Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum - Art. 24.

02 CCP

sample standard pretrial and trial defense motions If you want something to happen or you don't want something to happen within the procedural framework of the case, you're going to have to ask the court to issue an order. You make the request for a trial court order by means of a motion. The trial judge will handle housekeeping matters sua sponte (on its own motion without any request from a party), but for the most part you can't count on the trial court to control the opposition without a formal request, i.e., motion, from you. Some motions will suffice on their own face to support the issuance of a dispositive order by the court. Other motions will require supporting evidence, e.g., an affidavit. In some instances, particularly those involving disputed facts, it will be necessary to adduce oral testimony at a hearing on the motion. Here's a list of some federal cases holding criminal defense trial counsel ineffective, under the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, for failure to file certain motions. What follows is a smorgasbord of titles to plus 150 standard motions that might be filed by defenders. Although most of these motions could be filed in any jurisdiction, some of them have a basis in the law of my home state, Texas. Accordingly, I have indicated the statutory or rule based source of those motions (CCP =Texas Code of Criminal Procedure; TPC = Texas Penal Code; TRE = Texas Rules of Evidence) For more information about drafting your own motions (1 - tips from a civil lawyer) and a couple of hundred other standard motions , see Pretrial and Trial Motions in Criminal Cases - A Trial Lawyer's Guide: The USSC cases and state cases cited after some of the motion titles may give you a head start if you are researching and/or drafting your own motions rather than using boilerplates or fill-in-the-blanks templates that you don't understand and that were written or ripped-off by a pointy-headed legal software seller. If you are going to competently defend persons accused of crime, you'll have to keep up with breaking cases. Note: To monitor the U. S. Supreme Court's slip opinions of cutting edge cases, e.g., Crawford, Blakely, etc., I use these free sites: Findlaw Supreme Court Cases, Supreme Court Slip Opinion, Cornell, Findlaw's USSC briefs, ABA's briefs, This is a fee based subscription service. Use these sites to find Federal Codes, (1), (2),State Cases. Lexisone will allow you free access to USSC cases and state cases for the previous five years.VersusLaw provides a low-cost alternative to Westlaw and Lexis. You may also be able to find useful information regarding cases pending in the USSC in this ABA preview site. One of the best sites to help you stay on top of cases pending in and recently decided by the United States Supreme court is "On the Docket" sponsored by the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University. For those with a historical bent, you may find it interesting to read the bios of justices who have staffed the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS andHowAppealing blawgs deal respectively with USSC and appellate court going-ons. If you are brief-writing theLegal-Writing blawg is a useful resource.This super blawg aggregates a large number of blawgs covering activity in the various federal circuits. Texas criminal lawyers must be aware of the Texas Penal Code, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Texas Rules of Evidence, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Texas Court Reporters Rules, and the the Texas Uniform Court Reporters Manual as well as the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals mail service, the Texas AG Google search for opinions, the Texas Legislature. , the Texas Legislative Reference Library. Here's an Internet research tutorial, a research guide, a free email bulletin, a free newsletter. One of the best ways of keeping up with changes in criminal procedure at the federal level is to read the Georgetown Law Journal - Annual Review of Criminal Procedure; it'll cost you about $65 per annum; it's a +1,000 page summary of recent cases in the 12 Federal Circuit Courts and the USSC. Here's a potpourri of titles to motions that you may want to adopt, adapt, or compose: Motion for Court Reporter to Make a Full and Complete Record of All Hearings or Court Proceedings - (See Rule 13, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure; note that Rule 13.(a) now requires the court reporter to make a record of the voir dire and final argument, unless excused by agreement of the parties.)

Motion to Preserve Evidence Otherwise Subject to Destruction, Corruption, or Contamination Motion to Use Best Practices in Lineups and Eyewitness Interviews (1) Motion Pursuant to Article 36 of the Vienna Convention Re Consular Relations (VCCR) for Access to and Communication with Consular Officials by the Defendant as a Foreign National Detained in the United States of America (1 - 60 pages of information re VCCR) This motion is based on international law, Articles 5 and 36 [more specifically Article 36 (1)(b)] of the VCCR, that states that foreign nationals held in custody must be allowed to contact their embassy), (2) Motion to Restrict Publicity (Gag Order, "Cut Their Tongue Out" Motion) - Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961); Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 (1975); Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (1984); Mu'Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (1991); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965); Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976); Gannett Company Inc, v.DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979); Richmond Newspapers Inc v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980);Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 47 U.S. 596 (1982); Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981); Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, , 478 U.S. 1 (1986); Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991); El Vorcero de Puerto Rico v. Puerto Rico, 508 U.S. 147 (1993); Skilling v. United States, __U.S. __ (2010) holding that pretrial publicity and community prejudice did not prevent this Enron CEO white-collar criminal from getting a fair trial. CCJA Ethics; ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 3.6, 3.8; ABA Standards - Fair Trial & Free Press (1992); ABAStandards for Criminal Justice - Prosecution Function 3-1.4 - Public Statements; (1), (2 - 54 page article on the subject of pretrial publicity -2004) [Note: Keep track of online mention of your high publicity case with Google Alert.] [Note: The USSC cases lag behind changes in communicastion. Today, blogs or blawgs constitute primary sources of pretrial and trial information regarding high-profile cases; controlling pretrial publicity in the organized media, e.g., press and TV, will be much easier than controlling the thousands of would be pundits on the Internet.] [Suggestion: If you do issue a defense statement, keep it brief, e.g., "Mr. Smith is not guilty.(or By his plea of not guilty, Mr. Smith has started the process of justice.) We will ask for a trial. I am going to vigorously, enthusiastically, and successfully defend him against this charge."]

Motion to Prevent Ex Parte Contact with Judge (or Jurors) - See CCJA Ethics; ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.5; ABA Standards - Special Functions of the Trial Judge (1999). Nonresident Attorney's Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice ["Pro Hac Vice" is Latin for "for this occasion or particular purpose" and is used here when a lawyer who has not been admitted to practice in a particular jurisdiction seeks temporary admission there to try one case.] This web page provides nonresident lawyers who seek to practice in a Texas court with useful information regarding Pro Hac Vice practice in Texas. Here is broader info on multijurisdictional practice. Motion to Prevent Ex Parte Communication with the Court by the Prosecution Except as Permitted by Law or Court Order - See Rule 3.5(b) ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. See also Canon 3B(7) of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct. Check your jurisdiction's rules at CCJAEthics. Motion to Withdraw as Counsel Motion to Withdraw as Counsel Due to Conflict of Interests with the Defendant and Objection to Being Forced to Represent the Defendant in Light of Such Conflict - Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978) holds that when a defense lawyer objects to representing a client with conflicting interests, the trial court is required to make an inquiry as to whether there is a conflict of interest and hold a hearing if necessary. Failure of the trial court to do so results in an automatic reversal of any subsequent conviction, prejudice being presumed. [Note: When you file this motion be certain to state that the conflict of interest may create a deprivation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. If you don't object to the conflict of interest representation and your client is convicted, in his postconviction effort to

United States. your client will have the very heavy burden of establishing that there was an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel's representation. 422 U. California. Motion to Quash Grand Jury Subpoena Dueces Tecum . Arizona. 292 (1991). 509 U.Westbrook v. 408 U. Moran.Faretta v. Salerno. 2379 (2008) held that the United States Constitution permits states to insist upon representation by counsel for those who are competent enough to stand trial but who still suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves. Inc. See ABA Standards . Motion to Modify Conditions of Bond Motion for a Preliminary Hearing [Note: Texas is the only state in the nation that calls the preliminary hearing an "Examining Trial"] Motion for a Transcription of Evidence Presented at Preliminary Hearing Challenge to the Array of Grand Jurors .S. to conduct an inquiry into the matter of the lawyer's potential or actual conflict if interest. consult Hashimoto. Motion to Reduce Bond .S. (Farettadoes not apply to appeal. Fourth Appellate District. Enterprises. you should strongly consider (1) filing a written objection to the representation on the ground of conflict of interest between you and the lawyer. 162 (2002) making clear that if there is no trial court objection to the representation on ground of conflict of interest. United States v. 404 US 357 (1971).S.S.S. 422 U.] Motion for a Hearing on Defendant's Competence to Waive Counsel . 152 (2000). Mickens v. Taylor.S. 806 (1975). Calandra. 554 U.Schilb v. __. United States v. if you are indigent. (1) Motion to Substitute Counsel Motion to Set Bond .) In support of this motion.S.Articles 19. postconviction relief is available only when there is proof of an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected the representation. California.Martinez v. Edwards. 404 U. 1 (1951).United States v. Motion to Require the Grand Jury to Record the Information Presented to It by the Prosecutor and Witnesses Motion to Preserve Grand Jury Testimony of Witnesses Who Testified or Otherwise Provided Evidence Motion to Adopt Pretrial Motions of Co-Defendant . 357(1971).Pretrial Release (2002).S..Faretta v.S.C.30 CCP (Texas Code of Criminal Procedure).150 (1966). Court of Appeal of California.27. in the same written objection. 414 U. Defending the Right of Self-Representation.31 CCP.Harris v. Blair v. Kuebel.Ct. 446 US 335 (1980).McKaskle v.Articles 19. 739 (1987).S. United States v.S.S. To seal the deal. Godinez v.465 U. R. Kuebel. 1232 (1971).] [Note to Defendants: If you are being represented by a lawyer whom you think has a potential or actual conflict of interest in representing you and the lawyer refuses to withdraw or notify the trial judge of the conflict. Indiana v.Stack v. 85 N. 535 U. Defendant's Motion to Proceed Pro Se at Trial . 250 U. 528 U. Schilb v.S. 481 U. Motion by Court-Appointed Counsel that the Court Determine Whether the Defendant Who Wishes to Proceed Pro Se Is Making This Decision Knowingly and Voluntarily . 128 S. 389 (1993). Hayes. and (2) asking the trial judge. Defendant's Request for Standby Counsel . 273 (1919). 19. 338 (1974). Sullivan. 423 (2007). you might also file a motion with the court asking the trial judge to provide you with a different lawyer. 19. 404 U. United States . See Culyer v. 342 U. Boyle. 410 U.Rev. 665 (1972). Challenge to a Particular Grand Juror .S . Dionisio. Branzburg v. Wiggins .27.S. 168 (1984).have the conviction set aside for denial of effective assistance of counsel on the ground of conflict of interest.S. 498 U. 384 U.S. 1 (1973). 806 (1975).L.

