Docstoc

Mental State and Criminal Procedure

Document Sample
Mental State and Criminal Procedure Powered By Docstoc
					Today’s Lecture:

Mental State and Criminal Procedure

Number:

6

Lecture Organization: • Class Announcements • Mental State

• Mistake of Fact • Politics of Defining Crime
• Miranda • Search and Seizure

Time

Class Announcements

Course Webpage -- I’ll be putting old exams up on Wednesday Missed classes -- go watch online (you have this responsibility) Reading

-- make sure you are doing it (in the syllabus)

Class Announcements

paper subjects -- the deadline for paper subjects is coming up (April 30th) -- grade penalized if you don’t have subjects lined up

Questions?

Time

Mental State
-- the most important part of criminal defense:

Mental State Defenses

Mental State Defenses Specific Intent • Toughest standard Requires Purpose Knowledge AND

• Need more than mere awareness of act(s) alone; • Need evidence that the D acted purposely to cause the result

Example: Burglary
1. unauthorized entry 2. into a dwelling

Hiding from someone? Guy who came through my window *theft, kidnapping, assault

3. with intent to commit a crime*
*(can’t be trespass)

Mental State Defenses Specific Intent • Toughest standard Requires Purpose Knowledge AND

• Need more than mere awareness of act(s) alone; • Need evidence that the D acted purposely to cause the result

Example: Larceny Example: Burglary
1. unauthorized entry 2. into a dwelling

Hiding from someone? Guy who came through my window *theft, kidnapping, assault

3. with intent to commit a crime*
*(can’t be trespass)

Mental State Defenses Specific Intent • Toughest standard Requires Purpose Knowledge AND

• Need more than mere awareness of act(s) alone; • Need evidence that the D acted purposely to cause the result

Example: Larceny
1. taking/carrying away 2. property of another* 3. with intent to permanently deprive the owner *if above a certain value, grand larceny My client & the suitcase My recent vacation

Mental State Defenses Specific Intent • Toughest standard Requires Purpose Knowledge AND

• Need more than mere awareness of act(s) alone; • Need evidence that the D acted purposely to cause the result

Example: Larceny Example: First Degree Murder
1. taking/carrying away 2. property of another* 3. with intent to permanently deprive the owner

My client & the suitcase My recent vacation

*if above a certain value, grand larceny

Mental State Defenses Specific Intent • Toughest standard Requires Purpose Knowledge AND

• Need more than mere awareness of act(s) alone; • Need evidence that the D acted purposely to cause the result

Example: First Degree Murder
1. “Malice aforethought” (specific objective was trying to kill the person) (no accidental death)

Mental State Defenses Specific Intent • Toughest standard Requires Purpose Knowledge AND

Malice

• Need more than mere awareness of act(s) alone; • Need evidence that the D acted purposely to cause the result

Example: First Degree Murder
1. “Malice aforethought” (specific objective was trying to kill the person) (no accidental death)

Mental State Defenses Specific Intent

Malice

• Second toughest standard
Requires a depraved indifference to human life (“depraved heart crime”). Examples: Terrorism (placing a bomb at the Post Office to explode after midnight)

Time

Mental State Defenses Specific Intent

Malice

• Second toughest standard
Requires a depraved indifference to human life (“depraved heart crime”). Examples: Terrorism (placing a bomb at the Post Office to explode after midnight)

Knowledge

Mental State Defenses Specific Intent

Malice
• Significantly weaker standard

Knowledge

Mere awareness of the behavior
Examples: Someone slips cocaine into your suitcase at an airport. You are busted for possession

Mental State Defenses Specific Intent

Malice
• Significantly weaker standard

Knowledge

Mere awareness of the behavior
Example: Voluntary Manslaughter “Heat of passion killing” (police officer catching someone else in bed with spouse after work)

Mental State Defenses Specific Intent

Malice
• Significantly weaker standard

Knowledge

Mere awareness of the behavior
Recklessness Example: Voluntary Manslaughter “Heat of passion killing” (police officer catching someone else in bed with spouse after work)

Mental State Defenses Specific Intent

Malice

Example:
California dog case

Knowledge (Two lawyers owned a pit bull, and it killed a child next door) Recklessness • Extremely low standard Requires something MORE than ordinary negligence. “Gross negligence” “criminal negligence”
Time

Mental State Defenses Specific Intent

Malice

Example:
California dog case

Knowledge (Two lawyers owned a pit bull, and it killed a child next door) Recklessness • Extremely low standard Requires something MORE than ordinary negligence. “Gross negligence” “criminal negligence”

