Had a detailed schedule of crimes and punishment. Based on the theory of "an eye for an eye"
Code of Hammurabi
Mandated severe but proportionate punishment based on the principal of retribution
Replaced the idea of vengance
Followed the common-law practice. Was mandated in cases such as idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, sodomy, and adultry
Introduced the concept of the penitentiary. Idea to reform criminals through isolated, bible study, and hard labor. Gave rise to the notion of rehabilitation
Reform criminals and reintegrate them into society
Incarceration replaced corporal punishment. All states and the federal government built prisons. Death Penalty still used for most serious violent felonies.
Were eventually replaced by the firing squad, the gas chamber, the electric chair, and lethal injection.
Focus of criminal punishment is the goal. Offenders are prevented from committing further criminal acts.
Taking the proceeds from criminal activity
Forfeiture of Property
Includes aircraft, motor vehicles, and vessels.
If used to commit or facilitate commission of drug related felonies
Civil forfeitures are subject to review under this provision. Supreme Court left it to the states to determine whether a forfeiture is excessive. Many states prohibit criminal forfeiture of homestead property.
Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause
Confinement for violent offenders. State prisons are operating at or just below capacity. Federal prisons operate above capacity. Judges respond by imposing limits on prison population and scrutinizing conditions
Judges have broad discretion. Goal to rehabilitate offenders while protecting the public. Unlimited searches, no alcohol, no procreation, no access to internet, polygraph test
Conditions of Probation
David Oakley pleaded guilty to intentionally refusing to provide child support for his nine children. Placed on probation so he could work and make money to support his children. Could not father anymore children until he could demonstrate.
Supreme Court declared Georgia's death penalty unconstitutional. Many thought this might be the end of death penalty. Focused on the unlimited discretion the state placed in the trial juries.
Furman v. Georgia
Supreme Court upheld Georgia's revised death penalty. States that retained the death penalty modeled their statutes after Georgia. The rate of executions increased after the Gregg decision.
Gregg v. Georgia
Executions are carried out in the state where sentence imposed. If that state does not have the death penalty, they will be transferred to a state that does. Ex: Timothy McVeigh executed in Indiana
Federal Death Penalty
Enacted in 1994. Outlines aggravating and mitigating factors for imposition of the death penalty. Act dramatically increased the number of federal crimes eligible for the death penalty.
Federal Death Penalty Act
Supreme Court prohibiting the death penalty for the crime, rape. Suggests that the death penalty is only appropriate for crime that result in taking of human life.
Reduced by the number of years between sentencing and execution of sentence. Acts as retribution and incapacitation
Supreme Court ruled the constitution forbids executing a juvenile who is 15 or younger
Thompson v. Oklahoma
Supreme Court held that a juvenile 16 or older could be sentenced to death
Standford v. Kentucky
Supreme Court forbade the execution of anyone who was 18. Based on the emerging national consensus.
Roper v. Simmons
Constitution forbids execution a person who is legally insane
Ford v. Wainwright
U.S. Supreme Court determined that once a prisoner makes a preliminary showing that his current mental state would bar his execution, he is entitled to a hearing to determine his condition.
Panetti v. Quaterman
Supreme Court ruled not a violation of eighth amendment. Juries must be allowed to consider handicap as a mitigating factor is sentencing phase trial
Perry v. Lynaugh
Supreme Court determined there was sufficient national consensus for the court to prohibit execution of the mentally handicapped as violation of the eighth amendment
Atkins v. Virginia
Supreme Court upheld that the method, lethal injection, used by most state to employ lethal injection
Baze v. Rees
Sets forth the defendant's history of delinquency or criminality, medical history, family background, employment history, etc. Obtained by probation officers who interview family, friends, etc. Can order physical and mental exams.
Will be held after the PSI report is completed. Court considers evidence at trial, the PSI report, evidence offered by either party in aggravation or mitigation of sentence, and statement from the defendant. Will hear sentencing recommendations. Counsel must be supplied to indigent.
Stage at which the court imposed a penalty. Usually pronounced by the same judge who presided a trial.
Pronouncement of Sentence
Pronouncement of sentence. Penalty imposed right after trial.