66 (1967).S. Motion to Set Aside Indictment (or Information or Complaint) for Denial of Speedy Trial Klopfer v. Barker v. Kennedy. Brillon.Criminal Discovery (1994). That the Defendant Be Allowed to Withdraw His/Her Plea .S. __ (2010) holding that delay resulting from the defendant's request for additional time to prepare pretrial motions is not automatically excludable from the 70-day limit under the federal speedy trial act.S. Swenson. ABA Standards .__. 505 U. R.S.Santobello v.] Defenders and prosecutors must take time to read Opinion 09-454 (July 8. 456 U. request that the opposition provide you with its expert witnesses' qualifications and opinions as well as the factual data or underlying information upon which the experts' opinion will be based.14 CCP.(1 . __ U. 742 (1970). 1283 (2009). United States. 27. 386 U. United States.S. Proc : Puckett v. R. 27. 397 U. see Rule 11(d) Fed. . 326 (1988). Blockburger v.Art. 487 U.Ct. 18 USC 3161 et seq.S.S.B. 2009) of the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility setting forth a broader ethical requirement of compulsory prosecutorial disclosure than is required by the constitutional due process Brady-type cases listed below.S. New York. United States.__U. 27.(1 . 28. be ready to file a written motion to exclude.W.).Yeager v. Motion for Discovery . 504 (1984).(1) Brady v. if no reports were made. [Re expert opinion under Articles 7 of TRE and FRE . 514 (1972).S. the discussion of formal and informal discovery on CCJA's Pretrial page.3d 335 (Tex. Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty . United States.federal) Motion to Require the Prosecution to List the Names of Witnesses Upon Whose Testimony the Indictment was Found . United States v. United States v. Ruiz. 395 US 784 (1969).and If the Court Does Not Require the Prosecution to Honor the Promises It Made. Motion that the Prosecution Be Required to Reveal Material that Would in Its Nature Be Exculpatory of Guilt and/or Mitigating of Punishment and that the Duty to Reveal Such Material Be a Continuing One Throughout the Case .S. 219 S. 436 (1970). 21. 2007). 2360 (2009). 536 .05 CCP Defendant's Plea of Double Jeopardy (or Collateral Estoppel) . North Carolina.20 CCP. Crim.01 CCP.Benton v. Art. 39.S. United States v. 404 U. 547 U. Ashe v.__. Maryland. also. Giglio v. Strickler v. 397 U.S.02. United States v. 667 (1982). Johnson. Note that there is federal Speedy Trial Act of 1974. Improper Termination. __. See federal cases involving withdrawal of a plea. United States. 427 U. Motion to Adopt Motions and Pleading Filed by Defense in the Previous Trial of This Case Defendant's Special Plea in Bar Based on Former Acquittal.Speedy Trial (2004). 473 U. 527 U. 27. 386 U.09. 20. a summary of their experts' anticipated testimony. 489 (2006). See also ABA Standards . 405 U.S. Mabry v. or Collateral Estoppel .Regarding opposing experts request that the opposition provide you with the business addresses and phone numbers of the opposition's experts. 284 US 299 (1932). __U.03.A. 257 (1971). 514 U.S. United States.A.S. 667 (1985). Texas lawyers got some bad news from the ex-prosecutor dominated Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Ex parte Lewis. Agurs.S. Strunk v. Greene. If you plan to challenge the admissibility of the other side's expert testimony. Kyles v.Articles 21.Exception to the Indictment . 419 (1995). Bloate v. see Zedner v. 83 (1963). 129 U. Bagley. 407 U.Guilty Plea (1999). 150 (1972). United States.S. 263 (1999). Crim Proc.08. Giles v. 434 (1973). __ U.Motion to Quash (Set Aside) Indictment. United States. Maryland. Defendant's Plea of Double Jeopardy to Bar Retrial After Defendant Successfully Moved for Mistrial When the Prosecutor Engaged in Conduct That Was Intended to Provoke the Defendant Into Moving for A Mistrial. 2 & 3 federal case law and Rule 16 Fed.11. 467 U.S. on this front. Wingo. Vermont v. Maryland. copies of all written reports and bench and field notes made by their experts or . App.S.S.Brady v. 27. 97 (1976). Standards .S. 129 S.Oregon v. Taylor. 27. 1423 (2009). 373 U. United States. Former Conviction. 647 (1992). Here (1) is a 150 page memorandum in support of a motion to dismiss a federal indictment and for a bill of particulars.21. Doggett v. 213 (1967). Crim. Whitley.Ct.S.Art.S. 129 S.12. 412 U. Motion to Require Specific Performance of Binding Plea Bargain by the Government (Add: . Motion to Prevent Use of Prior Conviction for Enhancement .

Motion for a List of Prosecution Witnesses Motion for Disclosure of Grand Jury Testimony of Witnesses for Which There Is a Particularized Need Motion for Court Order for Access to Allow Defense Inspection of Scene of Alleged Offense Motion to Physically Inspect.e. 458 U. e. Motion to Disclose the Identity of the Government's Informant(s) .150 (1972). the Police Motion for Discovery of Eyewitness Evidence . Examine. Rules 3.8 (d). and Forensically Analyze Tangible Items of Potential Evidence Motion for Discovery of Software Source Code to Access Program that Runs Breath Alcohol Measuring Instrument (e. Youngblood. 353 U. 3. See alsoPennsylvania v. 858 (1982).S. Defenders should attach a copy of Opinion 09-454 to the Motion for Disclosure and should demand that disclosure be timely so that the information or potential evidence can be used meaningfully in defending the case. United States. 405 U.S. United States v.. etc." a machine common to every crime laboratory. ValenzuelaBernal. See Eyewitness Misidentification. United States. Intoxilyzer 5000.Giglio v. Ritchie.S.4.. i. sale. of the contraband substance. Motion to Compel the Prosecution to Take Steps to Learn of Any Evidence Favorable to the Defendant That Is Known to Other Persons Acting for the Government Team. See also the discussion of pretrial discovery in CCJA's Pretrial.g.If weight of a controlled substance or other alleged item of contraband is of importance to the sanction that may be imposed. 622 (2002).(a) & (d). 488 U. Some jurisdictions (1) utilize letter requests for discovery before resorting to more formal motion practice. 51 (1988). being dried with a "desiccator. Also. ask that the sample of alleged contraband be weighed after removal of residual water. Arizona v. Defenders and prosecutors must take time to read Opinion 09-454 (July 8.. Motion to Preclude Creation of Informant Testimony (1) Motion to Require the Government to Produce the Government's Informant for Trial Motion to Disclose the Present Whereabouts of the Government's Informant for Purposes of a Defense Subpoena Motion to Observe Searches for Trace Evidence Conducted by Law Enforcement Agents and Forensic Criminalists on Evidence Seized and Impounded by Agents of the Prosecution SeeExpert Testimony Motion to Have Defense Expert Present to Observe and Record Scientific Testing Conducted by the Prosecution's Forensic Evidence Agents See Expert Testimony Motion for Quantitative Weight Analysis of Alleged Contraband (Controlled Substance or Dangerous Drug) When the Alleged Contraband Is in a Dry Condition . delivery.S. 39 (1987).S.U.g. DataMaster.) Utilized by Government to Analyze Breath Sample in DUI (DWI) Case Motion to Require the Government to Reveal Any Agreement Between Any Agent or Agency of the Government and Any Government Witness .480 U. Motion for a Physical Medical Examination of the Complaining Witness Motion for Psychological/Psychiatric Examination . The point is that your client is charged and will be punished based on possession. 53 (1957). ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. See also the discussion on the CCJA Ethics page. include a request that the sample be weighed only on a scale that has been properly calibrated for balance accuracy.S. not water.Roviaro v. etc. 2009) of the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility setting forth a broader ethical requirement of compulsory prosecutorial disclosure than is required by the constitutional due process cases listed above.

Electronic Surveillance: Part A .Ake v. Pallasch.1. 5 F. See In re: Grand Jury Subpoena.3d 530 (7th Cir. Crim. 339 F. Georgia. See A. 665 (1972). 151 F. See also McKevitt v. United States v. 1992). refused to recognize a reporter's privilege grounded in the First Amendment. e. Motion for Disclosure of Intercepted Wire.S.S. 36 (2004) discussed below. but see Maryland v. USC/CFR.2d 1487 (11th Cir. Standards .04 TPC.3d 1289 (9th Cir.2d 1176 (1st Cir 1988). 836 (1990). Rule 14 F.Pointer v. 68 (1985) (1)(2)(3) [Note: Ake doesn't mean much in some states.] Be aware that various state statutes (Check yours.Section 3. Branzburg unfolded in the context of a reporter's refusal to answer grand jury questions. 497 U. Craig.09 CCP.Art. 1998). 541 U. R. 841 F. Motion to Permit Entry Onto Property for Purposes of Inspection Motion for Severance of Offenses and Relief from Unfairly Prejudicial Joinder . Electronic Surveillance Laws. Smith.07 CCP . 1998). Rule 14 F. 408 U. Miller was the New York times reporter who played footsie with the Bush White House re leaks and declined to give evidence before a grand jury in the Valerie Plame matter.] See Expert Testimony See also ABA Standard for Criminal Justice: The Defense Function.) and some federal circuits have recognized a reporter's privilege of some scope. Motion for Deposition of Witnesses by the Defense . 2003). Proc.g. Motion for Reimbursement of Investigative Expenses . 135 F.S. ABA Standards .S. Motion to Take Testimony of Child Complainant Motion to Record Testimony of Child Complainant Motion to Require Live Testimony of Child Complainant . [Note: Ms.2d 136 (2nd Cir 1987). where you might occasionally run into a trial court judge who is apathetic to basic concepts of fairness.C.02 CCP Request for Notice of Prosecution's Intent to Offer Proof of Uncharged Misconduct Under the Auspices of Rule 404(b) TRE Request to the Prosecution for Notice of Prosecution's Intent to Impeach Witness with Proof of Prior Conviction(s) Under Rule 609 TRE Request to the Prosecution for Notice of Prosecution's Intent to Introduce Evidence Under Article 37.S. 380 U.Oklahoma. 487 U. Texas.Branzburg v. 3.Shoen v. Coy v. In re Madden. In re Shain. 2005). Proc. 806 F.A. 1012 (1988). von Bulow. Hayes . 978 F. Iowa. Standard 4-4. 24.3d 963 (5th Cir. Motion for Severance of Parties (Defendants) and Relief from Unfairly Prejudicial Joinder -Article 36. Caporale.2d 850 (4th Cir. von Bulow v.11 pages) Motion for an Translator (Interpreter) Due Process Motion for Investigative Funds to Obtain the Service of a Competent Expert in the Field of (state the relevant field of expertise) to Assist the Indigent Defendant and Defense Counsel in Preparing and Presenting the Defense of (state the relevant defense) . 811 F..Electronic Surveillance of Private Communications & Part B . United States v.Motion for Preparation of Transcript from Tape Recordings and for Pretrial Conference to Agree Upon a Stipulation as to Accuracy of Transcript of the Tape Recording and Admissibility of Transcript at Trial as a Listening Aid for the Jury Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum . or Electronic Communication . 18.02. R. Judith Miller. (Sample Federal Motion . See alsoCrawford v. Crim.02.3d 125 (3rd Cir. 397 F.B.Technologically-Assisted Physical Surveillance (2001).3d 964 (D.Joinder & Severance (1980). 470 U. See United States v.Art. Oral. 400 (1965).S. Shoen. Cir.20 CCP. Washington.Articles 39.Including Prior Criminal Record of the Defendant & Character Evidence Regarding the Defendant & Evidence of Defendant's Uncharged Misconduct & Prior Convictions for Felonies or Misdemeanors Punishable by Jail Time Motion to Produce Journalist's Reports .. LaRouche Campaign.06 (written interrogatories) CCP. 1993). 39. 1986).