Strict Liability

Mental State Defenses
-- As a general rule, the Constitution does not allow strict Specific Intent liability crimes (all crimes must have mens rea) -- But the exception is for traffic crimes and “regulatory Malice crimes” (e.g., speeding & food inspection laws) -- it does Knowledge not matter if you did not know the speed or even if you should not have known it Lambert v. California Case involving a Question: curfew

Recklessness

Why? Is this crimes -- Court held: violated Due Process. Non-pettyfair? must have some kind of fault requirement

Strict Liability

Requires no whatsoever!!!

criminal

fault

Mental State Defenses
Interesting recent Specific Intent problem -- legislatures began drafting license crimes in the 80s and 90s that did not specify a mental state -- Example

Malice

Answer: Knowledge story in West Virginia] Answer: [explain the It can’tconsistent with the knowledge. “I To be beQuestion: Spiked-drink theory? was too drunk it must be Constitution, to know I What is Recklessness should be a good some kindmens rea for -- in theory, defense to DUI was drunk” of criminal (would be for DUI? absurd) negligence

• driving on a suspended license

Strict Liability
Time

Requires no whatsoever!!!

criminal

fault

Mistake of Fact
-- examine some very important defense:

Mental State Defenses We want to consider an extremely Interesting recent Specific Intent problem important defense that may negate -- legislatures began drafting license crimes in the 80s and the mental state:
90s that did not specify a mental state -- Example • driving on a suspended license

Malice

Knowledge story in West Virginia] [explain the
Spiked-drink theory?

Recklessness should be a good defense to DUI -- in theory,

Strict Liability

Requires no whatsoever!!!

criminal

fault

Mental State Defenses Specific Intent We want to consider an extremely important defense that may negate the mental state: Reasonable Mistake of Fact: “I thought the gun wasn’t loaded” Knowledge Recklessness “I thought I had permission to enter the house” “I thought the powder he gave me was pregnenolone, not cocaine

Malice

Strict Liability

“I thought the license wasn’t suspended”

Mental State Defenses Specific Intent We want to consider an extremely important defense that may negate the mental state: Reasonable Mistake of Fact: “I thought the gun wasn’t loaded” Question: “I thought I had permission to enter What do you think the the house” mental state requirement is “I thought the powder of rape? me for the crime he gave was pregnenolone, not cocaine

Malice

Knowledge Recklessness

Strict Liability

“I thought the license wasn’t suspended”

Mental State Defenses Specific Intent

Malice

Actus reas:

1. having sex Knowledge Recklessness 2. without permission
Mens rea?

• “he/she consented”
Negates the act

Strict Liability
Time

• “I THOUGHT he/she Example: Kobe Bryant consented”
Negates the mental state

The Politics of Defining Crime
“Piling on” -- The “regular” crime -- In order to get around the mental state requirement, legislatures have found anpossession little maneuver • possession & interesting with intent to distribute (a) specify as LOW of a level of fault as possible -- Then you have the “add ons:” (b) turn•one criminal acta crime with a firearm acts commission of into multiple criminal

-- Example: drugs laws of a drug felony with a beeper or • commission electronic communication device
• possessing paraphernalia

• selling within 1,000 feet of a school

The Politics of Defining Crime
“Piling on” -- The “regular” crime -- In order to get around the mental state requirement, legislatures have found anpossession little maneuver • possession & interesting with intent to distribute (a) specify as LOW of a level 1ons:” as possible -- Then you have the “addoffelony into 7 -- Turning fault (b) turn•one criminal acta crime with a firearm acts commission of into multiple criminal electronic communication device • possessing paraphernalia

-- Most of them have a low-- Example: drugs laws of ofdrug felony with a beeper or level • commission a fault

• selling within 1,000 feet of a school

The Politics of Defining Crime
“Piling on” -- The “regular” crimeinclude: -- In order to get -- Why the mental state requirement, around not legislatures have found anpossession little maneuver • possession & interesting with intent to than • Planning a crime for more distribute

seven days? (a) specify as LOW of a level of fault as possible -- Then you have the “add ons:”
(b) turn•one criminal acta crime with a firearm acts • Being into mastermind commission ofthe multiple criminalof the

planning? -- Example: drugs laws of a drug felony with a beeper or • commission electronic communication device a school • Planning 1,000 feet near
• possessing paraphernalia to a church • Planning too close • selling within 1,000 feet of a school
Time

• Using a computer to help you commit a crime

Miranda
-- There are two basic things that any police officer is going to seek when he/she wants to arrest you: (a) your statements (“talking) (b) your things (documents, possessions, tangibles) -- Each of these involves a different provision of the constitution: 5th Amendment 4th Amendment self incrimination search and seizure

Miranda
-- The Fifth Amendment says the following:

No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
-- “being a witness” is a colorful expression. It isn’t limited to actually testifying – it means giving any verbal ammunition at all (statements, conversations, etc.)

