Docstoc

Introduction to US Criminal Justice - Criminal Procedure I

Document Sample
Introduction to US Criminal Justice - Criminal Procedure I Powered By Docstoc
					Introduction to the US-American Criminal
              Justice System
               winter semester 2008/09

           Dr. Christoph Burchard LLM (NYU)




                 7th Unit
          Criminal Procedure I:
   Introduction & Gateways to Justice
      Introduction to the US Criminal Justice System
      Dr. Christoph Burchard, LL.M
      WS 08/09


Mittwoch, 28. Mai 2008
Wegen Steuerhinterziehung: Strafbefehl gegen Würth

Das Amtsgericht Heilbronn hat einen Strafbefehl gegen den Milliardär Reinhold Würth erlassen. Dem
73-Jährigen und zwei weiteren Managern des Befestigungs- und Montagespezialisten wurde zur Last
gelegt, von 1999 bis 2001 in mehreren Fällen Steuern hinterzogen zu haben, teilte die
Staatsanwaltschaft Stuttgart mit. Das Amtsgericht habe gegen Würth und einen der Angestellten
Geldstrafen von jeweils 700 Tagessätzen verhängt, gegen den dritten Manager 600 Tagessätze. Über
die Höhe der Sätze wurden keine Angaben gemacht.
 Zurzeit liegt die maximale Höhe eines Tagessatzes bei 5.000 Euro. Die Ermittlungen gegen drei weitere
Betroffene wurden gegen Geldauflagen in Höhe von insgesamt 1,5 Millionen Euro eingestellt. Würth
und den beiden Managern wurde vorgeworfen, Steuern verkürzt zu haben, indem für den
Gesamtkonzern angefallene Kosten nicht den jeweils verursachenden Konzerngesellschaften
zugeordnet, sondern im Wesentlichen nur bei einer Gesellschaft Gewinn mindernd verbucht wurden.
 Die Staatsanwaltschaft hatte seit 2006 ermittelt und auch die Firma des Industriellen durchsucht. Die
Steuern seien nachgezahlt worden. Dies sei bei der Bemessung der hohen Geldstrafen berücksichtigt
worden. Das Unternehmen kündigte in einer Stellungnahme an, die Betroffenen würden die Geldstrafen
akzeptieren.
Reinhold Würth übernahm in einer Erklärung die Verantwortung für die Angelegenheit: "Ich habe mich
nach sehr reiflicher Überlegung bereit erklärt, die Verantwortung für offensichtlich strittige und komplexe
Fragen der Besteuerung der Würth-Gruppe zu übernehmen." Damit schütze er sein Unternehmen vor
belastenden Auswirkungen langjähriger Prozesse und Auseinandersetzungen in der Öffentlichkeit.
Introduction to the US Criminal Justice System
Dr. Christoph Burchard, LL.M
WS 08/09


02.12.2008 14:41 Uhr (Sueddeutsche Online)
Urteil des Bundesgerichtshofs - Steuerhinterziehung wird deutlich härter bestraft

Der Bundesgerichtshof hat die Bestrafung für Steuerhinterziehung verschärft: Steuersündern droht nun
schon bei geringeren Beträgen eine Freiheitsstrafe.

Der Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) hat die Strafen für Steuerhinterziehung deutlich verschärft. Bei
hinterzogenen Millionenbeträgen müssen die Steuersünder künftig in aller Regel hinter Gitter.
Eine Aussetzung der Strafe zur Bewährung sei nur noch in Ausnahmefällen möglich, entschied das
Karlsruher Gericht am Dienstag in einem Grundsatzurteil.

Ab 50.000 Euro drohen Gefängnis
Bereits bei Beträgen von mehr als 100.000 Euro müssen laut BGH in der Regel Freiheitsstrafen
verhängt werden, die aber noch zur Bewährung ausgesetzt werden können.

Mit seinem Urteil stellte der 1. BGH-Strafsenat für Steuerhinterziehung erstmals Leitlinien auf, die sich
an der Höhe der hinterzogenen Beträge orientieren. Bis 50.000 Euro sind danach im Normalfall
Geldstrafen angezeigt, bis 100.000 Euro kommt es auf den Einzelfall an. "Bei sechsstelligen
Hinterziehungsbeträgen ist eine Freiheitsstrafe unerlässlich", sagte der Senatsvorsitzende Armin Nack
bei der Urteilsverkündung.