United States.Article 31. Mayor of Monroeville. Here's a lengthy explanation of the law surrounding recusal of a judge in Texas. 409 US 57 (1972).bibliography of articles re ethics of prosecutors) See CCJA Ethics. these could be useful evidence at a hearing on change of venue.S.Special Function of the Trial Judge (1999). Ohio. [Read the Crawford decision and the briefs. Washington.Skilling v. 383 US 375 (1966). Chapman v. [Tip: Keep track of any online mention of your case with Google Alerts. 505 (1971).7 indicates that a lawyer shall not act as an advocate at a trial in which s/he is likely to be a necessary witness unless the testimony relates to an uncontested issue.] Motion to Prevent Prosecution from Referring to the Complainant as "the Victim" Motion to Prevent Prosecutorial Reference to Alleged Previous Convictions Alleged for Enhancement Prior to Verdict of Guilty on Primary Offense Motion to Prevent Jurors from Being Informed of Nature of Prior Convictions Alleged for Enhancement in Order to Prevent Unfair Prejudice Motion to Prevent Receipt of Evidence from the Prosecution Relating Hearsay Testimony of Unavailable Witness' on the Ground that the Defendant Has Not Been Afforded the Opportunity to Confront the Hearsay Declarant Regarding the Out-of-Court Statement as Required by the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause . (2 . Motion for Competency Examination to Determine Present Fitness of Accused to Stand Trial -ABA Standards .03 CCP. 386 U. __ U. Motion to Recuse the Prosecutor on Ethical Grounds .opinions). 400 U. Motion for Defense Counsel to Be Notified a Reasonable Time Prior to Any Mental Examination of Accused by State or Court-Appointed Experts Motion for Examination of the Accused Re Insanity (Mental Condition and Responsibility) at Time of Alleged Offense Notice of Defense Intent to Rely on Insanity Defense Motion to Adopt Objections of Co-Defendant at Pretrial Hearing Motion for Change of Venue . "Whatever else the term covers. ABA Standards . 1025. the testimony relates to the value of the legal services in the case or the disqualification of the lawyer would work a substantial hardship on the client. Yount. Good little article.Pate v.A number of grounds for alleging professional misconduct of a prosecutor can be found at these sites (1 .C. Stuart.S.S. 475 US 813 (1986). 467 U. (1984).Nebraska Press Association v.Mental Health (1988). Louisiana. But see Sell v. Missouri. Maxwell. Drope v.Crawford v.S. Motion to Prevent Compelled Forced Medication (Use of Drugs) Upon the Defendant at His Trial . 541 U. In defining "testimonial" the U.S. Nevada. Motion for Voluntary Recusal (Removal) as Judge Motion to Disqualify the Prosecutor (or Defender) On the Ground that S/he Is a Necessary Witness .S. United States.Riggins v.ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3. 539 (1976). 333 (1966). 373 U.Fair Trial & Free Press (1992).S. 18 (1967). 116 (2003). 162 (1975). before a grand jury.S. it applies at a minimum to prior testimony at a preliminary hearing.S. 36 (2004) holding that out-of-court hearsay testimonial statements by declarants are barred under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment from admission against the defendant at his/her criminal trial unless: (1) the declarant appears as a witness in the trial or (2) the declarant is unavailable and the defendant has had prior opportunity to crossexamine the declarant regarding the out-of-court statement. irrespective of whether such out-ofcourt statement is deemed reliable by the trial court.Motion to Disqualify (Recuse) Judge .Article 30.01 CCP. Motion for Hearing to Determine Accused's Present Competency to Stand Trial . Aetna Life Insurance Company v. 723 (1963). 427 U. 127 (1992). or at a former trial.S. 273 U. 420 U. Lavoie. 510 (1927). Wisconsin.S. Tumey v.S. Groppi v. ABA Standards . 384 U. Patton v. and to police . 539 U. 504 U. California. Ward v.S. Sheppard v. See also Rideau v. said. __ (2010). Robinson.S.

2006). The traditional co-conspirator's statement made during pendency of the conspiracy and in furtherance thereof would not appear to be testimonial. But see Martinez v.3d 1283 (11th Cir. Allen. 400 F. 367 F. hearsay statements made by an accomplice to the police. should be admissible as a statement of a party. 96. See United States v. Lee. holding the 911 call "non-testimonial"). the defendant's own statement. p. discussed more fully below. State. statements in public records. 813 (2006). Bordeaux. Austin 2009. __. Also see the Texas "notice and demand" statute. 425 F.). See Zabrycki. United States v. 2004). government employed medical examiners. Arbolez. 450 F. would appear to be testimonial. 311 S. a declaration against interest made to a law enforcement officer. Massachusetts. United States v.3d 104 (Tex. 401 F. 2005). 437 F. 38. 1093 (2008). See Melendez-Diaz v. a statement of a co-conspirator made with the assistance of a police informant. that seems to brings Texas into compliance withMelendez by permitting the defense to demand presence of the expert who performed the test. 557 U. 129 S. even if there was. 467 F. 2004). a child victim's outcry statements to law enforcement officers or public officials who are not law enforcement agents. etc. Justice Scalia's Fundamentally Flawed Confrontation Clause Analysis Continues in Melendez-Diaz: It's Time to Begin Again.3d 290 (5th Cir. the accused holds the key since he has only to make himself available to himself by testifying. hearsay statements by a co-conspirator at the co-conspirator's sentencing allocution. The Crawfordruling does affect the admissibility of hearsay statements from grand jury testimony. to be trained to obtain dying declarations from victims in potential homicide cases. hearsay statements in an affidavit. App.g. an excited utterance of a declarant to a law enforcement agent. and hearsay statements officially obtained from witnesses by the government law enforcement authorities. perhaps. 45. 2006). In 2009. Ct. hearsay testimony from other trials. See United States v. Feliz.3d 227 (2nd Cir. See United States v. Business records are not generally considered testimonial because they are not generated for the primary purpose of being used at a trial or by the prosecution in a criminal case. See Michael Graham.Amarillo 2010. Thus. Cal. Ellis. SeeUnited States v. 2006). State.3d 548 (8th Cir.41 CCP. a dying declaration made to a police officer with officer encouragement (Police are rumored. statements elicited by officials during ex parte interrogation of child complainants in sexual assault and child abuse cases.W. the USSC decided that state forensic lab reports prepared for use in a criminal prosecution are testimonial evidence subject to the confrontation clause and Crawford and the right of the defense to require live testimony of the lab techncian." i. Washington.3d 278 (5th Cir. Wood v. hearsay testimony at the preliminary hearing or other hearings such as a suppression hearing or a hearing to set or reduce bail. ref'd) holding that autopsy reports are testimonial when prepared as part of a criminal investigation. filed 9-10). App.3d 419 (2nd Cir.3d 943 (9th Cir.3d 920 (7th Cir. Al-Sadawi. See United States v. Hansen. United States v. But laboratory reports generated by civilian employees of law enforcement crime labs. Robinson. The same approach would seem applicable to an adopted statement (adoptive admission). See United States v. in some parts of the country. 2006) holding autopsy reports non-testimonial and thus no confrontation problem when the expert who prepared the report is unavailable. statements by a cop to a dispatcher. 2005). Carolyn. present sense impressions of a lay 911 reportee (See the 2006 USSC opinion in Davis v. 3d 637 (8th Cir. The Crawford case said the "testimonial" statements would include statements made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial".W. pet.interrogations. present sense impression statements of a law enforcement agent.e. Rev. 547 U. 460 F. including prior testimony of the defendant. there may be a Crawford issue when one law enforcement expert is asked to testify in court to investigative facts revealed and opinion formed . 2005). 2006).3d 92 (1st Cir.3d 200 (Tex.3d 1231 (9th Cir. 434 F. 2527 (2009) where the Massachusetts trial court admitted into evidence affidavits reporting the results of forensic analysis which showed that material seized by the police and connected to the defendant was cocaine and the USSC held that the "affidavits" were "testimonial. 2005). What sorts of hearsay is "not testimonial"? Where the declarant is the defendant. 299 S. . Vol. Delgado.S... e. TheCrawford ruling could affect trial admissibility of other hearsay statements that "declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially. and. L. Toward a Definition of "Testimonial": How Autopsy Reports Do Not Embody the Qualities of A Testimonial Statement. 374 F. e. (2009) and this UPCOMING ARTICLE. Hagege. Art.S. " See United States v. 1052. there is probably no constitutional right to confront oneself. and. SeeUnited States v. Criminal Law Bulletin. pet. 432 F." rendering the "affiants" subject to the accused's right of confrontation of witnesses under the Sixth Amendment.g.

Other USSC cases fleshing out Crawford: In Davis v. 813 (2006) the issue was whether a putative victim's statements to a 911 operator naming her assailant.W." To repeat. 101 (2009). that the pre-Crawford subjective test of Ohio v. 448 U.B. The Death of Dying Declarations in a Post-Crawford World. The Confrontation Clause AfterCrawford v. the court court held that the wife's words were in response to an official interrogation and were an obvious substitute for live testimony because they . 85 U. 285 (2006).3d 1287 (10th Cir.S. i. was an inherently 'testimonial' statement' under Crawford." Remember. State. A. even if testimonial.A. Polelle. 71 Mo. i. Recall also that the protection of the Confrontation Clause only protects a criminal defendant at his/her criminal trial. 2004) where the prosecution's forensic psychiatrist was allowed to testify to otherwise hearsay statements used in forming the expert's opinion. will hold that all non-testimonial hearsay is unprotected by the Confrontation Clause.e. in Hammon v. 85 North Carolina L." What if the defendant is complicit in causing the declarant to become unavailable? Whether the defendant will be deemed to have waived the confrontation right will depend on whether the defense wrongfully procured the declarant's unavailability? This was not an issue in Crawford. (2). Remember.. were 'testimonial' statements subject to the confrontation clause restrictions enunciated in Crawford.Y. which were admitted at a criminal trial under a state's 'excited utterances' hearsay exception.3d 266 (Ark.S. 414 F. L. People v. 214 S. Bobadilla. 855 N. 709 N. the court held that an oral accusation by a wife of an assault by her husband made in response to questions by an investigating officer at the scene of an alleged crime.C. Mercy L. non-testimonial evidence must either fall within a "firmly rooted hearsay exception" or bear "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.S. See also State v. perhaps. thus. Stahl. Justice Scalia writing the majority opinion with Justice Thomas concurring in part and dissenting in part. Scalia left for another day "any effort to spell out a comprehensive definition of 'testimonial'. consolidated with Davis in a single opinion. See Sauerwin v. 163 (2008). it appears. Washington.e. Rev. is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in it. but Scalia indicated in a footnote that the Crawford decision was not designed to alter the rule that a defendant who creates the unavailability of a witness can be deemed as forfeiting the right to object to the lack of constitutional confrontation.2d 243 (MN. the Crawford rule only applies in situations where the declarant witness is "unavailable.." See United States v.Sentencing (1993). 547 U. Jerome. "available. she was not testifying. testimonial statements include "statements that were made under circumstances that would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial" and/or "statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially. 786 N. Rev.e. Read these 19-page articles on Confrontation After Crawford (1). As to non-testimonial hearsay. Goldstein. Michael. 20 Creighton L.. Latimer. Summers. Also. held that the woman who made the 911 emergency call identifying Davis as the perp of an ongoing assault was not acting as a witness.S.S. the court. Rev. even removing any exceptional foundational requirements for its receipt. 2005). to a child protection worker was not testimonial. Standards . e. This would allow states to do radical surgery on the concept of nontestimonial hearsay. Roberts.by other law enforcement experts who are unavailable to testify. a domestic dispute. Walsh. the police chemist who did the testing is dead and another police chemist is called to testify to the former's lab work and findings. For a well researched opinion holding that a nurse examiner's testimony concerning statements made by a sexual assault complainant were not testimonial. Deborah. i. 36 Seton Hall L. at least for the time-being. Det. 327 (2006). see State v. It is conceivable that in the future the majority of U. Turkheimer. 2006) holding in a sexual assault case that the statement of a three-year-old child. who was incompetent to testify. Rev. Crawford Triangle: Domestic Violence and the Right of Confrontation. Prior inconsistent statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted as an exception to the hearsay rule apparently would not come under the Crawford rule because the declarant would be present at trial as a witness and.g. it has no applicability at civil trials and does not limit hearsay offered by the defense against the prosecution. 2006). read Fenner. Washington: Clarifying the Meaning of Testimonial Statements in Criminal Trials. Confrontation After Crawford: The Decision's Impact on How Hearsay Is Analyzed Under the Confrontation Clause. 56 (1980). However. This site contains some Crawford-based cases. 1 (2006). that there is no Crawford issue if the evidence in question.W.E. Rev. 2005) allowing testimony from one state medical examiner based on an autopsy performed by a retired colleague. Indiana.2d 834 (OH. Today's Confrontation Clause (After Crawford andMelendez-Diaz).2d 428 (NYAD 1st Dept." still applies to non-testimonial hearsay.