Pronouncement of sentence. Penalty delayed until after the PSI report is completed and hearing trial
Defendants opportunity to make a statement on his or her own behalf
Right of Allocation
If the penalty includes incarceration, the defendant will get a credit for any time spent in custody during the pendency of the matter
Credit for time served
Judges can suspend the imposition of sentence and impose other conditions of release. If the defendant violates the conditions, can be resentenced. Typically used for nonviolent offenses.
When sentenced on more than on offense, the penalties can run at the same time.
When sentenced on more than one offense, the penalties will run back to back
Victim Impact Statements. Bifurcated trial. Jury hears evidence in aggravation or mitigation. Jury must find a reasonable doubt that the aggravating favors outweighs the mitigation.
Sentencing in Capital Cases
Covers the physical, economic and psychological effect of crime
Victim Impact Statements
Supreme Court struck down law allowing victim impact statements
Booth v. Maryland
Supreme Court reversed decision in Booth to allow victim impact statements
Standard of fairness and procedural regularity. Reflected in the opportunities available to defendants in criminal cases to seek judicial review of adverse court decisions.
Must make law due to gaps in statutory law and the need to interpret both statutory and constitutional provisions
Party who takes an appeal
Party against whom an appeal is taken
Party who seeks further appeal
Party against whom further appeal is taken
Any act of the trial court objected to by the defendant during pretrial, trial, or post trial states of the proceedings
Challenged on appeal
Those errors that undermine confidence in the system. More liberal in reviewing in a capital crime.
Pretrial violations, Procedural matters, Interpretations of law, Reasonable of sentence, Voluntariness of guilty plea, Prosecutorial misconduct
Assignments of error Point of Appeal
Appellant must show some prejudice resulted from the error and that the outcome of trial or the sentence imposed would have been different but for error. Typically must be a substantial error. Not about technical error.
In trials where no record is made, generally the defendant is entitled to an appeal by law. Granting of a "new trial". Appeal is held in a trial court of superior jurisdiction. Common in many misdemeanor cases.
Trial De Novo
A defendant whose conviction has been sustained by an intermediate court may petition a court of last resort for discretionary review
Writ of Certiorari
At least four of nine justices must vote to place a case of the docket
Rule of Four
Defendant often released pending the appeal
Judges the discretion to dent bail if the defendant poses a threat to the community or there is a high flight risk. Defendant has the burden of proving entitlement to bail.
Bail Reform Act of 1984
Supreme Court determined that states must provide counsel to indigents convicted of felonies who exercise their statutory right to appeal
Douglas v. California
Supreme Court held that a state's failure to provide counsel to a defendant seeking discreationary review did not violate the constitution.
Ross v. Moffitt
Supreme Court invalidated a state rule that allowed appointed counsel to withdraw by merely stating the appeal had no merit.
Anders v. California
Supreme Court ruled that a "no merits" brief satisfied the Anders requirement
Smith v. Robbins
Supreme Court determined that the Sixth Amendment does not provide the right to self-representation for appeals
Martinez v. California Court of Appeals
Address procedural issues such as filing deadlines, consolidation, expedited considerations, etc.
Summary of the relevant facts, issues and relevant legal argument
Submission of Briefs
Counsel for both parties summarize their positions and answer questions from the bench.
Panel of judges that heard the case confer to discus the facts and legal issues
Judgement of the lower court remains undisturbed
Dismiss the Appeal
Preserves the judgement of the lower court
Affirm of the Decision
Usually accompanied by an order to remand the east to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the appellant court's opinion
Reverse the Judgement
Represents the court as a whole
Per Curiam Opinion
Authored by one judge and joined by other judges constituting a majority
Opinion of the Court
Judge's opinion who disagrees with the majority
Judge who agrees with the court's conclusion but for different reasons or wants to address additional points of law
Designed to address some misstatement of material facts or to direct the court to overlooked or misapplied law
Motion for Rehearing
A party can request that all judges of the court participate in a rehearing
En Banc Hearing
Meaning "you have the body". Writ issued by the court requiring justification for holding someone in custody.
Writ of Habeas Corpus
Framers specifically recognized habeas corpus as a fundamental right
Article I, Section 9
Recognized federal courts power to issue writs for federal prisoners
Judiciary Act of 1789
Cannot challenge search and seizure if granted opportunity for full litigation in state court
Stone v. Powell
Cannot challenge jury instruction if failed to object during trial
Engle v. Isaac
Failure to develop a claim in state court can only be challenged if a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result