Chapter 5c: Criminal Constitutional
Rights and Felony Procedure
Adam Crews and Daniel West and Joseph Higgins
I. The United States Constitution
The U.S. Constitution is the ultimate safeguard against arbitrary action by the
government. Thanks to the Constitution, every citizen is guaranteed a certain level of protection
when he or she is accused of a crime. These protections are called constitutional rights, and they
can be divided into liberty rights, protections from government action, and civil rights,
guarantees of equality. This chapter will explore the nature of these rights and how they apply to
criminal law. We will begin with a look at the Constitution and the amendments that protect you,
and then we will see these protections in action as we take a look at felony procedure.
After the Constitution was written and ready for ratification, a vocal faction of dissenters
stepped forward with a major complaint: as it was written, the Constitution had no safeguards
against abusive governmental action. Any document containing the law of the land, they argued,
must also include a declaration of rights that would protect ordinary citizens. Frightened by the
possibility that the Constitution might fail ratification without such a declaration, proponents of
the Constitution vowed to draft a list of amendments at the First Congress that would affirm the
basic rights each citizen had against his and her government. This declaration took the form of
the first ten amendments to the constitution, collectively referred to as The Bill of Rights. Of
these ten amendments, four are of great importance in matters of criminal law: the Fourth, Fifth,
Sixth, and Eighth. In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment, passed in the wake of the Civil War,
will also play a major role in felony procedure.
A. Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Chapter 5c: Criminal Constitutional Rights and Felony Procedure
Page 1
The Fourth Amendment plays a major role in how the
government must act before the trial. This amendment
guarantees a certain level of privacy to every citizen – unless
there is probable cause of wrongdoing, meaning a reasonable
belief that criminal action has occurred, the government cannot
invade a citizen’s home and personal effects, seize any evidence,
or make an arrest. In order for any search or seizure to occur, a
warrant limiting the scope of where is to be searched and what is
to be seized must be signed by a judge or magistrate based on
sworn information provided by a law enforcement officer.
Exceptions to the warrant rule include, but are not limited to, the
right of law enforcement officials to seize items in plain view if
there is probable cause they are illegal and to search and to seize
items in open fields.
Prominent Fourth
Amendment Supreme
Court Cases
1914: Weeks v. United
States establishes the
exclusionary rule.
1961: Mapp v. Ohio
extends the exclusionary
rule to state court
proceedings.
1967: Katz v. United States
establishes that a person’s
reasonable expectation of
privacy can only be
violated with a valid
warrant.
One of the most important aspects of the Fourth
Amendment is the exclusionary rule. Established by the
Supreme Court, the exclusionary rule holds that evidence that is
seized in an unconstitutional search is inadmissible in court.
This places a check on law enforcement officers to follow proper legal protocol when executing
their power, but it also leaves open the possibility that blatantly guilty people can go free on a
B. Amendment V
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
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.
technicality.
The Fifth Amendment establishes four clear rights for citizens: the right to a Grand Jury
in federal proceedings, the protection of Double Jeopardy, the right against self-incrimination,
and the protection of property rights.
First, we will examine the differences between a Grand Jury and a standard trial jury. No
federal felony charges can proceed unless a Grand Jury issues an indictment, meaning the jury
finds that there is probable cause that the accused committed the crime. In state felony cases,
however, Grand Juries are entirely optional. Also, Grand Juries are not necessary for federal
misdemeanor charges. Grand Juries are traditionally larger than the trial juries that hear trial
Chapter 5c: Criminal Constitutional Rights and Felony Procedure
Page 2
Prominent Fifth Amendment
Supreme Court Cases
1884: In Hurtado v. California the
Supreme Court holds that state
felony proceedings do not require
Grand Juries.
1962: Fong Foo v. United States
establishes that prosecutors cannot
appeal an acquittal.
cases. At the Grand Jury hearing, the prosecutor
presents the jury with the evidence he or she has
accumulated for the trial, and the jury must merely
decide whether there is enough evidence (probable
cause) for a trial to commence. The hearing is in
secret and the potential defendant is not present.