549 U. (1 . Mathiason.D. Thus." both of which are required to trigger a Miranda warning. 459 U. false statements and criminal securities fraud. In Giles v. seizures. 318 (1994) suspect who accepted ride with police to cop shop held not to be . The Supreme Court in the Nevada case ofWhorton v. California.3d 929 (9th Cir.S. 397 U. and the Fourteenth Amendment due process protection against involuntary confession (the free and voluntary rule). it is very dangerous to allow the client to make statements in connection with the civil case because the statements may wind up being used by the government in the parallel criminal prosecution. be extremely wary of waiving the privilege against self-incrimination and talking in the civil proceeding. Prosecutors (not defenders) can obtain a list of current state and federal cases dealing with Crawford issues from APRI by emailing allie. 429 U.e.S.S. 511 U. e. that the suspect be advised of his/her rights and voluntarily waive those rights.S.S. Ala.2005) involved parallel civil SEC securities fraud investigation and criminal prosecution for perjury. 42 (1982) police don't have to give new warning if questioning is resumed after a pause. 552 U. 264 (2008) making clear that statecourts are not constrained from providing the accused with broader remedies for violation of federal constitutional rights than the remedies mandated by the USSC. California. Kordel. Egan.S. 366 F. 492 (1977) halfhour encounter with police held not to involve custody.g. Beheler. 2678 (2008) the USSC barred the use of an unavailable witness' prior statement holding that the statement of a murder victim re prior death threats by the defendant. Stringer.California v. i.do exactly what a witness does on direct examination. 128 S. 195 (1989) no exact wording of warning required. to a police officer responding to an earlier domestic disturbance was protected by the confrontation clause.(1) Motion to Stay Civil Action Pending Resolution of Criminal Charge .phillips@ndaa-apri..C. 554 U.. Bockting . there will be no reopening of pre-Crawford convictions. as a prelude tocustodial interrogation. your motion and hearing will be focusing on the Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to give testimony against oneself.Oregon v. also. requires. Consequently. Stansbury v. thus.S. Take a look at these cases involving parallel civil and criminal cases to get a leg up in your research: United States v. 492 U. 406 (2007) held that Crawford did not amount to a "watershed rule" that would be applied retroactively to cases already final on direct review at the time of the Crawford decision.g. e.S. so long as the warning was given within a reasonable time prior to the confession. 2d 1134 ( N. 384 U.]. applying more liberal state court interpretation of retroactivity to a federally guaranteed right. 2008) and United States v.S. Fields. Supp. unless the defendant killed the witness to prevent the witness from testifying . the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel. Scrushy. including those pending on appellate review when Crawford was decided. 463 U. (2 -sample).24 pages re searches.From the perspective of Bill of Rights constitutional law. (3) Miranda v.When your criminal client is facing a parallel civil lawsuit or investigation by a governmental agency for civil misconduct. Duckworth v. intent to prevent live in-court testimony is a necessary element in the assessment of forfeiture of the constitutional right of confrontation. the wife's words were inadmissible. for obvious reasons unavailable to testify at trial. Minnesota.Arizona. 1121 (1983) suspect who voluntarily accompanied police to station house held not to be in custody. __ .S. 535 F. that rested on hearsay evidence violative of Crawford. 1 (1970) involving parallel civil FDA investigation and criminal prosectuion for misbranding. definitions of "custody" and "interrogation. 436 (1966) general rule that unwarned statements of the defendant may not be used as evidence in the prosecution's case-in-chief. and statements).. unconfronted out-of-court statements appear to be admissible only when the witness is unavailable as a direct result of conduct intended by the defendant to render the witness unavailable for live incourt testimony. it is not uncommon for government agencies investigating civil misconduct to share damaging information with the prosecuting arm of the government.S.S.Ct. If your client is a person.org ] Motion to Exclude Cooperating Witness' Testimony and Request for a Reliability Hearing . notice that this concept goes beyond the commonly accepted rule that allows state courts to provide broader protection for individual rights provided by the state's constitution. under Crawford. United States v. But see Danforth v. fraud. [Note: Several of the cases below deal with the U. Wyrick v. remember that a truly spontaneous statement volunteered by a suspect in custody is by nature not interrogation and not subject to the Miranda requirement. Motion to Suppress Illegal Obtained Statement/Confession and for Hearing .

171 (1991).S. Muniz.S. 440 U. see also Pennsylvania v. Rhode Island v. Portash. 479 U. Oregon v. Ventris.North Carolina v. 512 U. Mississippi. 222 (1971) statements taken without Miranda warnings.S. Berkemer v. Harris v.S.S. where infamous "Christian Burial Speech" viewed as functional equivalent of interrogation because cop knew his words were likely to prompt an incriminating statement by suspect who had been formally charged and had counsel. Patterson v. United States. Illinois. 1039 (1983) under Edwards. allowing questioning without warning when required by public emergency for safety. once the right to counsel is asserted.S.496 U. 201 (1964) held that incriminating statements obtained from the defendant by a wired police informant while the defendant was free on bail and in the absence of his counsel violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. 469 U. Williams. 499 U." by the suspect in response to the Miranda warning that he had a right to consult with a lawyer and have one present during interrogation held to be an unambiguous and unequivocal assertion of the right to counsel requiring that officers cease further interrogation. I'd like to do that. 468 U. 486 U. 423 U. Tucker. Withrow v. Pennsylvania v.S. 1841 (2009) held that a statement taken from a defendant in violation ofMassiah's Sixth Amendment right to counsel can be used to impeach the accused's testimony at trial. Michael C. 442 U.S. Perkins. 452 (1994) "Maybe I should talk to a lawyer. Davis v. United States v. 498 U. the supect's question to officers "Well what is going to happen to me now?" after assertion of the Miranda right to remain silent was viewed as a reinitiation of contact that allowed further interrogation . Connecticut v. 298 (1985) statements taken without complying with Miranda and their fruits are not inherently tainted and Wong Sun does not apply to mere failure to give Miranda warnings.S. Burbine. 530 U.S. Fulminante. 291 (1980) statement of suspect who had not been formally charged but had invoked right to counsel and who interjected into conversation between cops in cruiser and subsequently lead cops to murder weapon held not to be obtained as result of interrogation. 451 U. yeah. Barrett. 680 (1993). 96 (1975) an important "right to remain silent" Miranda decision making clear that all interrogation has to cease once the suspect clearly and unambiguously asserts his/her right to remain silent. Arizona v. 488 U. . 441 U. 530 U. 649 (1984) public emergency(safety) exigent circumstance exception to Miranda recognized. Dickerson v. United States. McNeil v. 27 (2000) Fifth Amendment protects against prosecutor's use of incriminating information derived directly or indirectly from actually compelled testimony. 462 U. 129 S. 479 U. 369 (1979).S. however. 707 ( 1979).Brewer v. Arizona v. can be used to impeach a defendant's testimony at trial. __ U. Bradshaw. Massiah v. 157 (1986). 417 U. 470 U.S. Illinois v. though not compelled. law enforcement authorities are not prevented from attempting to talk to the suspect a second time so long as the initial assertion fo the right to silence is honored scrupulously. Arizona v. Williams.S. Quarles. Mosley. 279 (1991). 675 (1988) Edwards applies to interrogation for crimes other than the one upon which the suspect is being held in custody. Mauro." held to be too ambiguous and not an unequivocal invocation of Miranda.S. 430 U.S.S. Butler. 377 U. Arizona.S. 401 U.. further interrogation must take place in the presence of cousel unless there has been a reinitiation of contact by the suspect and a subsequent knowing waiver of counsel.S. 507 U. 9 (1988). 467 U. thus.S. 523 (1986) waiver of rights re oral confession held valid even though suspect refused to participate in making any written statement. New York v. Kansas v.S.S. not decided on Miranda. 387 (1977) Sixth Amendment case.S. 582 (1990) routine questions asked during booking process not considered as interrogation triggering a warning of rights. United States. 433 (1974). McCarty. 420 (1984) a traffic stop and questioning case indicating that temporary investigative detention (Terry stop. Moran v. 111 (1990) under Edwards. 412 (1986) valid waiver of Miranda rights obtained even though police did not advise suspect that lawyer employed by his family and seeking to advise him was waiting outside of interrogation room. Edwards v. 92 (1990). Connelly. 496 U. Oregon v. Fare v. 520 (1987). 91 (1984) "Uh.S. a confession made after a valid waiver of rights is not inadmissible merely because officers obtained an earlier statement without a warning. 450 (1979) compelled statements cannot be used to impeach defendant's testimony at trial. Bruder.in custody. New York. __ . 475 U. 501 U. 481 U. Minnick v. as opposed to custodial arrest) is not Miranda custody.S. 477 (1981) an important "right to counsel" Miranda decision making clear that all interrogation has to cease once the suspect asserts his/her right to counsel and law enforcement may not resume questioning unless the suspect reinitiates the contact. Michigan v. Michigan v.S. Wisconsin.S. 428 (2000). Elstad.S. even though suspect is not free to leave.S.S. Colorado v.S. Roberson. 446 U. Smith v. New Jersey v. and thus no warning and waiver required as predicate for confession.Ct. Innis. Hubbell.S.

264 (1980). O'Neal. 540 U. 541 U. Texas v.S. Article 38. 487 U. simply remaining silent does not invoke the right.Berghuis v. e.S. 760 (2003) an unwarned statement taken while Martinez was being treated for gunshot wounds received in an altercation with the police was not a 42 USC 1983 Fifth Amendment civil rights violation of where he was never charged with a crime and his answers were never used against him in a criminal proceeding.S. Crim. Shatzer. Corley v.S. Moulton. United States. i. in order to invoke the Miranda right to remain silent. the suspect must explicitly tell police that s/he wants to remain silent.177 (2004) conviction for refusing to give name to a police officer during a lawful Terry stop upheld because disclosure in this case presented no reasonable danger of incrimination. 123 (1968). Chavez v. 600 (2004) police protocol for custodial interrogation that calls for officer to intentionally (purposely) give no warnings of Miranda rights until interrogation has produced a first confession. 2006) where the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said. be certain that the redacted statement is only read to the jurors and is not visually displayed to them. 129 S.3d 584 (Tex.S. __ U. Hiibel v.S. Elstad. 625 (1986) and holding it completely unjustified to presume that a defendant's consent to police-initiated interrogation was involuntary or coerced simply because the defendant had previously been appointed a lawyer. Humbolt County. Yarborough v. See the Motion to Redact Inadmissible Evidence from Admissible Evidence that follows this squib. 475 U. in joint trials. 436 (1986). __U. Maryland v.S. 538 U.S.[When moving to redact inadmissible evidence from admissible evidence. [Note that the so-called Bruton Rule. New York. Motion to Suppress Confession of Co-Defendant .S. 285 (1988). Kaupp v. Jackson.e. __ U. 186 (1987). __ (2010) holding that an additional round of questioning of a suspect who has previously invoked his right to counsel is allowed when more than 14 days have elapsed after release from investigative custody. __ U. Montejo v. 447 U.S. 159 (1985). 185 (1998). 622 (1971). a business record that contains . Does the U..S. 491 (2008). Medellin v.S.Bruton v. United States. Texas. 477 U. 391 U..S.Florida v. Martinez.. Cobb.United States v. Texas. See also. 542 U. the solution for the prosecution is to offer a redacted version of the co-defendant's statement the omits all references to the defendant. "No.g. Wilson. prohibiting the admissibility in a jury trial of a co-defendant's statement that directly incriminates the defendant under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. 519 (2004) a case about police talking with an indicted defendant who had not been Mirandized. Cruz v. Kuhlmann v. Gray v. 331 (2006) regarding the inapplicability of the exclusionary rule to failure to comply with Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations regarding communication between an individual and his consular officers when the individual is detained by authorities in a foreign country.S. This motion may be appropriate.S. 523 U. United States. __ (2009) indicating that the federal McNabb-Mallory Rule re the requirement of taking the accused before a magistrate without unreasonable and unnecessary delay still has some viability. App.Roberts v. 2079 (2009) overruling Michigan v. 538 U. 206 S. whereupon. 642 (2004) another case about what qualifies as custody. Fellers v. Maryland .S. when a document contains both inadmissible and inadmissible statements.S. __ U. during this interview" satisfies the Miranda requirement of warning re advice of counsel.S.S.". 532 U. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. 548 U. __ (2010) held that advice that a suspect has "the right to talk with a lawyer before answering any [of the law enforcement officer's] questions" and that he "can invoke this right at any time . Russell. 542 U.] Motion to Redact Inadmissible Evidence from Admissible Evidence .S. Seibert. 293 (1968).. Sanchez-Llamas v. 626 (2003). 481 U. declining to extend Oregon v. Louisiana. S. Thompkins. Missouri v. Alvarado. the Wong Sun "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine of exclusion does not apply to Miranda violations. President have the constitutional right under principles of comity to order state courts to follow a decision of the International Court of Justice? See Ex parte Medellin. See Nelson v. 474 U. is inapplicable when the defendant testifies in his/her own behalf. Patane.S. 392 U. United States v. Henry. move the court to so structure the admissible evidence that there is no reference or implication regarding the existence of the excluded (redacted) evidence. __ (2010) holding that.Ct. Oregon.22 CCP. 542 U.S.__. Maine v.S. Powell.S. 552 U. midstream warnings are given that lead to the suspect covering the same ground in a second confession does not effectively comply with Miranda'sconstitutional requirement.S.W. 630 (2004) failure to give suspect required prophylactic Miranda warnings did not require suppression of non-testimonial physical fruits of suspect's unwarned but voluntary statements.Illinois. above. 162 (2001). 402 U. for example.

