Chapter Twelve Constitutional Rights of the Accused During

Chapter Twelve – Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial Rolando V. del Carmen

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right to a Trial By Jury – Jury Size • Williams v. Florida (1970) • Ballew v. Georgia (1978) – Unanimous versus Nonunanimous Verdicts • Apodaca v. Oregon (1972) • Johnson v. Louisiana (1972)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right to a Trial By Jury – Serious versus Petty Offenses • Baldwin v. New York (1970) • Blanton v. North Las Vegas (1989) • Lewis v. United States (1996) – Waiver of a Jury Trial • Singer v. United States (1965) – The Selection of a Jury of Peers • Taylor v. Louisiana (1975)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right to a Trial By Jury – The Disqualification of Jurors Based on Race • • Batson v. Kentucky (1986) Strauder v. West Virginia (1880) Holland v. Illinois (1990) Johnson v. California (2005) Georgia v. Mc. Cullum (1992) Powers v. Ohio (1991) Campbell v. Louisiana (1998)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right to a Trial By Jury – The Disqualification of Jurors Based on Gender • J. E. B. v. Alabama (1994)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right to a Trial By Jury – The Constitutionality of “Death-Qualified Juries” • Lockhart v. Mc. Cree (1986) • Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right to a Trial By Jury – The Strengthening of the Role of Juries in Sentencing • Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) • Ring v. Arizona (2002)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right to Counsel – Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) – Constitutionally required in the following proceedings: • • Custodial interrogations Lineups, if formal charges have been filed Preliminary examination Arraignment Trial Sentencing Appeal from a conviction, if available to others

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right to Counsel – Not constitutionally required in the following proceedings: • • • Criminal investigation Arrest, unless the suspect is interrogated Grand jury proceedings Habeas corpus proceedings Probation or parole revocation

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right to Counsel – Why Counsel is Needed • Powell v. Alabama (1932) • Iowa v. Tovar (2004)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right to Counsel – How Counsel is Obtained • Retained counsel – an attorney chosen and paid by the accused – Wheat v. United States (1988) • Court-Appointed Counsel – Indigent Defendant – Fuller v. Oregon (1974)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right to Counsel – The Responsibility of the Defense Lawyer – The Right to Court-Appointed Counsel during the Trial • Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972) • Scott v. Illinois (1979) • In re Gault (1967)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right to Counsel – The Difficulty of Proving Ineffective Assistance of Counsel • • • Specific errors must be pointed out Effective assistance is assumed United States v. Cronic (1984) Strickland v. Washington (1984) Wiggins v. Smith (2003) Yarborough v. Gentry (2003)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right to Counsel – Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases • A Sleeping Lawyer – Burdine v. Johnson (5 th Cir. 2001) • Silent Lawyer – Bell v. Cone (2002) • A Lawyer who had the Victim as a Client – Mickens v. Taylor (2002)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right to Counsel – The Right to Act as One’s Own Counsel • Faretta v. California (1975) • Constitutional requirements that must be met: – Awareness of the right to counsel – Express waiver – Competency of the accused

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right to Due Process – The Brady Rule on Disclosure of Evidence to the Accused • Mooney v. Holohan (1935) • Brady v. Maryland (1963) – Cases after Brady • • United States v. Agurs (1976) United States v. Bagley (1985) Kyles v. Whitley (1995) Strickler v. Greene (1999)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right Against Self-Incrimination – The Scope of the Provision: Testimonial not Physical • Gilbert v. California (1967) • South Dakota v. Neville (1983)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right Against Self-Incrimination – Two Separate Privileges during Trials: The Accused and the Witness • The Privilege of the Accused – Not to take the stand not to testify • Griffin v. California (1965) – Fair Response • United States v. Robinson (1988)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right Against Self-Incrimination – Two Separate Privileges during Trials: The Accused and the Witness • The Privilege of a Witness – Refuse to disclose any information that may tend to incriminate him or her • United States v. Balsys (1998)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right Against Self-Incrimination – The Grant of Immunity • Immunity in criminal cases means that the person granted immunity will not be prosecuted in a criminal case, either fully or partially— depending upon the type of immunity granted— for testimony given before a grand jury, in court, or in some other proceeding from which prosecution could otherwise have resulted. • Murphy v. Waterfront Commission (1964)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right Against Self-Incrimination – Comparison between Transactional and Use and Derivative Use Immunity • Transactional immunity • Use and derivative use immunity • Kastigar v. United States (1972)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right Against Self-Incrimination – How the Right is Waived • Failure to Assert • Partial Disclosure • Taking the Witness Stand

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right Against Double Jeopardy – What Double Jeopardy Means • Successive prosecution of a defendant for the same offense by the same jurisdiction • North Carolina v. Pearce (1969) • Three elements for double jeopardy to occur: – Successive prosecution – Same offense – Same jurisdiction

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right Against Double Jeopardy – When Double Jeopardy Starts – When Double Jeopardy Is Waived • In mistrials • When a verdict of conviction is set aside on a defendant’s motion or appeal • In habeas corpus cases • Green v. United States (1957) • Burks v. United States (1978)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right Against Double Jeopardy – What Same Offense Means • Blockburger v. United States (1932) • Illinois v. Vitale (1980) • Brown v. Ohio (1977) – What Lesser Included Offense Means • Rutledge v. United States (1996)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Constitutionality of Prosecution for a Higher Offense After Conviction for a Lesser Included Offense – “if the facts needed to prove the higher offense had not yet been discovered at the time of the first trial, despite the prosecution’s due diligence, ” and – “if at the time the first case is tried, events have not yet occurred that are needed for the second crime. ”

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Constitutionality of Prosecution for the Same Offense by Two States – Heath v. Alabama (1985)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right to Confront Witnesses – The Right to Cross-Examine Opposing Witnesses • Crawford v. Washington (2004) – The Right to Physical Presence During Trial – Deliberate Absence • Taylor v. United States (1973) – Disruptive Conduct in the Courtroom • Illinois v. Allen (1970)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right to Confront Witnesses – Coy v. Iowa (1988) – Maryland v. Craig (1990) – The Right to Know the Identify of Prosecution Witnesses • United States v. Owens (1988)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right to Compulsory Process to Obtain Witnesses – Webb v. Texas (1972) – Chambers v. Mississippi (1973)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right to a Speedy and Public Trial – A Speedy Trial • Barker v. Wingo (1972) • Doggett v. United States (1992) • Speedy Trial Act of 1974 – A Public Trial

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right to a Fair and Impartial Trial – The Prohibition of Prejudicial Publicity • Irvin v. Dowd (1961) • Rideau v. Louisiana (1963) • A Public Trial

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right to a Fair and Impartial Trial – Controlling Prejudicial Publicity • • • Change of Venue Sequestration Continuance Issuance of a gag rule Control of the press Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966)

Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial ¨ The Right to Proof of Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt – What Must Be Proved – Reasonable Doubt • • Moore v. United States (D. C. Cir. 1965) Cage v. Louisiana (1990) Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) Victor v. Nebraska (1994)