Chapter Two
IMPORTANT
ASPECTS OF
THE
AMERICAN
CRIMINAL
JUSTICE
SYSTEM
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Learning Objectives
 Know the meaning of federalism as it applies to criminal justice.
 Identify the constitutional basis for the exercise of federal criminal
jurisdiction.
 Identify the limits of federal criminal jurisdiction under the Interstate
Commerce Clause.
 Know the meaning of reliable, relevant, and competent evidence.
 List some differences between accusatorial and inquisitional systems.
 State the requirements of the Brady rule.
 State the requirements of the U.S. Supreme Court’s rule for lost or
destroyed evidence.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Federalism in the United States
 The United States uses a form of
government called federalism, which was
first presented at the 1787 Constitutional
Convention in Philadelphia.
 Federalism means that the central
government has the power and authority to
handle national problems, and the states
have the power to regulate local needs and
problems.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Federalism in the United States
 Federalism allows for diversity and
flexibility at state and local levels of
government.
 States are primarily responsible for public
safety and can enact laws they believe are
most effective in providing for public order
and an efficient, effective criminal justice
system.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Federalism and the Law of Evidence
 The powers of the U.S. Congress, the
President, and the U.S. Supreme Court are
limited to those powers granted in the
Constitution.
 Each state is sovereign, and the officials of
each state have the powers granted to them
by the Constitution of that state.
 Each
state has its own criminal codes and codes
of criminal procedure and evidence.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Federalism and the Law of Evidence
 State codes and the ruling of state courts
must conform to the requirements of the
U.S. Constitution.
 State
laws and state court rulings may provide
additional rights.
 The Federal Rules of Evidence were
enacted in 1975 by Congress.
 Most
states have adopted rules of evidence
almost identical to the federal rules.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Federalism and the Law of Evidence
 Each state retains the power to interpret and
modify the rules of evidence.
 The meaning and application of the federal
rules of evidence can vary between federal
courts and state courts.
 The federal rules of evidence and most state
rules of evidence apply in both civil and
criminal trials.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Tenth Amendment and Individual Rights
 The Tenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution states that powers not
delegated to the United States are reserved
to the states or the people.
 This
distinction reinforces the basic concept of
federalism.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
 Defendant argued that her actions
Bond v.
U.S.
131 S. Ct.
2355 (2011)
were totally local in nature and
thus were reserved to the states or
the people under the Tenth
Amendment.
 The Court of Appeals held that the
defendant could not raise the
Tenth Amendment as a defense.
 The Supreme Court disagreed,
holding that in proper
circumstances, one can claim the
federal statute violated the Tenth
Amendment.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
State and Federal Jurisdiction Over
Crimes in the United States
 Most crimes committed in the United States
are violations of state criminal codes.
 Some crimes are federal offenses in violation
of the federal criminal code.
A
small percentage of criminal offenses are
violations of both the federal criminal code and a
state criminal code.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
State and Federal Jurisdiction Over
Crimes in the United States
 The U.S. Constitution does not grant the
federal government a general police power,
nor has there ever been federal criminal
common law.
 Common
law is the set of unwritten legal rules
that have been developed over many years by
courts and judges.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
State and Federal Jurisdiction Over
Crimes in the United States
 All federal crimes have to be statutory
crimes enacted by Congress.
 States have general police power to regulate
in providing for domestic tranquility.
 Criminal codes and rules of evidence are
enacted by state legislatures and are found
in the codified laws of each state.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
State and Federal Jurisdiction Over
Crimes in the United States
 Criminal laws may be enacted by the federal
government in the following areas:
 To
protect itself, its officials and employees, its
property, and the administration of its
authorized functions;
 To regulate interstate and foreign commerce;
 To protect civil rights; and
 To enact criminal laws for places beyond the
jurisdiction of any state.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
State and Federal Jurisdiction Over
Crimes in the United States
 Congress may pass criminal laws under the
Commerce Clause only if a prohibited
activity:
 Uses
the “channels” of interstate commerce, e.g.,
by taking place in more than one state;
 Uses the “instrumentalities” of interstate
commerce, e.g., telephone lines or the postal
service; or
 Has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
 Users and growers of medical
Gonzales
v. Raich
125 S. Ct.
2195 (2005)
marijuana brought an action to
declare the federal Controlled
Substances Act unconstitutional.
 The U.S. Supreme Court held
that the Commerce Clause
permits Congress to regulate
local marijuana production
because the activity
“substantially affects” interstate
commerce.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
State and Federal Jurisdiction Over
Crimes in the United States
 The Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. §
2250(a), requires convicted sex offenders to
register in the states where they live and to
which they travel.
 Offenders who failed to register in another
state when traveling often filed federal suits
claiming that Congress lacked the power to
pass SORNA laws.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
United
States v.
Kebodeaux
133 S. Ct.
2496 (2013)
 A former military serviceman
was convicted of failing to
register under SORNA based on
a conviction of a sex offense
while in the service.
 The court held that Congress has
the power to enact SORNA
under the Necessary and Proper
Clause.