If there is enough evidence, an indictment is
issued; if not, a no bill is issued. At the state level,
grand juries are optional and not constitutionally
required.
Second, the Fifth Amendment establishes the
Double Jeopardy rule, which dictates that no
person can be tried twice for the same offense.
However, there are exceptions to this rule. If the
crime is both a violation of federal and state law,
the accused can be tried in both federal and state
court. Also, if a mistrial is declared, the accused
1965: In Griffin v. California the
Supreme Court holds that
can be put on trial again. Finally, once convicted,
exercising the right to silence
one can waive the right to Double Jeopardy and
cannot be used as an inference of
appeal the decision to a higher court, in hopes that
guilt.
the decision will be reversed and remanded back
to the lower
court for a new
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
trial.
From the opinion by Earl Warren:
Third, the right against self-incrimination means that no
“The person in custody must, prior to
interrogation, be clearly informed that he
person can be forced to testify against him or herself at any
has the right to remain silent, and that
time throughout the criminal proceedings, including at the
anything he says will be used against him
time of arrest, during any hearings, at the indictment, and
in court; he must be clearly informed that
even in the trial court. Once again, there are exceptions. If the
he has the right to consult with a lawyer
defendant chooses to testify he or she can waive the right to
and to have the lawyer with him during
silence. Corporations, which are legal entities that have the
interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a
lawyer will be appointed to represent
rights of individuals, do not posses this Fifth Amendment
him.”
right. Finally, there is immunity, which is offered by a
prosecutor and allows a person to testify without
repercussion. Transactional immunity allows a person to
testify and not be charged based on his or her admission, and use immunity allows a person to
testify and not have his or her testimony used against him or her, although he or she can still be
charged based on other evidence
1964: Malloy v. Hogan holds that
the right against self-incrimination
applies in federal and state courts
and in criminal and civil
proceedings.
Chapter 5c: Criminal Constitutional Rights and Felony Procedure
Page 3
Additionally, you may notice that this amendment refers to due process. This will be
discussed in the section on the Fourteenth Amendment.
C. Amendment VI
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 assistance of counsel for his defense.
The Sixth Amendment, much like the Fifth, ensures multiple rights that must be upheld
during the trial. The Sixth Amendment dictates the manner in which the trial is to be conducted,
ensures the right to a jury, and establishes several rights intended to assist the defendant.
First, we will explore the section dictating the nature of the trial itself. The amendment
proclaims that all criminal trials must be speedy and public, but on the surface these terms are
rather vague. The Supreme Court has, however, determined what constitutes “speedy” and
“public.” In Barker v. Wingo 407 U.S. 514 (1972), the court established a four-part rule for
determining whether a trial was sufficiently speedy. Although not setting a specific time limit,
the Court did establish that a delay of more than one year from the arrest or indictment
(whichever comes first) would make the case prejudiced against the defendant. The other three
factors are that the prosecution cannot delay the trial for its own advantage, that the defense
cannot delay the trial and then claim that it was unduly delayed, and that courts must weigh how
much prejudice arose against the defendant from the delay. On the matter of being public, the
Court has ruled that this right is not unconditional and can be restricted if publicity would
undermine due process.
All criminally accused are also entitled to a trial by jury. The Supreme Court has
established that, for federal felonies, defendants who are on trial for crimes for which the
punishment exceeds six months of imprisonment have the right to a panel of his or her peers. In
state and federal courts, twelve people are the standard, but this can be negotiated down to six
(anything less than six jurors, however, would violate the right). The Sixth Amendment further
requires juries to be impartial. In order to ensure that no jurors have a bias, the attorneys use a
process known as voir dire, in which both parties are allowed to interrogate potential jurors and
then select who will sit on the actual jury.
Chapter 5c: Criminal Constitutional Rights and Felony Procedure
Page 4
The other rights held in this amendment extend to what the defendant is allowed to know.
