Based upon your review of the textbook readings chapters 1-13, post a 1250-word (minimum) synopsis of your understanding of the material. This post should demonstrate understanding of the legal issues reviewed. Utilize the video segments viewed to provide a practical application of these legal issues.
CHAPTER 6 Criminal Procedure Most of this book focuses on civil law, so we begin with a discussion of the differences between a civil and a criminal case. A Civil versus a Criminal Case In civil cases, the wrongdoing has harmed the safety or property of the parties, but it is not so serious that it threatens society as a whole. Conduct becomes criminal when society outlaws it. If a state legislature or Congress concludes that certain behavior harms public safety and welfare, it passes a statute forbidding that activity; in other words, declaring it criminal. Medicare fraud, which Stacey committed, is a crime because Congress has outlawed it. The title of a criminal case is usually the government versus someone: The United States of America v. Simpson or The State of Illinois v. Simpson. This name illustrates a daunting thought—if you are Simpson, the vast power of the government is against you. Because of the government’s great power and the severe penalties it can impose, criminal procedure is designed to protect the accused and ensure that criminal trials are fair. Many of the protections for those accused of a crime are found in the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. Prosecution Suppose the police arrest Roger and accuse him of breaking into a store and stealing 50 computers. The owner of the store has been harmed, so he has the right to sue the thief in civil court to recover money damages. But only the government can prosecute a crime and punish Roger by sending him to prison. The government may also impose a fine on Roger, but it keeps the fine and does not share it with the victim. (However, the court will sometimes order restitution, meaning that the defendant must reimburse the victim for the harm suffered.) Burden of Proof In a civil case, the plaintiff must prove her case only by a preponderance of the evidence. But because the penalties for conviction in a criminal case are so serious, the government has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In a criminal case, if the jury has any significant doubt at all that Roger stole the computers, it must acquit him. Right to a Jury The facts of a case are decided by a judge or jury. A criminal defendant has a right to a trial by jury for any charge that could result in a sentence of six months or longer. The defendant may choose not to have a jury trial, in which case, the judge decides the verdict. When the judge is the fact finder, the proceeding is called a bench trial. Felonies and Misdemeanors A felony is a serious crime, for which a defendant can be sentenced to one year or more in prison. Murder, robbery, rape, wire fraud, and embezzlement are felonies. A misdemeanor is a less serious crime, often punishable by a year or less in a county jail. Public drunkenness, driving without a license, and shoplifting are considered misdemeanors in many states. State of Mind Voluntary Act A defendant is not guilty of a crime if she was forced to commit it. In other words, she is not guilty if she acted under duress. However, the defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that she did act under duress. In 1974, a terrorist group kidnapped heiress Patricia Hearst from her college apartment. After being tortured for two months, she participated in a bank robbery with the group. Despite opportunities to escape, she stayed with the criminals until her capture by the police a year later. The State of California put on her on trial for bank robbery. One question for the jury was whether she had voluntarily participated in the crime. This was an issue on which many people had strong opinions. Ultimately Hearst was convicted, sent to prison, and then later pardoned. Entrapment When the government induces the defendant to break the law, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime. The goal is to separate the cases where the defendant was innocent before the government tempted him from those where the defendant was only too eager to break the law. Kalchinian and Sherman met in the waiting room of a doctor’s office where they were both being treated for drug addiction. After several more meetings, Kalchinian told Sherman that the treatment was not working for him and he was desperate to buy drugs. Could Sherman help him? Sherman repeatedly refused, but ultimately agreed to help end Kalchinian’s suffering by providing him with drugs. Little did Sherman know that Kalchinian was a police informer. Sherman sold drugs to Kalchinian a number of times. Kalchinian rewarded this act of friendship by getting Sherman hooked again and then turning him in to the police. A jury convicted Sherman of drug dealing, but the Supreme Court overturned the conviction on the grounds that Sherman had been entrapped. The Court felt there was not enough evidence that Sherman was predisposed to commit the crime. Conspiracy Jeen and Sunny Han were 22-year-old identical twin sisters with a long history of physical and verbal fights. One day, Jeen and two teen-age boys purchased gloves, twine, tape, Pine Sol, and garbage bags. While Jeen waited outside Sunny’s apartment, the boys forced their way in, tied up Sunny and