897 (1984) Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule modified so as not to bar the use in the prosecution's case-in-chief of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable (good faith) reliance on a search warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate but ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause. Leon. Federal: Electronic Surveillance Laws. 124 (1932) search of private home with improper warrant. 499 (1978) administrative inspection of firedamaged premises to reveal cause of blaze upheld. United States.S. 384 U. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco. CALEA (Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement ) web site. McDonald v. 307 (1959) existence of probable cause and reasonable grounds for warrantless arrest and subsequent search. Colorado. United States v.USCode/CFR. 643 (1961) the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (overruling Wolf v.. United States. (4 sample). New York v. 523 (1967) routine limited administrative inspection by building inspector without particularized suspicion to ensure compliance with city housing code governed by Fourth Amendment and warrant requirement.S. Agnello v.S. 273 U. Camara v. Motion to Suppress (Exclude) Tangible Evidence .S.S.S.S. Santana.S.S. 374 U.Michigan v. 255 U. 757 (1966) upholding governmental intrusion on the person for purposes of seizing physical evidence. Burger. 387 U. United States 290 U. 38 (1976) objectively reasonable to allow officers to enter without a warrant onto private property in "hot pursuit" of a fleeing suspect. Tyler.S. 371 U. ] Motion to Suppress Illegally Intercepted Communications and for Hearing . Taylor v. 410 U. ABA Electronic Surveillance Standards -Part A & Part B (2001). Consensual Recording Law. 20 (1925) warrantless search of private home improper. 23 (1963) objectively reasonable to permit law enforcement officers to make a warrantless entry onto private property to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence. 436 U. 342 U. Hayden. United States. United States. 200 (1987). 28 (1927) search of private home with defective warrant. Collins. clothing. 530 U. Wong Sun v. 313 (1921) warrantless search of private home improper . Amos v. 358 U. see also Richardson v. i. 367 U. Ker v.S.S.(1 Challenging Federal Wiretap Evidence) Article 18. Mapp v. Byars v.S. 481 U. United States v. i. 294 (1967) warrantless seizure of "mere evidence" e. 338 U. pursuant to statute did not violate Fourth Amendment. 471 (1963) discussion of "fruit of poisonous tree" doctrine and connection between illegal arrest and statement becoming "so attenuated as to dissipate the taint". United States. 1 (1973) voice exemplars.S. California.S. 25 (1949). United States. Frisbie v. Maryland.S. United States. therefore. 387 U. not subject to a preliminary requirement of reasonableness. provided that the prosecution proves the inevitability by a preponderance of the evidence. Nix v. United States269 U. (2). 467 U..S. 335 U.S. See Gray v. 482 U. the grand jury subpoena and the directive to make a voice recording were not a Fourth Amendment infringements and.S.g.statements not within the personal knowledge of the maker or an otherwise admissible confession of a co-defendant containing inadmissible statements implicating the non-testifying defendant at their joint trial. 431 (1984) "inevitable discovery" of evidence exception to the exclusionary rule adopted. 232 U. United States. 383 (1914) warrantless search of private home improper. United States. Dickerson v.e.S. United States v. USC update. 691 (1987) warrantless administrative search of highly regulated industry. Marsh. 523 U. United States v. 287 U. are not testimonial or communicative evidence and.S. 125 (1998) regarding co-defendant's statements. 427 U. Warden v. 275 U. Nathanson v.S.468 U.. 1 (1932) warrantless search of private home improper. Grau v.28 pages of basic federal case law). Weeks v. (3 . junkyard. Williams.10 pages of federal case law regarding automobile search). Draper v.20 Section 14 CCP. Dionisio. blood and stating the the two Fourth Amendment issues involved in obtaining physical evidence are seizure of the person necessary to bring him into contact with government agents .Schmerber v. Berkeness.(1) Motion to Suppress Illegally Obtained Evidence and for Hearing (1 .S. 286 U. like handwriting exemplars and fingerprints. Ohio. 428 (2000) federal courts hold no supervisory power over courts of the States and may intervene only to correct constitutional violations. California. vis a vis fruits and instrumentalities of crime allowed.S. 519 (1952) power of a trial court to try a person for a crime not impaired by fact that such person has been brought within the trial court's jurisdiction by reason of a forcible abduction. 149 (1927) search of private home with defective warrant.S.e. thus.S. 451 (1948) warrantless search of private home improper.S. 41 (1933) search of private home with warrant improper. do not compel any witness to testify against himself.

had no standing. 166 (1968) invalid warrantless search.Illinois v. 427 U. no matter that accused has tried to prevent access with barriers. Horton v.S. 27 (2001) use of a thermal-imaging device aimed at a private home from a public street to detect relative amounts of heat within the home is a search that is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. Kyllo v. United States. Stanford v. however. 433 U. 57 (1924). 463 (1976) search warrant held sufficiently specific and informant's data adequately verified. Minnesota v. Von Raab. and effects does not include "open fields" and/or the crops growing in them. United States v. James v Louisiana 382 U. 476 (1965) invalid search warrant. holds that Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by public school officials though the search here was deemed reasonable. . 515 U. 83 (1998) individuals present in a house for several hours to conduct a business transaction. 508 U. standing to object to search in house of someone else. Board of Education of Independent School District No. 480 U. 462 U. 128 (1990) warrantless seizure of evidence of crime in "plain view" not prohibited just because discovery of the evidence was not inadvertent. Treasury Employees v.. 486 U.S.e. 466 U.S.Texas. Virginia. Minnesota v. when police take action unrelated to the objectives of an authorized intrusion. Gates.S. California. a new unrelated invasion of the accused's privacy. Chadwick. the content of the suspicion failed to match the extreme degree of intrusion.L. Safford Unified School District #1 v.S. 128 (1978) passengers without claim of ownership of vehicle of the items seized held not to have standing to object to allegedly unlawful search and seizure. the area immediately surrounding the home. 379 U. California v. Aguilar v. Earls. fences and signs.S. Illinois. 602 (1989) warrantless mandatory regulatory blood and urine tests for railway employees involved in train accidents or found to be in violation of safety regulations to detect alcohol and drug abuse held to be reasonable searches. 448 U.S. Kentucky. United States.S. Spinelli v. citing Hester v. the school official who ordered the unconstitutional search was entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Recznik v.S. 469 U. New Hampshire. 325 (1985) dealing with proper standard for determining legality of searches conducted by public school officials. Katz v. 489 U. Redding. 489 U. 393 U. 533 U..S. 265 U. 98 (1980) test of standing is legitimate expectation of privacy. 213 (1983) application of Fourth Amendment to magistrate's issuance of a search warrant on the basis of a partially corroborated informant's tip. 495 U. 443 (1971) search warrant invalid.S.S. ___U. which expose to view concealed portions of the premises or its contents.S.S. 525 U. Riggan v. 91 (1990) guest staying overnight in another individual's home had reasonable expectation of privacy and. 389 U. 108 (1964) search warrant held invalid. New Jersey v. United States. occurs. Texas. 384 U. Maryland. New Jersey. 393 U. and seizure under the "plain view doctrine" requires probable cause. Rawlings v. 727 (1980) one has standing to complain only about violation of his own constitutional rights.S.S. __ (2009) a strip search in which the search of a 13-year-old student's bra and underpants by school officials acting on reasonable suspicion that she had brought forbidden over-the-counter drugs to school was held to violate the Fourth Amendment where there were no reasons to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were concealed in her underwear. United States. United States. Skinner v. 536 U. 814 (1969) improper warrantless search.S. Padilla. Acton. Railway Labor Executives Association.S. houses. bagging cocaine. 378 U. seizure of car in driveway not incident to arrest inside house.S. 410 (1969) factual requirements of affidavit for search warrant discussed. Coolidge v.O.S. Rakas v. 496 U. 439 U. papers. but does include the curtilage. because there was reason to question the clarity with which the right was established. 646 (1995) upholding random drug testing of student athletes. T.S. 35 (1988) warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside curtilage of home is not prohibited by Fourth Amendment. Hicks. Payner. Olson.S.S. 36 (1965) invalid warrantless search.403 U.S. 170 (1984) (consolidated withThornton case) Fourth Amendment protection of "persons. 1 (1977) whether a search warrant is required before federal agents may open a locked footlocker which they have lawfully seized at the time of arrest of its owners. Greenwood. Arizona v.S.Andresen v. 395 U. unjustified by an otherwise valid entry. rather than mere suspicion. 447 U. Carter. Von Cleff v.S.S. Oliver v. United States v.S. but observation of items re "plain view" doctrine discussed. 656 (1989) upholding drug tests for United States Customs Service employees seeking transfer or promotion to certain positions.Veronia School District v. 152 (1966) invalid warrantless search. 822 (2002). City of Lorain. United States v. 347 (1967) the Fourth Amendment protects people not places. 321 (1987) re the "plain view" doctrine.and the subsequent search and seizure of the evidence. 77 (1993) membership in conspiracy does not confer standing re searches of other conspirators. thus.S.S. i. 92 of Pottawatomie County v.