First, the defendant has the right to be informed of the accusations against him or her; in order to
fulfill this, the indictment must include very specific charges, eliminating any possibility of the
defendant being charged with the same offenses twice. The next section, the Confrontation
Clause, allows all defendants to cross-examine and question any testimony, witness, or physical
evidence presented at trial. In addition, it allows all defendants to present evidence and witnesses
for their defense. Finally, the Sixth Amendment assures that right to legal counsel (if jail time is
possible) from the moment judicial proceedings commence, which the Supreme Court has
established as being at the time of arrest. (See the story on John Adams at the end of the chapter.)
Justice Antonin Scalia on the Sixth Amendment
"[T]he judge's authority to sentence derives wholly from the jury's verdict. Without that restriction,
the jury would not exercise the control that the Framers intended." (Blakely v. Washington, 2004)
“The right to jury trial is fundamental to our system of criminal procedure, and States are bound to
enforce the Sixth Amendment's guarantees as we interpret them. But it does not follow that, when a
criminal defendant has had a full trial and one round of appeals in which the State faithfully applied
the Constitution as we understood it at the time, he may nevertheless continue to litigate his claims
indefinitely in hopes that we will one day have a change of heart.” (Schriro v. Summerlin, 2004)
“The screen at issue was specifically designed to enable the complaining witnesses to avoid viewing
appellant as they gave their testimony, and the record indicates that it was successful in this
objective... It is difficult to imagine a more obvious or damaging violation of the defendant's right to
a face-to-face encounter.” (Coy v. Iowa, 1988)
D. Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted.
The Eighth Amendment deals with the rights of defendants after the trial, dealing
specifically with what is or is not a fair and legal punishment. Supreme Court case law
essentially condenses the amendment down to the following: some punishments are always
Chapter 5c: Criminal Constitutional Rights and Felony Procedure
Page 5
illegal, and other punishments can be illegal due to the
nature of the crime for which they were imposed or due to
the mental capacity of the defendant. The simplest part of
the amendment is the part dealing with bails and fines.
The Excessive Bail Clause basically asserts that no bail
amount can be excessive, although the Supreme Court
does allow excessive bail to be used as a preventive
measure to prevent a flight risk from fleeing or to keep an
exceptionally dangerous person in jail.
According to William Brennan in his
opinion from Furman v. Georgia, 408
U.S. 238 (1972), a severe punishment
is cruel and unusual if it meets each of
the following standards




Degrades human dignity
Is inflicted arbitrarily
Is clearly and totally rejected
throughout society
Is patently unnecessary
The Supreme Court has explicitly forbidden some
actions under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, including painful methods of
execution (e.g. burning alive and public dissecting), executing the mentally handicapped, and
executing minors. The Supreme Court has a specific set of standards that constitute what makes a
punishment cruel and unusual. In addition, the Court generally adheres to a principle of “the
evolving standards of decency,” which comes from Earl Warren’s opinion in Trop v. Dulles, 356
U.S. 86 (1958). This guideline states that the Court should look to evolving societal standards
when deciding what punishments violate the Eighth Amendment. Although the death penalty is
currently legal, some Supreme Court justices, most notably John Stevens, have expressed their
personal opinion that it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
E. Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Fourteenth Amendment has played an increasingly important role in judicial
proceeding within the United States. This chapter will emphasize Section 1, which bears the
most importance in felony procedure. This section aims to protect the civil rights of all United
States citizens.
The Due Process Clause is a major aspect of criminal law (recall that the Fifth
Amendment refers to the right of due process as well). Due process of law is the principle that all
citizens are entitled to the full legal rights and protection ensured to them under the law of the
land. Due process can be divided into two categories. In criminal law, substantive due process
refers to the right to know exactly what action is prohibited. Procedural due process refers to the
right to be notified of charges and receive a fair trial to determine guilt. Due process limits the
actions of all three branches of government, as it requires the legislators to explicitly state what
Chapter 5c: Criminal Constitutional Rights and Felony Procedure
Page 6
makes an act illegal, requires the executive to follow legal standards when investigating and
arresting, and requires judicial officers to ensure fair trials are conducted. Using the Due Process
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore 517 U.S. 559 (1996)
Ira Gore purchased a new BMW, later to discover that it had been repainted before
purchase to hide damages. BMW revealed that its policy is to sell damaged cars as new if
the damage can be fixed for less than 3% of the car’s cost. Gore sued, and an Alabama jury
awarded him $4,000 in compensation and $4 million in punitive damages. The Alabama
Supreme Court reduced the punitive damages to $2 million. BMW appealed to the
Supreme Court, arguing that excessive punitive damages violate due process.
