Criminal Justice

The final exam will be five questions worth ten points each, for a total of fifty possible points for each exam. Students should submit approximately one page of writing in response to each question.

Answer the following questions:

1- Discuss the process SCOTUS follows and the factors it considers when evaluating the legality of eyewitness identification procedures and the admissibility of eyewitness identifications.

2- Discuss the considerations pertinent to the admissibility of suspects’ statements, including Miranda (when it applies, when it doesn’t, etc.), voluntariness, waiver of the right to remain silent, etc.

3- Discuss the exclusionary rule, its purpose, its application, exceptions to the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, exceptions to it, etc.

4- Discuss the constitutional rights contained in the 6th Amendment that protect defendants’ rights to a fair trial. Explain how jury trials, though extremely rare, promote government accountability and transparency.

5- Discuss the appellate process from trial to the U.S. Supreme Court. Distinguish between direct appeals and habeas corpus proceedings or interlocutory appeals.

Grading rubric
1- Writing Quality: Primarily concerns fundamentals like grammar, syntax, usage, vocabulary, and spelling, but also considers clarity of expression and logical structure. 20 points.

2- Responsiveness: Does each response really answer the question posed? 15 points.

3- Comprehensiveness: Are the answers to each question thorough and complete? 10 points.

4- Sources: Are useful, credible sources used? Are all sources used clearly cited? 5 points.

Please, provide me with a plagiarism report. THANK YOU

ANSWER

Criminal Justice Final Exam

Question One

Eye witness evidence where a witness visually identifies a culprit is fundamental in the US’s criminal justice system. The United States Supreme Court set a legal framework that governs the admissibility and treatment of eyewitness identification in criminal trials. Although it is a crucial tool in convicting criminal perpetrators, eyewitness testimony is often fallible (Police Executive Research Forum, 2014). Witnesses may have faulty or incomplete memories and questionable vision leading to misidentification of culprits. Criminal misidentification is the primary cause of the conviction of innocent people (Police Executive Research Forum, 2014). Therefore, there is a need to evaluate the legality of procedures used to identify eyewitnesses.

The Supreme Court states “The vagaries of eyewitness identification are well-known; the annals of criminal law are rife with instances of mistaken identification”, the law, therefore, should ensure that the evidence provided by witnesses is not subject to mistakes. According to Garrett (2020), the Supreme Court set the process for evaluating eye witness evidence in 1977 in the Mansion v Brathwaite case. The process poses two questions; first probability of the police having used suggestive procedures in the identification and whether such procedures can be excused based on reliability factors (Garrett, 2020). The reliability factors require the judge first to examine the eyewitness’s chance to see the suspect at the time of the crime. The judge should also determine the eyewitness’s degree of attention and accuracy in describing the defendant (Garrett, 2020). The reliability procedures also examine the certainty of the eyewitness at the time of the examination procedure. Finally, the procedure considers the time that passed since the crime was committed and the time of the identification.

Question two

Prosecutors and defendants in criminal proceedings often present evidence supporting their cases. However, the state should prove beyond reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty when presented with evidence in court. The most crucial factor in determining the admissibility of evidence is its relevance. However, a judge could exclude any evidence that can confuse or mislead jurors and result in unfair treatment of the defendant.

The law requires police officers to inform anybody in their custody of the Fifth Amendment right not to make any incriminating statements and their right to have an attorney. This is referred to as Miranda rights that came to be after the Miranda v Arizona ruling (Magalotti & Luther, 2020). If the police fail to notify a suspect of the Miranda right, the court can ignore any subsequent statement presented against the suspect. Suspects gain complete protection of the Miranda right when they invoke the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney without waiving the Miranda right. The accused can waive his Miranda rights knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently by stating or signing that they have waived the rights to remain silent and to an attorney (Magalotti & Luther, 2020). Therefore, their behavior indicates knowledge of their voluntary waived Miranda right. If, after being informed of his right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, a suspect continues making incriminating statements, the police may assume he has waived his right and use the statements to incriminate him.

Question Three

The US Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule to prevent evidence collected or analyzed to violate the defendants’ rights from being used in court. According to the rule, courts should ignore evidence that police officers or government agents acquire unconstitutional to protect the defendants’ constitutional rights. When a judge dismisses crucial evidence, it leaves the prosecution with no choice other than drop the charges. Evidence that is subject to suppression includes anything that was seized or discovered unlawfully and any other thing subsequently obtained due to the illegal activity. A critique of the exclusionary rule is that letting criminals free also undermines the rule of law since citizens are obligated to obey the law (Turner, 2014).

On the other hand, the fruit of the poisonous tree is an extension of the exclusionary rule. It is used as a metaphor to represent unlawful investigations and obtaining of evidence (Turner & Weigend, 2019). If, for instance, a police officer breaks into a criminal’s house and discovers a crucial piece of evidence, the criminal law suppresses that kind of evidence. Therefore, like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence against a suspect.

The exclusionary rule and fruit of the poisonous tree exceptions include; good-faith exception where a judge cannot exclude a piece of evidence if an officer acts in good faith, and uses a warrant that ends up being invalid. Additionally, if the officer acts upon a statute or judicial decision that turns out to be unconstitutional, he cannot be blamed for violating the law (Turner & Weigend, 2019). However, if an officer obtains evidence by breaking the law intentionally and recklessly, the behavior merits excluding the evidence obtained. Another exception is the independent source doctrine which allows for the admission of evidence that the police obtained illegally if another independent source obtained the same evidence legally. The exception may also apply if a police officer illegally seizes property and then gets information from an unrelated source sufficient enough to authorize a search warrant executed as to the same property.