Miranda
-- Because the Constitution says this, the Warren Court justices decided that it would be nice if police officers warned you about this before they arrested you. (Miranda v. Arizona) • I’ve always thought the ruling was kind of strange [explain] • Does policing entail counseling? (Idealism about police work?) Hence the famous warnings: “you have a right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you. You have a right to an attorney during question. If you can’t afford one, an attorney will be appointed to your case.”

Miranda
-- There is also something in the law called the “exclusionary rule.” If a police officer gathers evidence in violation of the Constitution, it cannot be used in the trial -- Hence, if police officers violate Miranda and obtain utterances before giving the warnings, the evidence is thrown out (theoretically) -- But the problem is that Miranda has all kinds of exceptions to it that I will now explain -- First, let’s take a look at Miranda’s basic formula

Custody + Interrogation < “Waive” \ “P.S.E.”

Miranda
Custody 1. reasonable belief 2. that you are not free to leave the scene • does not include routine traffic stops • the officer intent is irrelevant – your mindset matters “He’s not a suspect; we just want to talk” Interrogation A. express questioning OR Example -- cellmates

B. when police know/should know that their conduct will illicit damaging information

Miranda
If you have custody and interrogation, the warnings must be given, UNLESS: Waiver -- oral or written -- blurting!!! Example: D sits in the back of a car (prolonged silence)

(Illustration)
P.S.E. PSE = Public Safety Emergencymissing gun at the crime example: scene 1. police need to find quick answers 2. to a public safety emergency

Miranda
-- Hence, we have the formula:

Custody + Interrogation

< “Waive” \ “P.S.E.”

(Note: there is another exception that I will give you tomorrow. It arises out of 4th Amendment cases). What Miranda has become

Question: can -- doesn’t interfere with police officers The evidence can STILL is What Youmight if Miranda be happensviolate the How impeachment Constitution and force the used forbeginthis affect violated? (“false -- probably was never a great idea to with theory constructionoff the defendant to stay purposes! theories”)? Final word of advice stand!
Time

Answer: -- a formality. (a form to sign at the station house) TrickAnswer: Question:

--”Officer, is this a custodial situation? Am I free to leave?”

Search and Seizure
intro -- aside from getting you to talk, police officers are going to want to search and seize things -- to understand this, let’s imagine the amount of proof that an officer might have for something …

Cause Level

Liquid = degree of certainty or “proof”

Cause Level
Complete certainty

Cause Level
Complete certainty Beyond a reasonable doubt

Cause Level
Complete certainty Beyond a reasonable doubt Preponderance of the evidence

Cause Level
Complete certainty Beyond a reasonable doubt Preponderance of the evidence Probable cause plus warrant

Cause Level
Complete certainty Beyond a reasonable doubt Preponderance of the evidence Probable cause plus warrant Probable cause; no warrant

Cause Level
Complete certainty Beyond a reasonable doubt Preponderance of the evidence Probable cause plus warrant Probable cause; no warrant Reasonable suspicion

Cause Level
Complete certainty Beyond a reasonable doubt Preponderance of the evidence Probable cause plus warrant Probable cause; no warrant Reasonable suspicion Nothing

7

6
5
Remember these numbers!

4 3

2
1

Hurdle concept 3 important concepts in searchand-seizure law :

Prerequisites

Inevitable discovery

Warrant Exceptions

YOU WIN!

Prerequisites 1. no government conduct?

Illustration
-- A and B get in a fight. B is pissed, and, after calling the cops, goes into A’s car and shows the police the dope. -- government must be doing the search and seizing in order for there to even be a 4th Amendment issue

Prerequisites 1. no government conduct? 2. item held out to the public?

“open fields”

Illustration
-- if the thing being searched is “held out to the public,” there cannot even be a Fourth Amendment issue. -- This area has been conservatively constructed the Supreme Court ….

looking in fenced areas with helicopters looking in your curbside garbage looking in your curbside garbage random DUI traffic stops.

Prerequisites 1. no government conduct? 2. item held out to the public?

1

Nothing

Simple Question: If there is no government conduct OR the item is held out to the public, what “cause level” is needed by the police?

Prerequisites 1. no government conduct? 2. item held out to the public?

1

Nothing

The Warrant Rule If the police are searching or seizing an item not “held out to the public,” it needs a warrant, UNLESS ….

Prerequisites 1. no govt conduct? 2. item held out to the public? Warrant Exceptions 1. plain view 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

1

Illustration -- anywhere the officer’s feet are lawfully present, things he can hear, see, feel, etc., are “freebees” (e.g., collecting for the FOP and being let in the house. He smells Marijuana). police dogs sniffing your luggage

Prerequisites 1. no govt conduct? 2. item held out to the public? Warrant Exceptions 1. plain view 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

1

1

Nothing

Simple Question: If the police search or seize an item not held out to the public, which is in plain view, what “cause level” should they need?