Majority Opinion by Justice
Stevens
“The fact that BMW is…an active
participant in the national economy
implicates the federal interest in
preventing individual States from
imposing undue burdens on interstate
commerce. While each State has
ample power to protect its own
consumers, none may use the
punitive damages deterrent as a
means of imposing its regulatory
policies on the entire Nation…[W]e
are fully convinced that the grossly
excessive award imposed in this case
transcends the constitutional limit.”
Clause, the Supreme Court has forced the individual states to
respect the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights through a
process called incorporation. Some rights remain
unincorporated; for example, recall that states do not need
Grand Jury indictments in order to proceed with criminal
charges even though the Fifth
Amendment guarantees this
right – this is because the
Supreme Court has not
incorporated this right at the
state level.
This section also includes a
provision
about
equal
protection. Under this clause,
all citizens must be regarded
as equal by the government,
thus ensuring that the civil
rights of persons are upheld.
In this case, the Supreme
Court ruled in favor of
BMW, finding that, in
arriving at the punitive
damage amount, the jury
erred in applying substantive
law. Stevens asserted that it
Chapter 5c: Criminal Constitutional Rights and Felony Procedure
Dissent by Justice Ginsburg
“The Court, I am convinced,
unnecessarily and unwisely ventures
into territory traditionally within the
States' domain, and does so in the
face of reform measures recently
adopted or currently under
consideration in legislative
arenas…The Court's readiness to
superintend state court punitive
damages awards is all the more
puzzling in view of the Court's
longstanding reluctance to
countenance review, even by courts
of appeals, of the size of verdicts
returned by juries in federal district
court proceedings.”
Page 7
was a violation of due process for a state to impose large punitive awards in order to change a
practice of a national corporation. In dissenting, Ginsburg argued that the action of the court
violated federalist principles by undermining state authority.
II. Federal Felony Procedure
Having reviewed the rights guaranteed to all citizens in criminal matters, we can now
look at what actually happens at a criminal trial.
A. Pre-Trial
Once a crime is committed and law enforcement has probable cause to believe that a
certain individual committed that crime, the officers must obtain an arrest warrant from a judge
or magistrate. Once this document is obtained, the officers can make the arrest, meaning they can
detain the suspect and bring them to jail for further proceedings. Once at the jail, the suspect is
booked, a process in which information about the suspect and the arrest are entered into police
records. The arresting officer then files a report detailing what events transpired at the arrest, and
finally a complaint indentifying the accused suspect and detailing the alleged criminal violations
is filed.
Shortly after the arrest, the accused receives an initial hearing at which he or she is fully
informed of all charges against him or her. The most important aspect of this hearing is the
determination of bail. If the prosecutor feels that it is necessary to set bail in order to prevent the
accused from fleeing or committing more crimes, he must persuade the judge to set bail at a
sufficient amount. In some cases, there is no bail because the accused is not deemed a flight risk
or a threat to society.
In federal felony proceedings, the next step is for the prosecutor to secure an indictment
from a Grand Jury, as discussed earlier. The prosecutor must prove that he or she has probable
cause to continue judicial proceedings against the accused. In state felony cases, where Grand
Juries are optional, the prosecutor may simply be able to file a complaint against the accused, at
which point a preliminary hearing will occur, where the prosecutor must convince a judge that
there is enough evidence to proceed.
