Terea Snider
The Legal Process
CJAD 310- FlWW – 13
March 16, 2013

The Legal Process
Suspect to Defendant: Facing Charges

The suspect is formally charged with a crime. The police officer then sends a report to the Prosecutor’s office, fully staffed with lawyers and their job is to initiate and to prosecute criminal cases. The Prosecutor must then decide to make an independent decision to determine what charges need to be filed and with the help of citizens who will then be known as the grand jury. The grand jury then must decide on what charge should be given to the defendant .Criminal cases has many consequences for the defendant. These consequences are: * Violation (strike one) it ranges up to about 13 days in jail. * Misdemeanors (strike two) are punishable up to a maximum of 1 year in jail. * Felony (strike 3) is punishable by any state prison sentence of more than just 1 year.
The Fourth Amendment
“The right of the people to be secure in their person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizure, shall not be violated, and no warrant’s 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.”
Missouri v McNeely (2013)
On January 9, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Missouri v McNeely. The question in this case is whether the fourth amendment “exigent circumstances” doctrine permits a law enforcement officer to take a warrantless non–consensual blood sample of natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood stream. The police officer did have a warrant. Missouri Supreme Court was correct when it ruled that this was an infringement of the fourth amendment which protects individuals from warrantless searches.
In the United States, our legal system weighs every individual‘s constitutional right to privacy against public interest in prosecuting crime and making sure public laws are enforced. These rules and constitutional rights are in place to protect the people of the United States, to privacy and prevent unlawful investigations without reasonable cause, most generally a search warrant must be required, unless particular items are illegal and in plain site or if the police officer witnesses criminal activity being committed.

The Fifth Amendment
“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 subject to the same offense to be put twice in jeopardy of life and 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.”
Miranda v Arizona (1966)
Ernesto Miranda was arrested after a crime victim identified him, but police officers questing him did not inform him of his fifth amendment right against self – incrimination, or of his sixth amendment right to the assistance of an attorney, while he confessed to the crime, his attorney later argued that his confession should have been excluded from trial. The Supreme Court agreed, deciding that the police had not taken proper steps to inform him Miranda of his rights.
Brown v Mississippi (1934)
The police accused three blank men of a murder and whipped them until they confessed, A Mississippi court sentenced the three men to death, but the United States Supreme court reversed the verdict confessions obtained by physical torture cannot serve as the bias of a conviction in state or federal court. The point is forced confessions, offend the dignity of human beings, under mined the integrity of government, and tend to be unreasonable.
The Fifth Amendment is to protect a person’s privacy. It also guarantees the individual the right to remain silent and a right of self- incrimination. The Supreme Court case in Miranda v Arizona, police had to inform a suspect of his rights to a lawyer before he or she is questioned. In the criminal justice system, any extra evidence, law enforcement collects in an illegal search or illegal questioning it is inadmissible.

The Sixth Amendment
“In a criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and the district where in the crime was committed which district shall have been previously ascertained by law and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations,” to be confronted with the witness with him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witness in his favor and to have the assistance of counsel in his defense.
Terry v Ohio (1967)
This case presents serious questioning concerning the role of the fourth amendment in the confrontation on the street between citizens and law enforcement investigating suspicious circumstances. The officer noticed petitioner talking to and individual on a street corner while repeatedly walking up and down the same street. The men would periodically peer into a store window and then talk some more. The men also spoke to a third man who they eventually followed up the street. The officer believed that the petitioner and the other man were casing the store for robbery. The officer decided to perform a quick search of the men for questioning. A quick frisk of the petitioner produced a concealed weapon and he was charged with carrying a concealed weapon.
Nix v Williams (1984)
December 24, 1968, a ten year old girl went missing in Des Moines, Iowa. Robert Anthony Williams was the suspect after someone reported him leaving the building in which the girl disappeared from with a big bundle. Two days later, Williams was taken into custody. The defense attorney said not to “conduct any interrogation.” The officer who was driving Williams told him that the parents were saddened about this happening so close to Christmas and they wanted a regular burial for the girl, Williams told the officer where to find the body. The search party that was taking place was a half- mile away. Williams was tried and convicted of murder of the ten year old girl.
This issue dealt with the Fifth Amendment protection of the accused against self – incrimination and also with the Sixth Amendment in regards to right to counsel. Williams was the one who led the officers to the body. The police officers said Williams’ sorrow led to a confession. Williams’ lawyer said his client was questioned without counsel present. He also claimed the confession that Williams gave of the body, was illegally obtained. Williams was denied legal counsel, saying his confession would have been disallowed under the Miranda rule. The court created the “inevitable discovery” because the body was not found until after Williams’ confession.
While an accused person can represent him or herself in a trial, the court can stop this if the accused is not mentally stable.

Suppression of evidence
Evidence is suppressed if the judge believes the evidence in question has been obtained illegally by law enforcement agents. This is known as the motion to be suppressed. This is a formal, written request to the judge, asking that certain evidence be disallowed. If the evidence is suppressed, it does not mean no one else will know about it. It will not be used as direct evidence in court, the judge will consider the evidence while determining a sentence for the defendant, and it can also be used in civil or deportation cases and impeaches, or discredits a witness’ testimonial in court.
There are more types of evidence that can be suppressed at a trial “The Fruits of the Poisonous Tree” doctrine as the result of illegally obtained evidence will be excluded in court. Example: if the officer illegally searches your car and finds a piece of paper and has the individual’s address of where he or she lives, the police may think he or she is hiding drugs. The drugs will not be allowed in court as evidence. This illegal evidence is called the “Poisonous tree and the drugs are the “Fruit.”
There are some exceptions in which the evidence that was obtained illegally can be used in court. These examples are: * Inevitable discovery is that the police would have inevitably found evidence, with or without the illegal search. * Independent source is the discovery of the evidence involved can be a combination of legal and illegal means, being that the evidence could have been discovered by a reliable source. * Good faith is where the police officers who discovered the evidence had no reason to believe their search was illegal (and the search warrant to be valid when it is not). * Attenuation the connection between illegal search and evidence is weak. Evidence may be considered untainted.

Non Compliance Discovery
The prosecutor and the defense attorney have to prove discovery evidence that is relevant to the case. Exculpatory evidence is required to give any evidence that may be favorable to the defendant as in the case of Brady v Maryland, The United States Supreme Court explained withholding exculpatory evidence has violated the defendant’s rights to due process under the fifth and fourteenth amendment clause.
The state of Maryland prosecutes Brady and Boblit, charging them with murder. Brady admitted earlier he participated in the murder; but saying Boblit had done the killing. Prior to the trial, Brady’s attorney requested access to statements made by Boblit. But the prosecution withheld the statements made by Boblit, saying he killed the victim, William Brooks, during the robbery. The Maryland Court of Appeals acknowledged Brady’s sentence, but stated that the evidence was relevant, saying that the defendant’s level of punishment would be given.

Reference

www.wisegeek.org www.uscourts.gov www.lawcornell.edu www.casebriefs.com www.caselaw.lp.findlaw.com
www.streetlaw.com