©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
This clause authorizes Congress to
pass laws necessary to obtain the
object of permissible legislation.
Law Enforcement in the American
Federal System
 In the United States, there are more than 17,000
law enforcement agencies.
 Most are at the local levels of government (city,
counties, towns, etc.).

Local law enforcement agencies enforce city and county
ordinances in addition to the criminal laws of their states.
 State rules of evidence are used in both municipal
and state courts.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Law Enforcement in the American
Federal System
 Law enforcement agencies working at the
state level of government are generally
created by state law to enforce state criminal
laws or to enforce hunting, fishing, health,
sanitation, fire, and other state codes.
 Federal law enforcement officers work with
federal law agencies created by Congress to
enforce specific laws assigned to their
agencies.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Estimates of Reported Crimes in the United
States
Not For Sale
32
Part 1 Introduction to Criminal Evidence
Crimes directly discovered
by law officers are
estimated at 6%
Crimes reported
by witnesses
Unreported crimes
a
Over 50% of crimes are estimated to
be unreported. The estimated number
of violent crimes committed in 2012
was 7,679,050, and the estimated
number of serious property crimes was
19,792,450. (See NCJ 243389
(October 2013).
©2016 Cengage Learning.
All Rights Reserved.
Figure 2.1 | Estimates of Reported Crimes in the United States
l Rights Reserved. This content is not yet finl and Ce ngage Le ar ni ng
ill contain current material or match the published product.
Crimes reported
by victims
Courts and Trials in the United States
 Federal and state courts.
 These
courts handle about 95 percent of all
criminal trials in the United States.
 Military courts.
 These
courts are for members of the U.S. Armed
Forces.
 Military commissions.
 These
courts were established in 2004 for
“enemy combatants” held by the U.S. military.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
33
THEAMERICANADVERSARYSYSTEM
The
American Adversary System
adversary system The
judicial system in which
opposing parties present
evidence, and an
impartial judge or jury
weighs the evidence;
contrasts with the
inquisitorial system,
where the judge actively
questions the accused
and witnesses.
In the American court system, the function of a criminal trial is to provide a venue
for determining the facts upon which the guilt or innocence of the accused is based.
The main actors at the trial are the judge, the jury, the prosecutor, and the
defense attorney. Each has a well-defined role to play in the trial. In the American
adversary system , the prosecutor and the defense attorney assume adversarial roles;
that is, they do not seek to establish the facts in cooperation with each other, but in
opposition. Each side has two goals: to present the facts most advantageous to their
position, and to seek to prevent and make it difficult for their opponent to do the
same. (See Figure 2.2.)
The trial judge:
In a trial by jury, the jury:
•
•
•
•
• alone, determines weight to be given
to evidence
• alone, determines issues of fact
including guilt or innocence
presides over the courtroom
determines questions of law
if no jury, determines questions of fact
safeguards “both the rights of accused
and the interests of the public . . .”
a
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
Chapter 2 Important Aspectsof the American Criminal Justice System
Presentation of witnesses and
evidence during the trial
The defense lawyer is an adversar y
Adversaries
whose duty “is to represent his or
her client (defendant) zealously
within the bounds of the law.”
Defense witnesses and
defense evidence
2.2Reserved.
| The American Adversary System
©2016 Cengage Learning. AllFigure
Rights
The prosecutor is an adversary
whose obligation is to “seek
justice, not merely to convict.”
Witnesses and evidence
available to the state
N ote: In most civil and criminal jury trials, the names and addresses of jurors are available from
public records for people with the interest and knowledge of how to go about obtaining them.
The American Adversary System
 The function of the criminal trial within the
American court system is to provide a venue for
determining the facts upon which the guilt or
innocence of the accused is based.