Once the indictment is filed, an arraignment is scheduled. At this hearing, the defendant
is fully informed of all charges in the indictment and a plea is entered. The defendant can plead
guilty, meaning he or she admits to the charges; not guilty, meaning he or she denies the charges;
not guilty by reason of insanity, meaning he or she admits to committing the crime but argues
that it was due to extreme mental factors that caused him or her to lose control or not recognize
the wrongness of the action; or nolo contendere (no contest), meaning he or she denies
committing the crime but accepts that there is enough evidence upon which to be convicted. One
advantage of a nolo contendere plea is that if the defendant is sued by a victim in a civil case, it
Chapter 5c: Criminal Constitutional Rights and Felony Procedure
Page 8
will not be taken as a given that the defendant committed the act; the plaintiff will have to prove
it. If a guilty or no contest plea is entered, the court will proceed to sentencing. If a not guilty
plea is entered, the defendant can elect to receive a jury trial or a bench trial, in which the judge
will determine guilt or innocence.
If a trial is to occur, the next step is discovery, which is usually a rather brief process in
felony proceedings. During discovery, both sides can obtain depositions, conduct an examination
of the physical evidence, and seek admissions, in which both parties agree to certain facts so that
they do not have to be contested at trial. Depositions are written transcripts typed by a court
official of oral interrogations conducted on witnesses who are unable to be present at trial.
After discovery, the jury is selected by the process of voir dire, which was discussed
briefly in the section on the Sixth Amendment. This process allows potentially biased jurors to
be eliminated from consideration, and it allows attorneys for both sides to eliminate a certain
number of jurors who they feel might not be responsive to their arguments.
B. Trial
Once the jury is selected, the trial begins with opening arguments from both sides, in
which each party spells out what he or she intends to prove. The trial then moves on to the
prosecution’s case in chief, in which physical evidence is submitted and witnesses are
questioned. During the interrogation, the prosecution first asks its questions, then the defense
asks questions in a cross examination. After the cross examination, the prosecution confronts the
witness again in a redirect, in which only issues from the cross examination can be addressed,
and finally the defense may be allowed to re-cross and address issues presented in the redirect.
When the prosecution rests its case, the defense can request a directed verdict, meaning the judge
will automatically acquit the defendant because the prosecution failed to present an adequate
case. A directed verdict is incredibly rare, however. The trial then continues with the defense’s
case in chief, which happens exactly like the prosecution’s case only with the defense going first.
Once the defense rests its case, either side can request a directed verdict. The final part of the
trial is the closing arguments, in which both sides summarize their cases and usually utilize
emotional appeals to win over the jury. At this point, the judge will issue jury instructions to
clearly spell out the issues of fact for the jury to decide upon. The jury then convenes to evaluate
the evidence and determine the facts. In felony proceedings, the prosecution has the burden of
proof. This means the prosecution must have evidence sufficient to convince the jury of the
defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
C. Verdict and Post-Trial
If the prosecution fails to convince the entire jury of the defendant’s guilt, the jury is
considered hung and a mistrial is declared, which usually means a new trial will take place if the
prosecution wishes to pursue another case. If the jury finds the defendant not guilty, he or she is
Chapter 5c: Criminal Constitutional Rights and Felony Procedure
Page 9
free and the prosecution cannot appeal. If the jury delivers a guilty verdict, sentencing will occur.
Usually the defense will motion for a new trial on the grounds of some error committed during
the proceedings or will appeal the verdict to a higher court in hopes that some error occurred that
can invalidate the trial.
To Continue our story from the forward:
Our second President, John Adams, was a lawyer by trade (as well as a farmer). Prior to the
revolution, he rode the Massachusetts Circuit under British law and was described as the best
and most honest lawyer in the area. Sometimes a lawyer will have to do unpopular things.
