MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL OF LAW at ANDOVER
SYLLABUS FOR CRIMINAL PROCEDURE -Evening- Spring 2013
INSTRUCTOR:
Professor Alfred Puller
puller@mslaw.edu
978 681-0800, Extension 128
Text
Criminal Procedure and the Constitution. Israel, Kamisar, LaFave and King
(2012 Edition)
Class Times:
Tuesday & Thursday, 9:00 p.m. - 10:15 p.m.
Purpose
The purpose of this course is to have the apprentice attorney
Course Description develop an understanding of the application and the impact of the U.S.
& Goal
Constitution on the criminal justice system. This course focuses on the Bill
of Rights, the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights
intent was to define the relationship between the individual citizens and
the federal government and to limit the power of the central government
over the people, and protecting individual rights from government.
Our focus will be on the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth
Amendments of the Constitution, along with the “due process” clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. It is through the Fourteenth Amendment (a
Civil War/Reconstruction era amendment), that the Bill of Rights
protection of the people from the federal government is made applicable to
the states by “selectively incorporated.”
This area of law is morphing and changing constantly, reflecting
the changes in societal mores and attitudes as well as constant changes in
technology. We will examine the pivotal cases that have caused major
changes in criminal procedures, and the cases that raised issues or rights
that are “of the very essence of the scheme of the ordered liberty,” that
have been incorporated and made applicable to the states. We will also
look at the underlying cases that led up to those cases to give the
apprentice lawyer a greater insight into the principles and rational of the
evolving rules and procedures that are functioning today, and perhaps
insight into future evolution.
1
Our goal is to develop in our apprentice lawyers the skills and
abilities to successfully complete the bar examination, and ultimately, to
become ethical, public minded and highly competent practitioners.
Grading Criteria
You are required to attend and fully participate in each class, and to
that end you must come to class prepared. In order to prepare yourself it is
necessary that you read the cases for each day’s class and write your own
briefs of the cases. You are expected to discuss the findings, the rulings
and the court’s rational in deciding the assigned cases,.
We will examine multiple choice questions throughout the semester.
You will also write at least two short essays or quizzes on major topics in
Criminal Procedure and will have a mid term and a final examination.
Criminal Procedure -- The Rights, Rules And Remedies
That Govern The Criminal Justice Process.
January 22, 2013
An overview of the criminal justice process. Introduction to
the rights, rules and remedies governing the protections
afforded accused and suspect persons.
The 14th Amendment and the applicability of the
Bill of Rights to the states.
The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments to the
Constitution of the United States.
The Fundamental Rights (or Ordered Liberty) and
Incorporation theories.
The modern approach: The shift to Selective
Incorporation.
January 24, 2013
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145
(1968)
District Attorney’s Office v. Osbourne, 557 U.S.52 (2009)
Exclusionary Rule and protected areas of interest.
The 4th Amendment.
Wolfe v. Colorado, 388 U.S. 25 (1949)
2
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006)
January 29, 2013
Herring v. U.S., 555 U.S. 135 (2009)
Protected areas and interests.
Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 345 (1967)
California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988)
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)
+Kyllo v. U.S., 553 U.S. 27
(2001)
*U.S. v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945
(2012)
January 31, 2013
U.S. v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971)
Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978)
Probable Cause
Spinelli v. U.S., 393 U.S. 410 (1969)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983)
Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003)
Search Warrants
Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987)
February 5, 2013
Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997)
Warrantless Arrest & Searches of Person
U.S. v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976)
U.S. v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996)
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
February 7, 2013
Warrantless Seizure and Searches of Premises
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)
*Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849 (2012)
Warrantless Seizure and Searches of Vehicles and Effects
California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009)
California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 585 (1991)
3
February 12, 2013
Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999)
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987)
Lesser Intrusions: Stop and Frisk
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)
Illinois v.Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000)
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983)
February 14, 2013
U.S. v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002)
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007)
U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983)
Lesser Intrusions: Inspections and Regulatory Searches
Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006)
Consent Searches
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973)
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006)
February 19, 2013
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Police “Encouragement” & Defense of Entrapment
U.S. v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973)
Jacobson v. U.S., 503 U.S. 540 (1942)
Right to Appointed Counsel
Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942)
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
Alabama v. Shelton, 335 U.S. 654 (2002)
The “Beginnings” of Right to Counsel
Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 (2008)
February 21, 2013
Griffin-Douglas “Equality” Principle
Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963)
Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (1974)
Chapter 6
Due Process “Voluntariness” Test for Admitting Confessions
Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U.S. 143 (1944)
Confession Voluntariness Test via Right to Counsel
Massiah v. U.S., 377 U.S. 201 (1964)
4
Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964)
Court: Doctrine on Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
February 26, 2013
Custodial” Interrogation
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S.Ct. 2394 (2011)
What is “Interrogation” under Miranda?