Bei Millionenbeträgen ist laut BGH zudem eine öffentliche Hauptverhandlung zwingend. Eine
Beendigung des Verfahrens per Strafbefehl sei "aus Rechtsgründen" nicht möglich. "Gerade bei
großen Steuerstrafverfahren hat die Öffentlichkeit ein großes Interesse zu kontrollieren, ob die Justiz
ihren Aufgabe nachkommt", sagte Nack.
Introduction to the US Criminal Justice System
Dr. Christoph Burchard, LL.M
WS 08/09



  Comparative Criminal Procedure – Models and Ideal Typs


  • The Usual Approach: Adversarial System vs. Inquisitorial System
  • Damaska‘s Systemic Approach: „The Faces of Justice and State
  Authority“
        • Proactive vs. Reactive State: Two Types of State and the End of
        Legal Process
        • The Hierarchical and the Coordinate Model: Organization of
        Authority
  • Criminal Justice between „Due Process“ and „Efficient Crime Control“
        • „The Obstacle Course" vs. "The Assembly Line"-Metaphor
        • „The Ghost of an Innocent Man Convicted“
Introduction to the US Criminal Justice System
Dr. Christoph Burchard, LL.M
WS 08/09



  The Objectives of a Criminal Procedure Design


  • Conflict Resolution &/vs. Policy Making/Implementation
  • Material vs. Procedural Truth (criminal procedure & epistemology)
  • Fairness
  • Protection of certain – and often conflicting – Interests (of the
  Defendant, the Victim, the Society etc.)
  • etc.


   Is the respective „Ideology“ properly implemented?
   Demystifing the „Ideology“
Introduction to the US Criminal Justice System
Dr. Christoph Burchard, LL.M
WS 08/09



  Gateway to Justice: Prosecutorial Discretion vs. Mandatory
  Prosecution
  • Germany:
        • The Principle of Mandatory Prosecution (§ 152 II StPO)
              • Objectives & Problems
        • Diversion & Selection of Charges (§§ 153 et seq. StPO)
        • „Law in Action“
  • US:
        • The Rule: Prosecutorial Discretion (Screenig Out; Diversion;
        Selection of Charges)
              • Objectives & (theoretical + factual) Problems
        • Checks & Balances (confining, structuring, checking discretion)
        • „Law in Action“
Introduction to the US Criminal Justice System
Dr. Christoph Burchard, LL.M
WS 08/09



  Gateway to Justice: Checking Prosecutorial Discretion by Judicial
  Review?
  Wayte v. US, 470 U.S. 598 (US Supreme Court, 1985)
  … In our criminal justice system, the Government retains "broad discretion" as to
  whom to prosecute. United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 380 , n. 11 (1982);
  accord, Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 248 (1980). "[S]o long as the
  prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense
  defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or
  bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion." Bordenkircher v.
  Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978). This broad discretion rests largely on the
  recognition that the decision to prosecute is particularly ill-suited to judicial review.
  Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution's general deterrence value,
  the Government's enforcement priorities, and the case's relationship to the
  Government's overall enforcement plan are not readily susceptible to the kind of
  analysis the courts are competent to undertake. Judicial supervision in this area,
  moreover, entails systemic costs of particular concern. Examining the basis of a
  prosecution delays the criminal proceeding, threatens to chill law enforcement by
  subjecting the prosecutor's motives and decisionmaking to outside inquiry, and may
  undermine prosecutorial effectiveness by revealing the Government's enforcement
  policy. All these are substantial concerns that make the courts properly hesitant to
  examine the decision whether to prosecute.
Introduction to the US Criminal Justice System
Dr. Christoph Burchard, LL.M
WS 08/09



  Gateway to Justice: Checking Prosecutorial Discretion by Judicial
  Review:
  Individual Challenges to Discriminatory Charging Decisions?
  • Germany: non-existent
  • US: Oyler v. Boles (1962)
Introduction to the US Criminal Justice System
Dr. Christoph Burchard, LL.M
WS 08/09



  Oyler v. Boles 368 U.S. 448 (US Supreme Court, 1962)


