Criminal procedure
1 / 42

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Updated On :

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Class Fourteen. Today’s Topics. Overview: “Protections” Impact of Acquittal D’s Appeal Second Trial of Convicted D “Same Offense” D Responsible. Today’s Topics. Collateral Estoppel Dual Sovereigns Aborted Proceedings Vindictiveness. Double Jeopardy.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'CRIMINAL PROCEDURE' - ozzie

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Criminal procedure l.jpg


Class Fourteen

Today s topics l.jpg
Today’s Topics

  • Overview: “Protections”

  • Impact of Acquittal

  • D’s Appeal

  • Second Trial of Convicted D

    • “Same Offense”

    • D Responsible

Today s topics3 l.jpg
Today’s Topics

  • Collateral Estoppel

  • Dual Sovereigns

  • Aborted Proceedings

  • Vindictiveness

Double jeopardy l.jpg

Double Jeopardy

Chapter Twelve

Constitutional provision l.jpg
Constitutional Provision

  • Fifth Amendment

    • [N]or shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

  • Applicable to state prosecutions [Incorporation Doctrine] in 1969

Common fact patterns l.jpg
Common Fact Patterns

  • Second prosecution after acquittal

  • Second prosecution after conviction

  • Multiple punishments

Acquittal consequences for prosecution l.jpg
Acquittal Consequences for Prosecution

  • Second prosecution barred -- even if acquittal was a mistake

  • No appeal from acquittal -- even if rulings supporting acquittal were incorrect

  • No new trial from jury verdict of acquittal

Determining if court action acquittal l.jpg
Determining if Court Action = Acquittal

  • United States v. Scott

    • Final determination of guilt/innocence necessary

    • Contrast with mistrial

    • Contrast with dismissal

Determining if court action acquittal9 l.jpg
Determining if Court Action = Acquittal

  • Sanabria v. United States

    • Trial judge believed he was construing indictment and ruling on merits

  • United States v. Martin Lemon

    • If trial judge enters judgment of acquittal before jury reaches verdict, that determination is final

Defendant s appeal l.jpg
Defendant’s Appeal

  • Issue: What is the double jeopardy effect of a reversal?

  • Concept: Results vary depending on the ground on which reversal is based [sufficiency vs. trial error]

Reversal insufficient evidence l.jpg
Reversal: Insufficient Evidence

  • Issue: Does it make a difference whether it is reviewing court or trial court/jury that determines evidence is insufficient

    • Remember: Finding of insufficient evidence at trial = verdict of acquittal

  • Burks v. United States

  • Jeopardy interest: Prohibits prosecution from another opportunity to supply or muster evidence it failed to provide in first case

Sufficiency vs trial error l.jpg
Sufficiency vs. Trial Error

  • Reversal for trial error does not equate to decision that gov’t failed to prove its case

    • Implies nothing about guilt/innocence

    • Is determination that D has been convicted through process that is defective

    • Therefore, no jeopardy bar for retrial

Balancing interests l.jpg
Balancing Interests

  • D has strong interest in fair determination of guilt free from fundamental error

  • Society has valid interest in ensuring guilty are punished.

Reversal trial court error l.jpg
Reversal: Trial Court Error

  • Considering “improper” evidence in gauging sufficiency

    • Issue: What impact when legally competent evidence is insufficient but trial judge erroneously allowed incompetent evidence to be introduced at trial [and the resulting combination was sufficient]

    • Lockhart v. Nelson

  • Defective charging instrument

    • Montana v. Hall

Reversal trial court error15 l.jpg
Reversal: Trial Court Error

  • Weight v. Sufficiency

    • Tibbs v. Florida

Second trial of convicted d l.jpg
Second Trial of Convicted D

  • Concept: Following valid conviction, the same offense cannot be prosecuted again

  • Problem: Determining what is the same offense

    • Examples: lesser included offense [think: aggravated robbery with gun, non-weapon robbery]; closely related offenses [think: speeding and failure to use turn signal in same transaction]

  • Analytical Key: Blockburger Rule

Blockburger test l.jpg
Blockburger Test

  • Asks whether each statutory provision contains an element the other does not

Blockburger l.jpg

Crime One




Crime Two





Blockburger examples l.jpg
Blockburger Examples

  • Brown v. Ohio

    • Joyriding as lesser included of auto theft

    • Second conviction violated double jeopardy

  • Grady v. Corbin

    • Now abandoned “same conduct” test

    • Constitutional detour

Blockburger examples20 l.jpg
Blockburger Examples

  • United States v. Dixon

    • Criminal contempt & possession drugs

  • Rutledge v. United States

    • Elements of conspiracy and “in concert” aspect of CCE [continuing criminal enterprise]