Adams represented the British soldiers who killed members of what was essentially a mob at
the “Boston Massacre.” This event was widely portrayed as an act of British cruelty. Those
in the colonies came to hate the British. Paul Revere circulated a picture of a defenseless
crowd who were shot by the British soldiers. The crowd had a right to be angry at the
British but the mob action of throwing stones and beating up British soldiers was probably
not justified. Adams knew it would hurt his law trade but he was asked to represent the
British soldiers who were on trial for murder. Adams at this time knew that the colonists
would have to break with the British (seek independence). But he also knew that no other
lawyer would represent the British soldier, and he also believed that every defendant in court
deserved a lawyer to represent that defendant. This belief is now part of the Sixth
Amendment that every defendant that is charged with a serious crime should have the right
of representation by a lawyer, and, if the person is poor, the lawyer will be paid by the
government.
(By the way Adams convinced the jury (made up of colonists) to find the soldiers not guilty
on all but a few minor counts. He told the jury that “Facts are hard things”—that is that the
jury should not act on their emotion but the facts that were presented at trial. )
After the Revolutionary War, when Washington declined a third term, Adams was elected
President in 1796. Thomas Jefferson was then Adam’s Vice-President even though the two
of them had become bitter enemies politically. Adams was for a strong federal government,
while Jefferson for a weaker one to protect the rights of individuals and states. Jefferson
barely beat Adams in the election of 1800. They remained enemies for another decade. But
after Jefferson retired, they eventually reconciled despite their political differences and
became good friends again. They exchanged many letters--with Adams in Massachusetts
and Jefferson in Virginia. On the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July
4, 1826, Adams and Jefferson died the same day. (Some thought this was an act of God as a
sign of approval of the American enterprise.) Adams’ last words were, “Jefferson lives.”
Adams was wrong. Jefferson had died in Virginia several hours earlier.
This can happen in law, academics, and in other areas. It is not unusual for two lawyers who
fight it out in court can after the trial might go to a local “establishment,” being friends
again.
Chapter 5c: Criminal Constitutional Rights and Felony Procedure
Page 10
Famous American Cases: The Trial of Lizzie Borden – Matt Garcia and John Weedin
Background
On August 4th, 1892 a double murder occurred in Fall River, Massachusetts. Lizzie Borden was
the first to the scene discovering her father, face ripped apart from blows to the face. The mother
was discovered on the second-floor, and when she was discovered her body was cold therefore
had been killed some time before the father. They decided it was at least 90 minutes earlier.
Some unexplainable things from the beginning were the fact that the scenes were quite gory but
yet there was no blood splatter or really any blood in the area. A few weeks after the murders
and after the stories had been in the news was when things started to point towards the daughter
Lizzie Borden as the possible murderer. A local drug store clerk reported that the day before the
murders she came to the drug store trying to buy a small amount of poison. There were also
mixed opinions on the relationship between Lizzie and her step-mother, some thought that there
was a strong dislike while others were convinced it was all normal. Also the police came out
with a report that the murder must have been done by someone within the house, and Lizzie’s
alibi that morning was confusing to most, she claimed to be outside in the barn looking for
something during the time that the murders occurred. The final thing that brought about
questioning was the fact that she decided to burn her dress on the day of the murders, she
claimed that she needed to burn it because it was old and covered in paint.
The Trial
The case started uniquely when the prosecutor threw the skulls of the parents of the table. This
of course was startling and caused Lizzie to feint, this brought discomfort to all the people in the
court room. Many of the testimonies put Lizzie at the scene of the crime. Many people claimed
that she was at the house at about the time that everything went down. Also testimonies talked
of the strong relationship that Lizzie and her step-mother had. And then the reverse came out
when a dress maker claimed that Lizzie had talked about how the mother was “a mean good for
nothing thing.” The next testimonies where not personal testimonies they were the doctors and
people who investigated the scene. Dr. Seabury Bowen came to the house the day of the
murders and remembered hearing Lizzie’s story about her searching for lead sinkers in the back
barn. He also talked of the morphine that he prescribes to Lizzie and how being on morphine
could have lead her to be confused and out of it. A neighbor recalls Lizzie wearing a blue dress
on the day of the murders, (same color of the one she burned that day). That same neighbor told
of the conversation she had with Lizzie the morning of the murders, the neighbor called Lizzie’s
step-mother her mother and Lizzie was quick to correct her and say that it was her step
mother not her mother.