The main actors in the courtroom are the judge, the jury,
the prosecutor, and the defense attorney.
 In the American adversary system, the
prosecutor and the defense attorney seek to
establish the facts in opposition to each other.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
The American Adversary System
 During a trial, both the prosecutor and the defense
attorney have two main goals:


To present the facts that are the most advantageous to their
position, and
To make it difficult for their opponent to do the same.
 The prosecutor attempts to prove his or her case
“beyond a reasonable doubt by an unanimous jury.”
 The defense attorney’s duty is to represent his or her
client “zealously within the bounds of the law.”
 The judge and jury come to the trial uncommitted.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
The American Adversary System
 Witness testimony and physical evidence are
presented within the framework of the rules of
evidence and court procedure.
 Witnesses are questioned by each side and
evidence admitted during the trial can be
challenged.
 The trial judge presides neutrally over the trial and
is responsible for safeguarding both the rights of
the accused and the interests of the public.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
The American Adversary System
 The function of the jury is to determine the
truth.
 The rules of evidence are in place to ensure
that the evidence presented to the jury by
both adversaries is relevant, reliable, and
competent.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Relevant, Reliable, and Competent Evidence
 The prosecution and the defense seek to
present the facts that are most advantageous
to its position.
 Evidence that is not relevant, not reliable, or
not competent is not admissible and cannot
be used in trial.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Relevant Evidence
 Relevant evidence is direct or circumstantial
evidence that has a tendency to make a material
issue before the court more or less probable.
 Rule 403 allows for relevant evidence to be
excluded if it may:
Unfairly prejudice a party;
 Confuse the jury; or
 Waste the court’s time.

©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
 The defendant was charged with
State v.
Payano
768 N.W.2d
832 (Wis.
2009)
drug possession.
 The prosecution may not introduce
evidence by a witness claiming to
have seen the defendant in
possession of drugs on other
occasions.
 The prosecution may introduce
testimony of a witness claiming that
the defendant had illegal guns and
drugs in his apartment the day
before the defendant discharged a
gun and hit a police officer who was
attempting to enter the apartment.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Reliable Evidence
 Reliable evidence is evidence that possesses a
sufficient degree of believability.
 Evidence which is deemed unreliable is
inadmissible at trial.
 Reliable and admissible evidence is required to
justify charging a person with a crime.
 Each state has the authority to commence a
criminal prosecution if sufficient evidence is
available to justify the criminal charge.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
 The Court held that central to a fair
Holbrook
v. Flynn
475 U.S. 560
(1986)
trial is the principle that “one accused
of a crime is entitled to have his guilt
or innocence determined solely on
the basis of the evidence introduced
at trial, and not on grounds of official
suspicion, indictment, continued
custody, or any other circumstances
not adduced as proof at trial.”
 Each state has authority to commence
a criminal prosecution if sufficient
evidence is available to justify the
criminal charges.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
 Defendant was convicted of murder after two
Fry v.
Piller
127 S. Ct 2321
(2007)




successive mistrials.
During trial defendant tried to introduce
testimony that a third party had committed the
murders. The trial judge excluded one of the
witnesses from testifying.
The defendant appealed and filed a petition for
habeas corpus in federal court and ultimately to
the Supreme Court.
The Supreme court granted certiorari to
consider the scope of review of constitutional
error in habeas corpus cases.
The Court affirmed the lower court’s holding
denying habeas relief, holding that even if the
testimony was wrongly excluded, a trial judge’s
decision to exclude evidence can only be
overturned if it has a “substantial and injurious
effect” on the jury verdict.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Competent Evidence
 Competent evidence includes relevant, reliable
evidence that is not otherwise rendered
inadmissible.
 Communications between a patient and a
treating physician are considered privileged and
thus inadmissible.
 Evidence
seized in violation of the Fourth
Amendment’s probable cause requirement is
inadmissible.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
The American Accusatorial System
 The United States and most of the English-
speaking democracies in the world use the
accusatorial system in criminal investigations and
in criminal trials.
 Under this accusatorial system, suspects and
defendants have an absolute right to remain silent
about matters that could incriminate them.