Prerequisites 1. no govt conduct? 2. item held out to the public? Warrant Exceptions 1. plain view 2. “stop and frisk” 3. 4.

1

1

Illustration -- police do not want to arrest; they want to detain and “pat down.” They just want to check for weapons or something

Simple Question: 5.
6. If the police want to do this, what “cause level” 7. should they need?

Prerequisites 1. no govt conduct? 2. item held out to the public? Warrant Exceptions 1. plain view 2. “stop and frisk” 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

1

1 2
Reasonable suspicion

Of danger or criminal activity

Luggage at airports! Detention can be for extended periods of time

Exception: random DUI traffic stops. Don’t need any reasonable suspicion!

Prerequisites 1. no govt conduct? 2. item held out to the public? Warrant Exceptions 1. plain view 2. “stop and frisk” 3. incident to lawful arrest 4. 5.

1
Illustration

Question:

1 -- extremely simple: if a police officer makes2 arrest, he or an she gets a “freebee” of the general area within his or her wingspan (somewhat liberally construed)
-- arrest in the car (glove box) -- arrest in the house in the kitchen (check the drawers and cupboards where could reach)

6. If the police want to do this, what “cause level” 7.

should they need?

Prerequisites 1. no govt conduct? 2. item held out to the public? Warrant Exceptions 1. plain view 2. “stop and frisk” 3. incident to lawful arrest 4. 5. 6. 7.

1

1 2 1

Prerequisites 1. no govt conduct? 2. item held out to the public? Warrant Exceptions 1. plain view 2. “stop and frisk” 3. incident to lawful arrest 4. evanescent evidence 5. 6.

1
Illustration

1 -- evidence that by its very nature could “bio-metabolize” or 2 evaporate if you would use the 1 warrant procedure.
-- e.g., getting a fingernail scraping
-- getting evidence of blood alcohol (caution: states have different rules)

Question:

If the police want to do 7. this, what “cause level” should they need?

Prerequisites 1. no govt conduct? 2. item held out to the public? Warrant Exceptions 1. plain view 2. “stop and frisk” 3. incident to lawful arrest 4. evanescent evidence 5. 6. 7.

1

1 2 1 3
Probable cause; no warrant

Prerequisites 1. no govt conduct? 2. item held out to the public? Warrant Exceptions 1. plain view 2. “stop and frisk” 3. incident to lawful arrest 4. evanescent evidence 5. mobile vehicles

1
Illustration

1 -- vehicles are mobile. Because of this, finding evidence is a 2 tougher thing to do. Therefore, 1 when police search vehicles, they do not need a warrant 3
-- (the trunk?)

Question:

If the police want to do 7. this, what “cause level” should they need?

6.

Prerequisites 1. no govt conduct? 2. item held out to the public? Warrant Exceptions 1. plain view 2. “stop and frisk” 3. incident to lawful arrest 4. evanescent evidence 5. mobile vehicles 6. 7.

1

1 2 1 3 3
Probable cause; no warrant

Prerequisites 1. no govt conduct? 2. item held out to the public? Warrant Exceptions 1. plain view 2. “stop and frisk” 3. incident to lawful arrest 4. evanescent evidence 5. mobile vehicles

1

1
Illustration

2

-- officers want to search. They 3 ask and you say yes

1

Question:

3

If the police want to do 7. this, what “cause level” should they need?

6. consent

Prerequisites 1. no govt conduct? 2. item held out to the public? Warrant Exceptions 1. plain view 2. “stop and frisk” 3. incident to lawful arrest 4. evanescent evidence 5. mobile vehicles 6. consent 7.

1

1 2 1 3 3 1
Nothing

Prerequisites 1. no govt conduct? 2. item held out to the public? Warrant Exceptions 1. plain view 2. “stop and frisk” 3. incident to lawful arrest 4. evanescent evidence 5. mobile vehicles

1

1 2
Illustration1

3 -- police are chasing a suspect. 3 (e.g., felony suspect runs into 1 someone else’s house, they chase and see marijuana)

Question:

If the police want to do 7. this, hot pursuit what “cause level” should they need?

6. consent

Prerequisites 1. no govt conduct? 2. item held out to the public? Warrant Exceptions 1. plain view 2. “stop and frisk” 3. incident to lawful arrest 4. evanescent evidence 5. mobile vehicles 6. consent 7. hot pursuit

1

1 2 1 3 3 1

1

Nothing


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:85
posted:4/22/2009
language:English
pages:64