Recap blockburger application l.jpg


Crime One


Crime Two



Crime One


Crime Two


Lesser Included

Crime One


Crime Two


Recap: Blockburger Application

Remedy for violations l.jpg
Remedy for Violations

  • Frequently, reversal and dismissal of results in second prosecution

  • “Reformation”

    • Morris v. Matthews [reduced to conviction for lesser included offense]

      • D burden: “reasonable probability would not have been convicted of non-jeopardy barred offense absent presence of jeopardy-barred offense”

When d responsible for multiple prosecutions l.jpg
When D Responsible for Multiple Prosecutions

  • Concept: If D is responsible for multiple prosecutions, double jeopardy limitation not applicable

    • Jeffers v. United States [D opposed government attempt to consolidate]

      • Cf, Rutledge

    • Ohio v. Johnson [D chose over gov’t objection to split offenses]

      • Caution: As matter of state law, later trial might raise question of cumulative punishments

Collateral estoppel background l.jpg
Collateral Estoppel: Background

  • Multiple victims = multiple offenses

  • May be circumstances when even separate trials on distinct offenses are constitutionally barred --- when cases have ultimate fact in common

  • Constitutional basis: Due Process clause

Ashe v swenson the facts l.jpg

Accused defendants





Criminal conduct


Car theft

Crime Victims







Total possible charges per defendant: 7

Ashe v. Swenson: The Facts

Ashe facts l.jpg
Ashe Facts

  • Trial One [Victim X]

    • Gov’t evidence that D had been one of robbers was weak

    • Jury returns verdict of not guilty

    • Verdict recites: “not guilty due to insufficient evidence”

  • Trial Two [Victim Y]

    • Six weeks later

Collateral estoppel28 l.jpg
Collateral Estoppel

  • Principle: when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit

Determining ultimate fact l.jpg
Determining “Ultimate Fact”

  • Consider

    • Pleadings

    • Evidence at trial

    • Charge [jury instruction]

    • Other relevant matter

  • Conclude whether a rational jury could have granted its verdict on an issue other than the fact on which D seeks to foreclose future litigation

Constitutional protection l.jpg
Constitutional Protection

  • When Double Jeopardy prohibits successive prosecutions, it does so only when those prosecutions are brought by the same sovereign

  • Dual Sovereign = possibility of dual prosecutions

    • Theory: each sovereign has been offended

  • Inherent in American Federalism

Examples l.jpg

  • Rodney King

  • Angleton prosecution in Houston

Limitations l.jpg

  • If one sovereign acting as “tool” of another --- sham, or cover

    • Bartkus v. Illinois

  • Current event update: Supreme Court is considering issue this term

Test your knowledge l.jpg
Test Your Knowledge

  • Is a state a separate sovereign from the federal government?

  • Is city separate sovereign from state in which it is located?

  • Are individual states in the Union dual sovereigns vis a vis one another?

  • Are Indian nations separate sovereign [recent Supreme Court decision]?

Scenarios l.jpg

  • Trial ends prematurely

  • Mistrial declared

  • Examples:

    • Prosecutor improperly comments on D’s failure to testify and D seeks mistrial

    • Prosecution’s key witness fails to appear in response to subpoena

    • Jury is deadlocked and cannot reach verdict

Key terms l.jpg
Key Terms

  • “Attachment”

  • “Manifest Necessity”

Attachment l.jpg

  • Jury trial

    • When jury empaneled and sworn

  • Bench trial [to the court]

    • When court begins to hear evidence

Mistrial over d s objection l.jpg
Mistrial over D’s Objection

  • Critical concept: Manifest necessity

  • General rule: If there is manifest necessary, then there is exception to double jeopardy protections

  • Test: Manifest necessity exists when end of public justice are not served if there is no retrial

Mistrial on d s motion l.jpg
Mistrial on D’s Motion

  • Generally, no double jeopardy bar

  • Exception: conduct by prosecutor intended to “goad” D into moving for mistrial

Vindictiveness l.jpg

  • Issue: What, if any, limitations are imposed on courts and prosecutors when a case is retried.

  • Example: More time added to second sentence following successful appeal.

    • Query: Is D being punished for exercising her right to appeal.

Vindictiveness42 l.jpg

  • Courts

    • North Carolina v. Pearce

    • Presumption of vindictiveness; can be overcome

  • Prosecutors

    • Presumption