................................................................................................................
Q.
59.
60................................................................................................ Harris v. New York
(on the
61......................................................................................................... Doyle v. Ohio
p. 905 c
62............................................................................................... Jenkins v. Anderson
p. 905 c
63....................................................................................................... U.S. v. Havens
(on the
Miranda Revisited
............................................................................................................................................................
35
64.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
READING LIST
SIXTH AMENDMENT
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,
by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process
for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
III.
SIXTH AMENDMENT
A.
The Right to the Assistance of Counsel - Guilt Determining/ Sentencing/
Revocation Proceedings
............................................................................................................................................................
2...........................................................................................................Betts v. Brady
(on the
3..............................................................................................Gideon v. Wainwright
p. 117 c
4............................................................................. United States v. Gonzales-Lopes
(on the
............................................................................................................................................................
5.
6......................................................................................................... Scott v. Illinois
p. 129 c
7................................................................................................... Baldasar v. Illinois
p. 131 c
............................................................................................................................................................
B.
1.
8.
9...........................................................................................Nichols v. United States
p. 132 c
10..................................................................................................... Coleman v. Ala.
p. 167 c
11...................................................................................................... Mempa v. Rhay
p. 167 c
12..................................................................................................... Hamilton v. Ala.
p. 168 c
13................................................................................................ Morissey v. Brewer
p. 168 c
14................................................................................................Gagnon v. Scarpelli
p. 168 c
Right to Counsel on Appeal – Appeal of Right
15.................................................................................................... Griffin v. Illinois
p. 139 c
16........................................................................................... Douglass v. California
p. 139 c
17................................................................. Ross v. Moffitt (Discretionary Appeal)
p. 140 c
36
C.
D.
Right to Counsel - Where the Penalty Is Only A Fine
18.......................................................................................Mayer v. City of Chicago
p. 158 c
19.................................................................................. United States v. MacCollom
p. 159 c
20.................................................................................................Williams v. Illinois
p. 161 c
21........................................................................................................... Tate v. Short
p. 161 c
22................................................................................................ Bearden v. Georgia
p. 162 c
Indigent Defendant's Right to An Expert
23................................................................................................... Ake v. Oklahoma
E.
p. 166 c
Effective Assistance of Counsel
............................................................................................................................................................
24.
............................................................................................................................................................
25.
............................................................................................................................................................
26.
............................................................................................................................................................
27.
F.
Multiple Representation
............................................................................................................................................................
29.................................................................................................. Cuyler v. Sullivan
G.
............................................................................................................................................................
p. 215 c
31.
32.....................................................................................................Morris v. Slappy
p. 238 c
33............................................................................................... Anders v. California
p. 238 c
34............................................................. McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
p. 238 c
35........................................................................................... Pennsylvania v. Finley
p. 239 c
36....................................................................................................... Penson v. Ohio
p. 238 c
Implications of Forfeiture Statutes
............................................................................................................................................................
I.
p 200 cb
Pro Se Representation
30............................................................................................... Faretta v. California
H.
28.
37.
The Right to Counsel at Lineups, Showups, & Photographic Arrays
............................................................................................................................................................
38.
39.....................................................................................................Stovall v. Denno
(on the
40............................................................................................ United States v. Wade
(on the
41...................................................................................................... Kirby v. Illinois
(on the
42...............................................................................................United States v. Ash
(on the
37
J.
The Due Process Approach - Revisited
............................................................................................................................................................
IV.
43.
ENTRAPMENT
A.
Scope of the Rule
............................................................................................................................................................
2........................................................................................... United States v. Russell
38
1.
p. 983 c