113 (1998) an officer may search inside a suspect's vehicle under Belton only if the suspect is arrested. 411 (1976) legality of warrantless arrest and subsequent search of arrestee's automobile carried out with arrestee's purported consent.S. 428 U. 453 U. Ohio v. and locked in the back of the patrol car and could not have accessed his car to retrieve weapons or evidence at the time of the search. shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case. 781 (2009) a stop and frisk of a passenger in a car where the court held that to justify a patdown of either a driver or a passenger during a lawful investigatory stop. United States v. 615 (2004) Belton governs even when an officer does not make contact with the occupant until the person arrested has left. Colorado v. Maroney.S.S. New York. Wells.is a logical and long-needed limitation on Belton. 218 (1973).).. 129 S.").S. 495 U. 415 U.the defendant being secured by handcuffs and in custody in the locked police cruiser at the time of the search. Texans should look at Art.1598 (2008) where the USSC rejected the defendant's contention that the constitutionality of his arrest under the U. Murphy. 38.S.Arizona v.e.S. 445 U. 555 U. 414 U.S. __. 399 U.California v. handcuffed. 444 U. Gant. Chambers v. conduct a warrantless search of a shoulder bag carried by the arrestee. (The Gant scenario . Illinois v. Acevedo. Richards v. 364 (1976) whether Fourth Amendment permits police to conduct routine inventory search of lawfully impounded motor vehicle ( impounded here for violation of municipal parking violations). 85 (1979).S. 519 U. California. Hodari D. or of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America. 129 S. Iowa. 454 (1981) when a police officer has made a lawful custodial arrest of an automobile. Virginia v. Bertine. Thornton v. Chimel v.23 CCP stating in part that "no evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas. 499 U. Wisconsin. if necessary. just as in the case of a pedestrian reasonably suspected of criminal activity. i.S. The USSC held that the Chimel wingspan approach allows cops to search the passenger comopartment of the motor vehicle only when the person arrested is not secure and within thereachinbg distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search. Carney. 520 U.S. 1710 (2009) finding a search unjustified where the accused was arrested for DWLS.S. Opperman. Ybarra v. 565 (1991) the application of the "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the search of a closed container in the trunk of a motor vehicle.S.S. 800 (1974) whether the Fourth Amendment should be extended to exclude from evidence certain items of clothing taken from accused while in custody at a jail (here a city jail) approximately ten hours after arrest. 392 U. Constitution depended on the validity of the arrest under state law (The Va. Florida v. 752 (1969) permissible scope under the Fourth Amendment for search incident to lawful arrest. the police must harbor a reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous. Michigan v. 33 (1996).. . Edwards.S. as a valid inventory search.S. 525 U. 423 U.1 (1968) reasonableness of . 412 U. United States v. Long. 385 (1997). Payton v. The Fourth Amendment allows the cop to arrest for the most minor crimes committed in the cop's presence provided there is probable cause to believe the person committed the crime. Belton. United States v. 621 (1991) what constitutes a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. United States 541 U. 479 U. Watson. Belton search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement. 463 U. __. not the arrest. California v. 462 U. Johnson.S. 640 (1983) at the time of arrival at the police station.South Dakota v. murder here. Moore. Ct. police may.S. 42 (1970) admissibility of evidence seized from motor vehicle in which accused was passenger after vehicle was taken to police station and thoroughly searched without a search warrant. New York v.S.S. 367 (1987). 1032 (1983). Ohio.where there is probable cause to believe that the footlocker contains contraband. 500 U. state law allowed citation for the offense but forbade arrest.S. 553 U.S. 395 U. Illinois.S. 573 (1980) constitutionality of state statutes authorizing police officers to enter a private residence without a warrant and with force. 1 (1990) an inventory search must be regulated by "standardized criteria" or "established routine" so as not to be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence.S. the Fourth Amendment allows the officer to search the passenger compartment of that vehicle as a contemporaneous incident of arrest. Robinette. Cupp v. Ct. Robinson. Terry v. 291 (1973) limited warrantless search and seizure of readily destructible fingernail scrapings during brief period of detention where there was probable cause to believe accused had committed offense.S.S. a search by police officers of his car where cocaine was discovered in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat could not be upheld under theNew York v.Ct. Lafayette.California v. __ U. 471 U. Knowles v. Arizona v. his vehicle. 128 S. stepped out of.S. and the cop arrested the defendant. __. to make a routine arrest. 386 (1985).

without more. 149 (2004) dismantling and search of vehicle's gas tank without probable cause or reasonable suspicion at international border upheld as justifiable. after valid stop of individual by law enforcement officers to investigate suspected criminal conduct held reasonable. as one of well-delineated exceptions to the rule that a search conducted without a warrant is per se unreasonable and embraces "totality of circumstances" approach and establishes that voluntariness does not require sine qua nonproof of knowledge of right to refuse.S. 32 (2000) a highway checkpoint program seizing vehicles without particularized suspicion and whose primary purpose is simply to discover and interdict illegal narcotics and thereby control crime violates the Fourth Amendment. 20 minutes here but no "bright line".g.S. not the result of duress or coercion. 440 U. Bustamonte. Flores-Montano. 811 (1985) transportation to and investigative detention at the police station without probable cause or judicial authorization violates the Fourth Amendment.Florida v. Davis v. 143 (1972) informant's tip validated limited frisk for weapon. Florida v. 177 (2004) conviction for failure to identify oneself offense occurring during reasonable suspicion Terry detention ("stop") did not violate Fourth Amendment. Florida v.S.S. Edmond 531 U. 470 U. 419 (2004) witness vehicle checkpoint to find witness to hit-and-run traffic offense was akin to seeking information from pedestrians and was held not to be analogous to Edmond and valid because its purpose was not to apprehend the vehicle's occupants but other persons.S. small lump reminiscent of packaged crack cocaine in accused's nylon jacket. 496 U. Illinois v. of "plain feel" based on sense of touch during protective patdown frisk held admissible under Fourth Amendment.S. Rodriquez. Sharpe. held insufficient to justify law enforcement officer's stop-and-frisk of that individual. Schneckloth v. 469 U. Lidster. 542 U.S. 1 (1984) mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure and even when police have no reasonable basis for suspecting a particular individual. Hibel v. e. 325 (1990) the level of justification necessary under the Fourth Amendment before police while arresting a suspect in his home pursuant to an arrest warrant may conduct a warrantless sweep of all parts of the premises.S. 177 (1990). and request consent to search his luggage.S. Martinez-Fuerte. City of Indianapolis v. 444 (1990) a state's use of highway sobriety checkpoints [not the roving patrol stops disapproved in Delaware v. 494 U."stop-and-frisk" on less than probable cause upheld. 508 U. North Carolina. United States v. 675 (1985) re the length of a "stop." temporary detention. Illinois v. United States v.Bumper v. ask to examine the individual's identification. Michigan Department of State Police v. 470 U.S. 221 (1985) stop and brief detention of individual who is subject of "wanted flyer" while police try to ascertain if there is an outstanding arrest warrant for such individual did not violate Fourth Amendment. citing Carroll.S.S. Mississippi.S. Hayes v. though this a factor to be taken into account. Sitz. . 528 U. express or implied.S. Rodriquez. 47 (1979) "stop" deemed a seizure of the person under Fourth Amendment and reasonableness of stop balanced between interest of public and individual's right to personal freedom from interference by law officers. Hensley. 407 U. Stoner v. Buie.S. Florida.g. Sixth Judicial Court of Nevada. United States v. Adams v.S. 469 U. 648 (1979)] to seize (stop) vehicles briefly and without suspicion is reasonable for the purpose of combating drunk driving and does not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. 428 U. 394 U. 543 (1968) search can not be justified as lawful on the basis of consent given only after the official conducting the search has asserted that he possesses a warrant and prosecution has burden of proving consent was freely and voluntarily given. suspicionless seizure (stop) at a highway checkpoint for the purpose of intercepting illegal immigrants is reasonable and does not violate the Fourth Amendment.S. 412 U.S. 529 U. 391 U. 497 U. United States v.. 119 (2000) stop and weapons pat-down frisk of individual fleeing police in area known for heavy narcotics trafficking held a valid stop-and-frisk. California.S. 443 U. Maryland V. 721 (1969) lawless investigative dragnet detention or seizure of person for purpose of fingerprinting and questioning in the absence of probable cause or a warrant held to exceed the permissible limits of temporary Terryseizures. Dunaway v. Wardlow. Prouse. Illinois v.. 218 (1973) in upholding the voluntary consent of a householder. 376 U. 200 (1979) Terry does not extend to authorize investigative interrogations at the police station on less than probable cause for a full-fledged arrest. Dickerson. Texas. 541 U. 366 (1993) contraband. they may approach the individual.L. 543 (1976) a brief. 540 U. defines voluntary consent. Brown v.S. 483 (1964) warrantless search of accused's hotel room in his absence with consent of unauthorized desk clerk. e. New York. Minnesota v. J.S. even though proper Mirandawarnings were given. ask questions of that individual. 442 U. anonymous tip that individual is carrying a weapon.. 266 (2000) because requirement of "reasonable suspicion" not met.S.S. Williams.

538 U.S. 531 U. 547 U. but who in fact does not have such authority.Atwater v.S. Illinois v. 266 (2002). Ramirez. Kaupp v. 517 U. 452 U. the "particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment does not require specification in the warrant of the triggering conditions precedent to execution of the warrant. an arrest for one offense. 103 (2006) (1 . United States v. 692 (1981) and that officers questioning detainee during the detention did not violate her Fourth Amendment rights. Randolph. Arvizu.S. United States. United States v. 164 (1974) upholding the validity of the prosecution's proof by a preponderance of the evidence of the voluntary consent of a third party co-inhabitant to search the living quarters of the accused over which the consenting party possessed common authority or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effect sought to be inspected. rendering the warrantless search unreasonable and invalid as to the husband. impersonating a police officer.S.g. thus. e.S. 544 U. Iowa. Muehler v. 398 (2006) the emergency assistance exigent circumstance dispensing with the requirement of a warrant applies to a situation where police . 93 (2005) extended restraint and detention of individuals handcuffed on the scene where a search warrant was being executed upheld as not violative of the Fourth Amendment. Matlock. 415 U.S. 177 (1990) validity of a warrantless entry based upon the consent of a third party who the police.540 U. however it is determined. Stuart. City of Lago Vista. Grubbs. 536 U. United States v. citing Michigan v.g.g. controlled delivery of contraband at the location. Devenpeck v.Brigham City v.S. 540 U. Alford543 U. also. Maryland v. 543 U. 547 U. Pringle. McArthur. United States.S. 90 (2006) in which the validity of a conditional anticipatory search warrant with an affidavit explaining that the warrant would only be executed after a triggering event. 525 U. 194 (2002). 551 (2004) search warrant for home that totally failed to particularly describe the "persons or things to be seized" held facially invalid with court noting that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. 113 (1998) vehicle traffic stop of accused with issuance of citation rather than custodial arrest did not authorize police officer to conduct full search of vehicle. is assessed based on the reasonable belief of the police that the third party giving consent had joint access or common control.S. Drayton. 517 U.S.S. violation of a privacy act. Summers. an "anticipatory warrant" being a warrant based upon an affidavit showing probable cause that at some future time (but not presently) certain evidence of crime will be located at a specified place. Groh v. Illinois v. is no basis for invalidating an arrest . Rodriquez. e.based on language in this case. Illinois v. 806 (1996) temporary detention of motorist who police have probable cause to believe has committed traffic violation held consistent with Fourth amendment even though reasonable officer would not have been motivated to stop car by desire to enforce traffic laws..S. Georgia v. 626 (2003) an arrest case.Ornelas v.S. 540 U. 501 U. 547 U.United States v. 31 (2003) a warrant case involving use of battering ram to break a door fifteen to twenty seconds after giving notice of authority and purpose. 405 (2005) use of a drug-detection dog to sniff the around the exterior of a vehicle without reasonable suspicion during a lawful stop for issuance of a traffic ticket or warning does not rise to the level of a constitutionally cognizable infringement of the Fourth Amendment.Bostick. Texas. e. Knowles v. does not render the arrest unlawful under the Fourth Amendment because the officer's state of mind (except for the facts he knows) is irrelevant to the existence of probable cause. United States v. was upheld. 497 U. 146 (2004) subjective intent of the arresting officer.S. 366 (2003) a probable cause case.S. punishable only by a fine. reasonably believe to possess common authority over the premises. 690 (1996) applicable standard of appellate review re questions of reasonable suspicion and probable cause to make warrantless search provides for de novo review.S.S.S.g. e. 532 U.. at the time of entry. Banks. for which there is no probable cause and which is not "closely related" to the offense for which there was probable cause. 326 (2001) preventing accused from entering home for two hours while police officers with probable cause obtained search warrant deemed reasonable. 534 U.S.S.S. Whren v. 429 (1991) police officers boarding a bus at random and asking occupants questions and requesting consent to search occupants' luggage under circumstances where a reasonable person would understand he could refuse to cooperate not necessarily a seizure and cramped confines of bus is a factor to be considered in determining voluntariness of consent. Caballes.. 318 (2001) Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense. can one now argue that consent is not free and voluntary unless the consenting party is actually aware of the right not to consent) a co-occupant wife's consent to search after the physically present husband's unequivocal refusal to permit entry does not prevail over the husband's stated refusal. misdemeanor seatbelt violation. Mena.