Question four

The sixth amendment of the United States constitution highlights the rights of criminal prosecutions. According to the Amendment, all criminal defendants are entitled to the right to enjoy a speedy public trial, a right to a council, an impartial jury, right to know the nature and causes of the accusations, and right for a lawyer to cross-examine the adverse witnesses. The right to jury applies to offenses whose imprisonment penalty exceeds six months and requires that the jurors be unbiased.

An impartial jury refers to a group of independent people from the community willing to judge the provided evidence. The Supreme Court may order for the jury to be picked from another location, for instance, when a case has received significant coverage by the media to ensure impartiality. Additionally, the right to a speedy trial is vital since chances for an accused to receive a fair trial. In its absence, suspects could be held indefinitely without any evidence leveled against them. If too much time passes between the trial and the crime, it allows for tampering with evidence while at the same time witness’s memories may fade. Further, the right to a public trial protects both the defendants and the public. While the defendant is protected from secret proceedings that may lead to abuse of the justice system, the public is kept aware of the proceedings. However, the right to a public trial is not absolute, as the judge may request a closed hearing to avoid interference with witnesses.

A criminal defendant also has a right to be aware of the nature and causes of accusations leveled against him. This right ensures that one receives a fair trial by first knowing what they are being accused of. Another right provided in the Sixth Amendment is that of being provided with legal counsel. If the defendant is not able to pay his own, the law requires the government to provide one. Further, the law provides for the defendant’s counsel to cross-examine the witnesses under oath, giving the jury a chance to view the witness up-close and judge whether the witness’s statement is believable.

Since juries conduct their discussions in privacy, their decisions are often incomprehensible. The introduction of jury verdicts was meant to maintain checks and balances of arbitrary power, with no influence from judges. According to Cursi (2019), jurors lack a comprehensive understanding of jury instructions and may at times make verdicts from misinterpretations of the law. However, jury trials promote government transparency and accountability since, unlike non-jury trials that place the responsibility to judge one individual, jury trials diffuse the responsibility among several individuals to enhance accuracy in the deliberation process (Curci, 2019). The logic behind jury trials is that twelve heads are better than one.

Question five

The party that loses in a trial case in the federal system has the right to appeal the decision in a higher court. The appellant, who is the party that loses, has to show that the trial court made an error that influenced the verdict made (Meador et Al., 2006). There is no jury, no testimonies from witnesses, or any new evidence provided in an appeal case.

The appellate process begins with the appellant choosing an attorney to represent him. Since not every trial lawyer can successfully represent one in an appeal, it is crucial to choose a lawyer who understands the appeal process with an adequate understanding of legal research. After hiring an appellant attorney, one has to file the notice for appeal. The notification is often filed in the court where the case was heard. Filing the notice requires a knowledgeable lawyer who knows the differences between terms such as order granting summary judgment and final order of summary judgment. Next is reviewing the record on appeal, where the trial court clerk provides the appellant lawyer with the record on appeal. The record consists of all documents filed with the court concerning the case and a record of all that was said in the trial. The appellant lawyer must be extra careful to scrutinize the records and ensure no transcript or record crucial to the case has been left out.

The fourth step entails the preparation and filing of the opening brief of the appeal. After effectively reviewing the trial documents, the appellate attorney prepares the opening brief. The brief comprises a summary of all events in the case and legal arguments supporting the appellate. The opening brief is crucial as it’s the only chance one has to explain why the case should be reversed. The final step is the oral argument, where the appellate attorney and the opposing counsel argue out the case before the justices assigned to the case. Once the judges listen to the lawyers, they discuss their determination and provide a written decision either affirming or reversing the conviction.

Both the direct appeal and the habeas Corpus are part of the appellant process, and the difference is in the reason for using the appellate process. A direct appeal is meant to correct an error/s that may have occurred during the trial, and no new evidence or witness statement can be used to make a decision. On the other hand, courts use habeas corpus proceedings to determine the legality of a person’s imprisonment or detention (Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopedia, 2019). Habeas proceedings happen where a legal error may have occurred. To win in a habeas petition does not limit the evidence provided during the trial; instead, new information that can help determine the case is acceptable (Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopedia, 2019). An interlocutory appeal refers to a party’s appeal to a non-final court decision that does not result in the final judgment. Whether one can appeal non-final court orders is dependent on specific jurisdiction rules.

References

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. (2019). Habeas corpus. Encyclopedia Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/habeas-corpus. Accessed 22 June 2021.

Curci, A. (2019). Twelve Angrier Men: Enforcing Verdict Accountability in Criminal Jury           Trials. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 59, 217-241.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/233236812.pdf

Garret, B. L. (2020). Judging Eyewitness Evidence. Judicature, 104(1), 31-36.

https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/judging-eyewitness-evidence/

Magalotti, S., & Luther, C. (2020). Competence to Waive Miranda Rights. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 48(4).

DOI: https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.200088L2-20

Meador, D. J., Rosenberg, M., & Carrington, P. (2006). Appellate Courts: Structures, Functions,  Processes and Personnel, 2nd ed., Michie, Charlottesville, Va. Lexis-Nexis Publishing           Co.

https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_books/52

Police Executive Research Forum. (2014). A National Survey of Eyewitness Identification          Procedures in Law Enforcement. A National Survey of Eyewitness Identification         Procedures in Law Enforcement.

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/242617.pdf

Turner, J. I. (2014). The Exclusionary Rule as a Symbol of the Rule of Law. SMU Law Review,  67(4), 821-833.

https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=smulr

Turner, J. I., & Weigend, T. (2019). The purposes and functions of exclusionary rules: a   comparative overview In Gless S., Richter T. (eds) Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair           Trial?. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice. Springer, Cham.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12520-2_8