her roommate, and put them in the bathtub. Luckily, Sunny had a chance to dial 911 as she heard the boys breaking in. When the police arrived, the two boys fled. This case raises several questions: Has Jeen committed a crime? Are the boys guilty of anything more than breaking into Sunny’s apartment? How did this family go so terribly wrong? (Because this is a business law text, we can only answer the first two questions.) If the police discover a plot to commit a crime, they can arrest the defendants before any harm has been done. It is illegal to conspire to commit a crime, even if that crime never actually occurs. A defendant can be convicted of taking part in a conspiracy if: · A conspiracy existed, · The defendants knew about it, and · Some member of the conspiracy voluntarily took a step toward implementing it. In the Han case, the jury convicted Jeen and the two boys of a conspiracy to murder her sister. As the court asked: What was she planning to do with the Pine Sol and plastic bags, given that she did not have a home? She was sentenced to a long prison term. The two boys got lesser (but still substantial) sentences because the judge believed Jeen had masterminded the crime. Gathering Evidence: The Fourth Amendment If the police suspect that a crime has been committed, they will need to obtain evidence. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from making illegal searches and seizures. This amendment applies to individuals, corporations, and other organizations. The goal of the Fourth Amendment is to protect individuals and businesses from the powerful state. Warrant As a general rule, the police must obtain a warrant before conducting a search. A warrant is written permission from a neutral official, such as a judge or magistrate, to conduct a search. The warrant must specify with reasonable precision the place to be searched and the items to be seized. Thus, if the police say they have reason to believe that they will find bloody clothes in the suspect’s car in his garage, they cannot also look through his house and confiscate file folders. Probable Cause The magistrate will issue a warrant only if there is probable cause. Probable cause means that, based on all the information presented, it is likely that evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched. Searches Without a Warrant There are seven circumstances under which police may search without a warrant. Plain View When Rashad Walker opened his door in response to a police officer’s knock, he was holding a marijuana joint in his hand. The court held that the police did not need a warrant to make an arrest because evidence of the crime was in plain view. Emergencies If the police believe that evidence is about to be destroyed, they can search without a warrant. Thus, if they suspect someone is using illegal drugs in an apartment, they can enter without a warrant because, in the time it would take to contact a magistrate, the drugs might be gone. Automobiles If police have lawfully stopped a car and then observe evidence of other crimes in the car, such as burglary tools, they may search. Lawful Arrest Police may always search a suspect they have arrested. The goal is to protect the officers and preserve evidence. Consent Anyone lawfully living in a dwelling can allow the police in to search without a warrant. If your roommate gives the police permission to search your house, that search is legal. Stop and Frisk None of us wants to live in a world in which police can randomly stop and frisk us on the street anytime they feel like it. The police do have the right to stop and frisk, but only if they have a clear and specific reason to suspect that criminal activity may be afoot and that the person may be armed and dangerous. In the following case, the police had the right to stop the driver, but could they search his car? No Expectation of Privacy The police have a right to search any area in which the defendant does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, Rolando Crowder was staying at his friend Bobo’s apartment. Hearing the police in the hallway, he ran down to the basement. The police found Crowder in the basement with drugs nearby. Crowder argued that the police should have obtained a warrant, but the court ruled that Crowder had no expectation of privacy in Bobo’s basement. Technology and social media have created new challenges in determining what is a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, police do need a warrant to: · Search the contents of your cell phone or personal computer, · Intercept email in transit, · Read private Facebook profiles and postings, · Attach a GPS tracking device to your car, or · Require a blood test. They do not need a warrant to: · Require a DNA test on someone arrested for a serious crime, · Require a breathalyzer test, · Obtain records from the phone company (such as a phone’s location or a list of numbers called), · Find out whom you have emailed or what websites you have visited, · Search your internet messages, or · Check your public social media profiles or your Twitter posts. Exclusionary Rule Under the exclusionary rule, any evidence the government acquires illegally may not be used at trial. The Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule to prevent governmental misconduct. The theory is simple: If police and prosecutors know in advance that illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in court, they