Most European countries and other democracies of the
world use the inquisitorial system, in which defendants
do not have the absolute right to remain silent.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
The Inquisitorial System
 In some European countries, special judges
are responsible for investigating serious
crimes and questioning witnesses and
suspects.
 Countries that use the inquisitorial system
rely more heavily on obtaining confessions
to solve crimes.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Disclosing Information in the
Adversary System al
 When a criminal charge has been made, the
prosecution and the defense begin separate
investigations of the facts.
 The U.S. Supreme Court has placed limits on the
unwillingness of the parties to share information
with the other side.

Many of the rules that compel disclosure apply to the
prosecution, but some compel the defense to disclose
information to the prosecution.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Notice of Alibi Statutes
 An alibi defense alleges the defendant could not
have committed the crime that is charged because
the defendant was at another place at the time the
crime was committed.
 Most states have notice of alibi statutes that
require defendants who plan to use an alibi defense
to serve notice on the prosecutor within a certain
period of time before trial.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Duty to Disclose Evidence Showing the
Innocence of the Accused
 Evidence that tends to show innocence is called
exculpatory evidence.
 A prosecutor has a duty to disclose evidence favorable
to an accused upon request where the evidence is
material to the defendant’s guilt or innocence (the
Brady rule).
o This requirement is extended to law enforcement officers as
well.
o Steckler v. Greene (1999), Banks v. Dretke (2004), and Smith
v. Cain (2012) further define the limits of exculpatory
evidence.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
 Despite a request from defense
Brady v.
Maryland
373 U.S. 83, 83
S. Ct. 1194
(1963)
counsel, the prosecution withheld a
statement by an accomplice who
had admitted to killing the victim.
 The real issue was the suppression
of the statement favorable to the
accused upon the request of that
information; this was deemed a
violation of due process since the
evidence was material to both guilt
or punishment.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Lost, Misplaced, and Destroyed Evidence
 The U.S. Supreme Court has established rules concerning
the government’s duty to preserve evidence.
 The court held that lost, misplaced, or destroyed
evidence is not a violation of due process unless:


The loss was due to bad faith on the part of the police or
other law enforcement official.
The evidence was likely significant to the defendant’s case.
 If a Brady violation is discovered, the penalty is severe,
including a new trial or a dismissal of charges.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Use of False or Perjured Evidence
 The deliberate use of false or perjured
evidence in an attempt to obtain a criminal
conviction is a crime.
 This conduct could also be the basis for a
civil lawsuit in which compensatory and
punitive damages could be awarded.
 Mooney
v. Holohan (1935)
 Miller v. Pate (1967)
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
 The U.S. Supreme Court made it
Mooney
v.
Holohan
294 U.S. 103,
55 S. Ct. 340
(1935)
very clear that a conviction
obtained by the knowing use of
false testimony or false evidence is
a denial of due process of law and
will be reversed.
 The Court held that “such a
contrivance … is inconsistent with
the rudimentary demands of justice
as is obtaining of a like result by
intimidation.”
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
 The Supreme Court reversed and
Miller v.
Pate
386 U.S. 451
(1967)
remanded the defendant’s murder
and rape conviction because during
the trial the prosecutor repeatedly
referred to “blood-stained shorts”
during the trial when the
prosecutor knew, but did not reveal
to the court or defense, that the red
stain was actually paint.
 The Court held that the prosecution
had “deliberately misrepresented
the truth” and had used false
evidence during the trial.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Civil Commitment
 Civil commitment can be authorized under state or
federal statutes to involuntarily confine a person who is
deemed a present danger to themselves or others because
of mental health problems or sexual predator histories,
among other circumstances.


Most states have mental health laws authorizing involuntary, shortterm mental observations of persons with mental illness.
Longer detentions requested by the government require them to
prove the potential for violence beyond a reasonable doubt.
 The Supreme Court has held that civil commitment of
mentally ill, sexually dangerous prisoners beyond the
date of release is constitutional if the government can
show proof of dangerous behavior in the past among
other factors. U.S. v. Comstock (2010).
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.