The defense’s witnesses were mostly experts on murder and they suggested of the complex task
of committing two murders and washing all the blood of clothes, tools, and self in such a short
period of time. A decisive moment in the case was when the defense brought about the fact that
Lizzie was unaware of her rights when she was first brought into question and that she did not
know her Fifth Amendment rights.
The Decision
After all the evidence was given it was time for the juror to decide the fate of Lizzie Borden, the
decision was “not guilty;” and that was all the juror said about the decision. It was later talked
about and there was no conclusive evidence that it was her that committed the murders.
Chapter 5c: Criminal Constitutional Rights and Felony Procedure
Page 11
The Result: A famous poem about the case resulted:
Lizzie Borden took an axe
And gave her mother forty whacks.
And when she saw what she had done,
She gave her father forty-one
Chapter 5c: Criminal Constitutional Rights and Felony Procedure
Page 12
The Trial of John W. Hinckley, Jr.
The trial of John Hinckley is very important because it lead many people to rethink the
insanity defense. John Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan on the
afternoon of March 30, 1981 at the Washington Hilton. With dozens of witnesses and the
shootings captured on videotape, the court knew as well as John Hinckley's own defense lawyer,
Vince Fuller, that the only possible defense was the insanity defense. Hinckley was charged
with attempted assassination along with thirteen other crimes.
Hinckley said that the sole purpose of the attempted assassination on the president was to
impress a girl. The girl was Jodie Foster, and she had no idea who John Hinckley actually was.
Hinckley would always send letters to Foster confessing his love for her, but he never met her in
person. He wrote Foster a note a few hours before the assassination attempt on the president. In
the letter he said he could not wait any longer to impress her (Foster). He figured Foster would
be impressed by him risking his life to assassinate the president.
Right away, the obvious was established in the case: a shooting had occurred and that
Hinckley had done the shooting. Some of the early prosecution witnesses included two of the
victims, police officer Thomas Delehanty and secret service agent Timothy McCarthy. Roger
Adelman, a prosecutor in the case, attempted to show pre meditation by showing a video with
Hinckley’s face in a crowd at a Carter campaign rally. Adelman also found an attendant who
testified that Hinckley was at a Colorado rifle range for target practice in late 1980. The
prosecution rested its formal case and the insanity trial began.
The trial opened with questions about John Hinckley’s childhood. Assistant U. S.
Attorney Robert Chapman tried to prove that Hinckley couldn’t have been too sick or his parents
would have noticed at some point. Chapman wanted to know why Hinckley’s mother told his
psychiatrist that “things are fine” just months before the shooting. Then came a point in the trial
where there was a video tape of Jodie Foster being questioned about John Hinckley.
Jodie Foster’s answers were definitely in favor of John Hinckley being legally insane.
Some of the questions were if she had ever seen him or responded to any of his letters. Jodie
Foster declared that she did not have any sort of relationship with John Hinckley. There were
also tapes of short phone conversations between Hinckley and Foster. Most of the tapes ended
with Foster saying something along the lines of I’m not going to talk to someone I don’t know.
The lead psychiatric expert for John Hinckley was Dr. William Carpenter. Carpenter
concluded that Hinckley suffered from schizophrenia. He said Hinckley had four major
symptoms of mental illness: “an in capacity to have an ordinary emotional arousal,” “autistic
retreat from reality," depression including "suicidal features," and an inability to work or
establish social bonds.
The decision came in after three days of deliberation from the jury. The verdict was Not
Guilty by Reason of Insanity for all thirteen counts. Within a month of the Hinckley verdict, the
House and Senate were holding hearings on the insanity defense. Within three years after the
verdict, two-thirds of the states placed the burden on the defense to prove insanity, while eight
states adopted a separate verdict of “guilty but mentally ill,” and Utah got rid of the defense all
together. After 1984, a federal defendant has had to prove that the severe mental disease made
him “unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts.”
Source: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleyaccount.html
Chapter 5c: Criminal Constitutional Rights and Felony Procedure
Page 13