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980)
Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990)
How is “Right to Remain Silent” be indicated under Miranda?
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S.Ct.2250 (2010)
Impact of lull in Interrogation after Invocation of Right
Maryland v. Shatzer, 130 S.Ct. 1213 (2010)
Police initiated interrogation of counselless charged ∆, who
has accepted appointment of counsel
Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009)
February 28, 2013
Questioning prompted by “public safety” concern
New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984)
Lack of Miranda: physical evidence impact; Initial failure,
impact on later admission after advising; “fruit of the
poisonous tree”
U.S. v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004)
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004)
Police questioning while failing to notify to notify party of
effort of lawyer to reach him
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986)
Miranda Reaffirmed
Dickerson v. U.S., 530 U.S. 428 (2000)
Compelled self-incrimination and the XIV Amend.
Chavez. v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003)
5
March 5, 2013
Mid-Term Exam
March 7, 2013
Revisit: Chavez (6th counsel) and Miranda ( 5th self-incrim)
Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977)
Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436 (1986)
Chapter 7
Eye witness Identification
U.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967)
Retreat from Kirby & Ash
Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972)
Due Process limitation
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1947)
*Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S.Ct. 716
(2012)
SPRING BREAK
March 19, 2013
Chapter 8
Intro Fourth Amend Limitations
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616 (1886)
U.S. v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973)
Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
U.S. v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564 (1976)
Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441 (1972)
Fisher v. U.S., 425 U.S. 391 (1976)
U.s. v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000)
March 21, 2013
Chapter 9
Pretrial Release
Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951)
U.S. v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987)
Chapter 10
Decision to Prosecute
U.S. v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996)
Selection of Charges
U.S. v.Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (1979)
U.S. v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (1982)
Prosecution Decision to Charge
6
March 26, 2013
Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (1970)
Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986)
Costello v. U.S., 350 U.S. 359 (1956)
Chapter 12
Speedy Trial and Other Speedy Dispositions
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972)
Doggett v. U.S., 505 U.S. 647 (1992)
U.S. v. Lavasco, 471 U.S. 783 (1977)
Chapter 13
Duty to Disclose
Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970)
March 28, 2013
U.S. v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985)
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S 39 (1987)
Chapter 14
Guilty Pleas
Pleas Bargaining
Bordenkircher v. Hays, 434 U.S. 357 (1978)
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971)
*Missouri v. Frye, 132 S.Ct. 1399, (2012)
U.S. v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002)
April 2, 2013
Requisites for valid Plea
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969)
Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (1936)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970)
Chapter 15
Trial by Jury
Right to Jury Trial
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)
Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538 (1989)
Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130 (1979)
April 4, 2013
Singer v. U.S., 380 U.S. 24 (1965)
Jury Selection
Carter v. Jury Selection, 396 U.S. 320 (1970)
Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975)
Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28 (1986)
Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)
7
April 9, 2013
J.E.B.v. Alabama ex rel.T.B., 511 U.S. 114 (1994)
Chapter 16
Fair Trial/Free Press
Skilling v. U.S., 130 S.Ct. 2896 (2010)
Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991)
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court [Press-Enterprise II],
478 U.S. 1 (1986)
Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981)
Chapter 17
The Role of Counsel
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
April 11, 2013
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)
*Harrington v. Richter, 131 S.Ct. 770
(2011)
*Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376
(2012)
Challenge to Special Settings/i.e. Counsel Conflict of Interest
Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002)
Wheat v. U.S., 486 U.S. 183 (1988)
April 16, 2013
Counsel Control vs. Client Control
Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004)
Right to Self-Representation
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)
Chapter 18
The Trial
Presence of Defendant
Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970)
Right of Confrontation and Compulsory Process
Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S.Ct. 1143 (2011)
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987)
April 18, 2013
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974)
Right of Defendant to Remain Silent or to Testify
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965)
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987)
Due Process Requirement
Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006)
Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478 (1978)
8
Darden v. Wainright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986)
April 23, 2013
Chapter 19
Retrials
The “Same Offense” Limitation
Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970)
U.S. v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993)
Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985)
Hudson v. U.S., 522 U.S. 93 (1997)
Aborted Proceedings
Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978)
April 25, 2013
Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982)
Prosecution Following Acquittals and Convictions
U.S. v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (1978)
Burks v. U.S., 437 U.S. 1 (1978)
Chapter 20
Sentencing Procedures
U.S. v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41 (1978)
April 30, 2013
Mitchell v. U.S., 526 U.S. 314 (1999)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)
McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987)
Graham v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2011 (2010)
May 2, 2013
Make Up/Review
+Central case new to 13th Edition, returned from prior Ed.
* New cases
R:\My Files\CrimProcedure\Syllabus.Spring2013.doc
9