S. does not requireexclusionary rule suppression of evidence found in a search violative of the "knock and announce rule" and discussing alternatives to the exclusionary rule.(1 . Illinois. 406 U. Michigan. 300 (1973). 682 (1972): Manson v. 277 U.S. Brathwaite.S. 293 (1967).3d 746 (Tenn. (2 . Kirby v. Motion to Suppress Lineup Identification and In-Court Identification and for Hearing on Illegal Identification . __ (2010) holding that the search of text messages received on a cop's employer -provided pager was reasonable under the circumstances. Scott.S.76 pages). ABA Standards . California.S. See also Motion to Use Best Practices in Lineup and Eyewitness Interviews. (3 . Motion for Suppression of Fungible Evidence Due to Fatal Flaw in Chain of Custody . White. 129 S.Electronic Surveillance . Wilson v. 388 U. Motion for Blind.23 CCP.See Eyewitness Misidentification. and privacy interests of occupants. Quon. 695 (2009) dealt with the admissibility of contraband seized during a search of a defendant conducted by an officer incident to an arrest based on the officer's reasonable belief there was an outstanding arrest warrant for the defendant. 154 (1978)." held that a violation of the "knock and announce" rule.(This motion (1) is based on the case ofFranks v. Electronic Surveillance Laws.United States v. 547 U. 413 U. 218 (1967). 98 (1977). 377 (1968). NYSDA Hot Topics in Eyewitness Evidence links to current cases and downloadable motions. 38. (1 .11 pages re identification evidence under the 5th and 6th Amendments). Kyllo v. Brendlin v. 347 (1967). __U.01. Stovall v.Part A & Part B(2001).S. Katz v. and the US Code.enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively (meaning that the cop's subjective motivation is not relevant to he inquiry) reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury.S. 2000).S. Samson v.NLADA links). 533 U. Consensual Recording Law. __. Motion to Go Beyond the Face of the Affidavit Supporting the Search Warrant and Challenge the Truthfulness of Statements Made in the Affidavit . the USSC held for the first time that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied to recordkeeping mistakes by law enforcement officers.SeeState v. Delaware.S. United States. Ash. damage to private property occasioned by the breaking.Olmstead v.S. Michigan v. 546 (2009) upholding warrantless police entry where there was an objectively reasonable basis for believing that medical assistance was needed.NACDL links) Motion to Apply a Rational Due Process Analysis Under the State and Federal Constitution to the Test the Trial Court Uses to Reliability of the Eyewitness Identification and Ergo the Admissibility of the Identification . the federal Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (2 . which does have a valid purpose in protecting against defensive violence by a surprised occupant. Sequential Lineup .S. 389 U. 390 U. United States. For other statutory sources that may have Fourth Amendment implications.S. Articles 28. 249 (2007) holding that when a police officer makes a traffic stop.W. see the federal Privacy Protection Act. Motion to Exclude Fruits of Electronic Surveillance . United States. __ U. Hudson v. __U.S.Sample) United States v. Denno. United States v. Fisher.Ct.__. Ontario v. 401 U. the passenger. 27 (2001). United States. electronic surveillance laws (1) (2). 551 U. 514 U. 547 U. Foster .S.S. 388 U. United States. Herring v. 438 (1928).S. Arkansas. 432 U.S. 586 (2006) centering on the legal effect or remedy for a premature entry with a search warrant but without a proper "knock and announce.See Eyewitness Misidentification for discussion and authorities. 843 (2006) holding that a condition of parole release can so diminish or eliminate a released prisoner's reasonable expectation of privacy that a suspicionless search by a law enforcement officer would not offend the Fourth Amendment. 438 U.745 (1971). California. is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the stop and discussing when a person is "seized" under the Fourth Amendment. as well as the driver. Motion to Suppress Photographic Spread and for Hearing on Illegal Identification .S. Simmons v.Ct. 33 S. Wade. or persons were in danger. 927 (1995) common law "knock and announce" principle forming part of reasonableness inquiry under Fourth Amendment. 130 S. See Eyewitness Misidentification. a belief that turned out to be wrong because of a negligent bookkeeping error by another police employee.

540 (1992) On the use of informants. 423 (1973). Coker v.Moore v. 374 (2005) holding that defense lawyer bound to make reasonable efforts to obtain and review material that counsel knows the prosecution will probably rely on as evidence of aggravation at sentencing phase of a death penalty case.S. 18 U. Tip: Defenders should remember to ask that the prosecution produce any qualifying statement that the complaining witness made to the Victim's Advocate Office associated with the prosecutor's office.S.C. 433 (1990) holding that the requirement that jury cannot consider any mitigating circumstance unless itunanimously finds it to exist violates the Eighth Amendment. the Eighth Amendment is violated. 394 U.( 1 . Walton v. Russell.S. 385 U.P.S.v. Georgia. and Fiber Evidence .Rule 615 TRE. and Jencks Act 18 U..(1) Motion to Exclude Cooperating Witness Testimony and Request for Reliability Hearing (1) Motion for In-Court Lineup . 503 U. See also State v.S.2d 774 (Utah 1991).United States v. Section 3500) (federal). Motion to Exclude Expert Opinion Testimony . aggravating circumstances must be expressly contained in statute. e. United States.S.S. 438 U. Hair. Rule 26. cruel or depraved".See Gregg v. 433 U. 293 (1966) Motion for Hearing on Admissibility for Impeachment Under Rule 609 FRE or TRE of Defendant's Alleged Prior Convictions Motion in Sexual Assault Case to Admit Evidence of Prior Sexual Conduct of Complainant . 446 U. Rompilla v. Georgia. Beard.(1) Motions Regarding Capital Cases . .S. McCoy v. Ramirez.420 (1980) holding that when an aggravating circumstance is vague and overly broad. 411 U. 428 U. California. but see. 639 (1990) holding that a death sentence passes constitutional muster when the aggravating circumstance was that the murder was "specially heinous. Motion that the Court Make Findings or Fact and Conclusions of Law at Contested Hearing Where Facts and/or Law Are at Issue Motion to Prevent Proof of Defendant's Prior Convictions Under the Balancing Test of Rule 609 TRE. 428 U. Motion for Separate Hearing on Entrapment as a Matter of Law . 817 P. notwithstanding that the capital defendant and his family members have suggested that no mitigating evidence exists. North Carolina. 494 U. Gilbert v. See Eyewitness Misidentification. 440 ( 1969). Section 3500 (federal) Motion to Compel the Government to Produce Statements of Government Witnesses for Discovery and Inspection Prior to Defense Cross-Examination of Each Such Witness Rule 615 TRE (Texas). Blystone v.S. United States. is grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment under the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.S.S.CCJA Expert Testimony) Motion to Exclude DNA . 299 (1990) holding that mandatory death when jury finds present one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances does not violate Eighth Amendment. 153 (1976) holding that death as a punishment for crime is not in and of itself a violation of the Eighth Amendment). Godfrey v. also. Illinois.S. Hoffa v.S. see alsoLewis v.2 F. 388 U.S. Rule 609 FRE Motion to Require the Opposition to Have Statements of Its Witnesses Available at Hearing and Trial for Inspection Prior to Cross-Examination of Such Witnesses . 206 (1966).Crim. North Carolina.sexual assault case).S. (2 . Georgia.S. Ohio. Woodson v. rape of adult female. 434 U. 545 U.S.g. 385 U.R. United States. 494 U. 263 (1967). 584 (1977) holding that a death sentence for certain crimes. 497 U. Jencks Act. California. Pennsylvania. Arizona .C. 280 (1976) holding that a mandatory death sentence for every person convicted of first-degree murder violates Eighth Amendment Lockett v. 220 (1977).S. 586 (1978) holding that the defense has the right during the punishment phase of capital trial to put on any mitigating evidence concerning circumstances of crime and his/her character. Jacobson v.(1) Motion to Exclude Handwriting.

127 (1992).S. The Federal Speedy Trial Act. Motion for Continuance Before Trial Has Begun . 213 (1967). Motion for Speedy Trial . Motion to Require Transcription of Testimony from Pretrial Hearing in Case at Bar for Use As Extrinsic Evidence of Prior Inconsistent Statements at Trial of Case at Bar Motion to Require Transcription of Defendant's Prior Trial for Offense At Bar Motion to Transcribe Prior Sworn Testimony of Co-Defendant in Co-Defendant's Severed Trial for Offense At Bar Motion for a Separate Jury for a Defendant Who is Forced to Be Tried with a CoDefendant Motion Challenging the Array of Jurors Motion for Special Venire Motion for Instructions to the Panel of Prospective Jurors Prior to Commencement of Lawyer Questioning Motion for Instructions to the Panel of Jurors Selected for the Case Motion for List of Jurors Motion for Jury Questionnaire See Jury Selection. for example. orders the defendant to wear shackles .Motion to Compel Prosecution to Submit Written or Recorded Statements of Government Witness for an En Camera Review by the Court to Determine Whether Witness Statement Should Be Produced for Discovery and Inspection Defendant's Offer to Stipulate to Facts Where Witness Testimony Regarding Such Facts Would Present Unfairly Prejudicial Aspects of Testimony that Outweigh Its Probative Value .S. Nevada.S. United States.13 CCP. see. Note: There may be a speedy trial statute in your jurisdiction. (2) reason for the delay. Flynn. Motion for Random Selection (Shuffle) of Names of Jurors Selected from Members of General Panel or Panel for the Case . Motion for Continuance After Trial Has Begun . 519 U.Article 35.Article 29. and (4) prejudice to the defendant. Barker v. without adequate explanation.S. including right to be be present during trial. Motion that the Court Retain the Completed Jury Questionnaires as Part of the Record of the Case See Jury Selection.Allen. Motion to Permit Accused to Appear in Court at Trial and other Public Hearings Dressed in Civilian Clothes and Without Shackles or Other Restraints -See Holbrook v. Illinois v. 18 USC Section 3161-3174. 514 (1972) detailing the four factor test: (1) length of the delay.Doggett v. Missouri. the right to communicate with counsel. 172 (1997) (1). Old Chief v.09 CCP. Deck v.Riggins v. 544 U. 522 (1985) holding that the use of special courtroom security arrangement involving having uniformed security personnel sit in the first row of courtroom spectator section did not entail the inherent prejudice of binding and gagging. See Jury Selection Motion for Information Concerning Prospective Juror's Criminal History Accessible Only to and Accessed by the Prosecution from Government Controlled Restricted Sources Including the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) See Jury Selection. (3) the defendant's assertion of his right. Wingo.S. United States. . 622 (2005) holding that where a court.leg irons.that will be seen by jury at the punishment phase of his capital trial. disruptive defendant may lose rights. 397 U.See Rule 403 TRE and FRE403.Articles 29. 475 U.S. handcuffs and a belly chain . 386 U.S. and the necessity of an appearance of dignity in the judicial process.11 CCP. 407 U. the defendant need not demonstrate actual prejudice to make out a due process claim. 337 (1970) holding that an obstreperous. North Carolina. Motion to Prevent the Involuntary Medication of the Accused During Trial .03 . Klopfer v. 505 US 647 (1992). but due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments requires that shackling and gagging should be tried only as a last resort due to the impact on the presumption of innocence.29. 504 U.