  Facts:
  West Virginia's habitual criminal statute provides for a mandatory life
  sentence upon the third conviction "of a crime punishable by
  confinement in a penitentiary." The increased penalty is to be invoked
  by an information filed by the prosecuting attorney "immediately upon
  conviction and before sentence." In such proceedings, in which they
  were represented by counsel and did not request continuances or raise
  any matters in defense but did concede the applicability of the statute to
  the circumstances of their cases, petitioners were sentenced to life
  imprisonment. Subsequently they petitioned the State Supreme Court
  for writs of habeas corpus, alleging that the Act had been applied ...
  Only [to] a minority of those subject to its provisions, in violation of the ...
  Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Their petitions
  were denied.
Introduction to the US Criminal Justice System
Dr. Christoph Burchard, LL.M
WS 08/09



  Oyler v. Boles 368 U.S. 448 (US Supreme Court, 1962) (continued)

  Held:
  The failure to proceed against other offenders because of a lack of
  knowledge of prior offenses or because of the exercise of reasonable
  selectivity in enforcement does not deny equal protection to persons
  who are prosecuted, and petitioners did not allege that the failure to
  prosecute others was due to any other reason.

  ...

  [T]he conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in
  itself a federal constitutional violation. Even though the statistics in this
  case might imply a policy of selective enforcement, it was not stated that
  the selection was deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard
  such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification. Therefore
  grounds supporting a finding of a denial of equal protection were not
  alleged.
Introduction to the US Criminal Justice System
Dr. Christoph Burchard, LL.M
WS 08/09



  Gateway to Justice: Checking Prosecutorial Discretion by Judicial
  Review:
  Individual Challenges to Discriminatory Charging Decisions and
  Burdens of Proof
  US v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (US Supreme Court, 1996)
Introduction to the US Criminal Justice System
Dr. Christoph Burchard, LL.M
WS 08/09


  US v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (US Supreme Court, 1996)
  Facts
  Respondents were indicted on charges of conspiring to possess and
  distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base, and federal firearms
  offenses. Respondents filed a motion for discovery or for dismissal of
  the indictment, alleging that they were selected for federal prosecution
  because they were African American. The appellate court affirmed the
  trial court's order of dismissal, holding that a defendant was not required
  to show that government had failed to prosecute others who were
  similarly situated. The Court granted certiorari to determine the
  appropriate standard for discovery for a selective-prosecution claim.
  The Court reversed because respondents failed to show that
  government declined to prosecute similarly situated suspects of other
  races.
Introduction to the US Criminal Justice System
Dr. Christoph Burchard, LL.M
WS 08/09


  US v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (US Supreme Court, 1996)
  Background Information (from the Dissent of Justice Stevens):
  [I]t is undisputed that the brunt of the elevated federal penalties falls
  heavily on blacks. While 65% of the persons who have used crack are
  white, in 1993 they represented only 4% of the federal offenders
  convicted of trafficking in crack. Eighty-eight percent of such defendants
  were black. During the first 18 months of full guideline implementation,
  the sentencing disparity between black and white defendants grew from
  preguideline levels: blacks on average received sentences over 40%
  longer than whites.
Introduction to the US Criminal Justice System
Dr. Christoph Burchard, LL.M
WS 08/09


  US v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (US Supreme Court, 1996) (continued)
  Held: For a defendant to be entitled to discovery on a claim that he was singled out for
  prosecution on the basis of his race, he must make a threshold showing that the
  Government declined to prosecute similarly situated suspects of other races.
  ...
  If discovery is ordered, the Government must assemble from its own files documents
  which might corroborate or refute the defendant's claim. Discovery thus imposes many of
  the costs present when the Government must respond to a prima facie case of selective
  prosecution. It will divert prosecutors' resources and may disclose the Government's
  prosecutorial strategy. The justifications for a rigorous standard for the elements of a
  selective-prosecution claim thus require a correspondingly rigorous standard for
  discovery in aid of such a claim. ...
  In this case we consider what evidence constitutes "some evidence tending to show the
  existence" of the discriminatory effect element. The Court of Appeals held that a
  defendant may establish a colorable basis for discriminatory effect without evidence that
  the Government has failed to prosecute others who are similarly situated to the
  defendant. We think it was mistaken in this view. The vast majority of the Courts of
  Appeals require the defendant to produce some evidence that similarly situated
  defendants of other races could have been prosecuted, but were not, and this
  requirement is consistent with our equal protection case law.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1
posted:10/15/2011
language:English
pages:14
kzgpwtxtim kzgpwtxtim
About