Campbell v. 280 (1968) allowing the government to use economic compulsion to secure statements but ony if the government grants appropriate immunity Motion to Allow Jurors to Take Notes Motion Invoking the Rule of Witnesses Request to Excuse Witness from Application of the Rule of Witnesses and Sequestration Motion to Require Witness Who Has Been Excused from the Rule of Witnesses and Sequestration to Prepare and File with the Court Prior to Testifying a Written Statement of His Factual Knowledge of the Case in Order to Prevent or Reveal Any Tailoring of Testimony Based on Factual Evidence the Witness Hears from the Witness Stand Before Testifying . Elem. United States. Purkett v. v. privileged communication. 499 U.S. the defendant's silence. an unkept promise that the accused will testify in his own behalf and tell the jury certain facts.S. 545 U.S. Leesville Concrete Company. Commissioner of Sanitation of City of New York. 400 (1991). Powers v. 352 (1991). 765 (1995). Rev. Hernandez v. 1 Lewis & Clark L. the Witnesses. Motion Challenging the Seating of the Jury Due to Improper Use of Peremptory Challenges Based On Race and/or Gender . etc Motion for Attachment of Witness Who Has Failed to Appear in Response to Duly Served Subpoena . McCollum. 514 U. Motion to Require the Complaining Witness (or Other Witness) Who Has Been Excused from Application of Rule of Witnesses and Sequestration to Be Required to Be the Prosecution's First Fact Witness Motion for Voir Dire Examination of Opposition's Expert Witness Prior to the Admission into Evidence of Any Expert Opinion Testimony from Such Witness or Underlying Facts or Data Upon Which Such Opinion May Be Based Motion for Hearing to Determine Competency of Opposition's Witness to Testify as an Expert Motion for Hearing to Determine the Competency of Opposition's Character Witnesses and the Admissibility of Character Testimony on Specific Traits of the Accused.Fifth Amendment) Kastigar v. 42 (1992).S. 499 (2005). Inc. 523 U.S." It is often attached to the title of motions that ask the trial court to make a . See Jury Selection for further explanation of the cases and strategic advice. 392 U.Georgia v. 614 (1991).B. Johnson v.S. 231 (2005). The Crime Victim's Right to Attend the Trial: The Reascendant National Consensus. Dretke. J. 392 (1998). 500 U.S. 511 U. 127 (1994) (gender).Batson v. Ohio. 476 U. New York. 481 (2005).S.S. 543 U.See Beloof et al. California.Article 24.. Motion for Additional Peremptory Challenges See Jury Selection.S. Alabama ex rel T. 500 U. uncharged misconduct.E. * Note: In Limine in Latin means "at the beginning" or "on the threshold. Miller-El v. Edmonson v. 79 (1986). 506 U.S.12 CCP Application for Court Grant of Qualified Testimonial (or Transactional) Immunity for Defense Witness (1 . invocation of constitutional rights.Motion Requesting that Challenges for Cause Be Made at the Bench with Individual Follow-Up Questions of Questionable Prospective Jurors at the Conclusion of General Questioning of the Panel See Jury Selection. character.S. 406 U. v. Kentucky. Louisiana.This might include evidence of prior convictions. Uniformed Sanitation Men Assn. 441 (1972) government may compel grand jury testimony from witnesses over Fifth Amendment objections if the witnesses receive "use and derivative use immunity".B. Motion Prior to Opening Statement to Require Counsel to Request and Obtain Court Approval Before Introducing Topics That May Have A Significant Potential for Unfair Prejudice . and /or the Complainant Motion to Conduct Arraignment of Accused Out of the Jury's Presence Motion in Limine* to Prevent Speaking Objections and Argument on Objections by Counsel in the Presence of the Jury.

United States v. not Previously Preadmitted. 470 U. 477 U. Objections to the Trial Court's Written Instructions to the Jury .Article 36. to remember the intricacies and nuances of the copious instructions that they only hear orally in criminal cases. 409 U. Motion that the Trial Court Give Requested Special Written Instructions .] Motion that Admitted Exhibits of Real Evidence Be Sent into the Jury Room Before Jurors Begin Their Deliberations Motion to Prevent (or Allow) the Jury from Having Access During Deliberations to Demonstrative Evidence Introduced Solely to Assist the Fact-Finder in Understanding Witnesses' Testimony .S.preliminary ruling barring the opposition from engaging in specific conduct or inquiring about specific subjects.Article 36. Motion to Prevent the Trial Court from Questioning Any Witness in the Presence of the Jury (Add if appropriate: Unless the Trial Court Has Both Advised Counsel of the Trial Court's Belief that Further Questioning Should Take Place and Provided Counsel with the Opportunity to Put Such Questions to the Witness ) Motion for Jury View of Scene Motion to Prevent the Trial Court from Admonishing Defense Witnesses in Unnecessarily Strong Terms Regarding the Witnesses' Right to Refuse to Testify . the motion for instructed (directed) verdict conviction will be properly denied on the sufficiency of the evidence issue if a rational jury couldhave found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.15 CCP Motion that the Jurors Be Permitted to Have a Written Copy of the Court's Jury Instructions for Use While Deliberating .] Motion that Each Juror Be Provided with a Written Copy of the Court's Instructions to the Jury Motion to Reopen for Additional Testimony After Resting Motion for Instructed (Directed) Verdict of Not Guilty [Note: This motion can be made at the conclusion of the prosecution's case-in-chief. Unless and Until Such Exhibits are Received in Evidence Motion Requesting the Trial Court to Refrain from Commenting in the Jury's Presence on the Weight and/or Credibility of the Evidence or Otherwise Indicating the Trial Court's Opinion of the Evidence Presented to the Jury . the issue for the trial judge is whether there is sufficient evidence upon which a rational jury could decide that the prosecution proved the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.14 CCP. Concerning the issue of sufficiency of the evidence to support conviction. follow an anachronistic practice of denying trial jurors access to a written copy of the court's instructions. sorry. 1 (1985): Darden v. The same standard is used on appeal after conviction when sufficiency if the evidence is the issue. totally untrained in the law.Special Functions of the Trial Judge (1999). 168 (1986). Texas.ABA Standards . See also Objections to Jury Argument for a long list of potential objection to the opponent's jury argument. the legally trained and experienced judge was clearly unable to recite any of the instructions from memory. unless opposing counsel approaches the bench and notifies the court and counsel that s/he then intends to engage in the conduct or inquire about the subject. yet the lawmakers of South Carolina apparently expect each group of jurors. Even though the trial judge might have granted the motion on the same evidence at a bench trial. Motion to Limit Prosecution's Jury Argument . I recently listened to a South Carolina judge in a robbery -murder case read from written instructions for well over half an hour. but this shameful practice defies reason. Young.S. notably South Carolina and New Jersey.S.Webb v. 95 (1972). the trial court does not substitute its judgment for that of the jury.] Motion to Prevent Counsel from Displaying to the Jury and Any Witness from Testifying to the Contents of Any Exhibits. Instead. Wainwright.[Editorial Comment: Several states.

Neulander. 2360 (2009) Motion for Instructions to Jurors After the Verdict Motion By Defense Counsel for Leave to Interview Jurors After the Verdict Motion to Prevent the Jurors from Talking to Representatives of the News Media Pending Retrial After a Mistrial Has Been Declared Due to a Hung Jury . United States v. 129 S. (4). __U. Ct. (5). For more information. Booker.Jenkins v. 348 (2004).2d 255 (NJ 2002). where the sentencing scheme fails to require that the enhancement fact be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 542 U. See also. cert denied 123 S. the right to due process of law. fact.S. Berman. Arizona . (6). 296 (2004). 3d 508 (7th Cir. the right to indictment by a grand jury. that provide for a right to indictment. United States. see United States v. Motion to Prevent the Sentencing Court from Relying on Any Sentencing Guideline Enhancement that Requires the Finding of a Fact Not Placed Before the Jury as an Element of the Offense -For those (not TX. any fact that increases sentence beyond the statutory maximum for the offense of conviction must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and Ring v. Beyond Blakely. The holding appears to apply to sentencing guidelines that vest the judge with the power to enhance (increase) a sentence upon finding of some additional fact. 2004). Federal . 380 U. other than a prior conviction. federal and TX. that requires the finding of a fact not placed before the trial jury as an element of the offense for which the convicted defendant is being sentenced is violative of the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury.Horwitz. 1281 (2003). Washington. 530 U. Ameline. other than a recidivist. 536 U. 2004). Ring is not retroactive.Fair Trial & Free Press (1992). __. The issue before the court in Blakely was "Whether a fact (other than a prior conviction) necessary for an upward departure from a statutory standard sentencing range must be proved according to the procedures mandated by Apprendi v. (2). SeeSchriro v. and. e.S. Conceptualizing Blakely.S. New Jersey. Mixed Signals and Subtle Cues: Jury Independence and Judicial Appointment of the Jury Foreperson. 375 F. Law Rev. King & Klein. 445 (1965) Motion to Sequester and Prevent Deliberating Jurors from Separating Motion for Hearing on Whether the Court Should Allow Substitution of Alternate Juror After Deliberations Have Begun Motion to Suspend Jury Deliberations Pending the Return of Temporarily Incapacitated Juror Motion to Permit Reading of Certain Testimony in Response to the Jury's Request Motion to Poll Jurors to Determine If They Are Hopelessly Deadlocked Motion to Prevent the Court from Inquiring As to the Numerical Division of Jurors Who Have Been Unable to Agree Upon a Verdict Motion to Prevent the Court from Suggesting to the Jury that the Court Will Keep the Jury Deliberating Until It Reaches a Verdict Motion to Set Aside Verdict(s) of Conviction on the Ground that It (They) Is (Are) Inconsistent with Verdicts of Acquittal But see Yeager v.S. 801 A. e.S. 542 U. ABA Standards . Summerlin.3d 967 (9th Cir. based on the Apprendi/Ring rule. For a free analysis of Blakely by theVera Foundation.See State v.. For Circuit cases holding that Blakely guts all or part of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.) Under Blakely the maximum sentence that a judge may impose on the defendant is capped by the facts found by a jury or admitted by the defendant. suggests that a sentencing guideline enhancement. 466 (2000) holding that with the exception of prior convictions. (3).g. Blakely v.g. 829 (2005)) Motion That the Court Refrain from Unduly Coercing the Jury to Reach a Verdict .) in sentencing guideline jurisdictions. 584 (2002) holding that it violates Apprendi for the sentencing judge without a jury in a capital case to find an aggravating circumstance required for imposition of the death penalty. see (1). United States. 16 Federal Sentencing Reporter (Fee) (June 2004).S. prior conviction.Motion to Prevent the Court from Appointing a Jury Foreperson (1 . Ct. 376 F.. 54 Catholic Univ. in jurisdictions. For the DOJ memo (1). Douglas.

If a particular fact is essential to the defendant's punishment. the issue for the appellate court being whether the sentence was reasonable under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. 38 (2007). Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only and federal judges may impose other sentences based on sentencing factors contained in 18 U. For basic constitutional law cases dealing with the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. See also United States v. 338 (2007) upheld the presumption of reasonableness in appellate review of sentences falling within the presumptive range of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. It would seem after Kimbrough and Gall that the sentencing judge in a federal criminal case is still required to calculate the sentencing range under the Guidelines and consider the range in determining what a reasonable sentence would be.S.3d 511 (5th Cir.S. and. These cases raised the issue whether it is unconstitutional for a federal judge to impose an enhanced sentence. if so. 2005).S.S. Recuenco. see Jury Selection.C. For in-depth analysis of Booker.S. 549 U. the defendant is entitled under the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury to have a jury finding on the existence of such fact. 543 U.S. Mares. whether the United States Sentencing Guidelines are void entoto. determined respectively that the sentencing authority had discretion to deviate from the advisory Guidelines because it disagreed with the 100-to-1 weight disparity of sentencing between crack and powder cocaine and that the sentencing authority did not have to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to impose a sentence below the advisory guideline range. 552 U.Fanfan court held that sentences prescribed by the U. 552 U. In Cunningham v. Note: On 1-12-05.C. 551 U. . with Alito and Roberts aboard. but they appear to be free to consider other factors. Motion to Prevent Sentence Based in Whole or Part on Evidence of Any Prior Conviction that Is Not Alleged in the Charging Instrument and Proved Beyond a Reasonable Doubt . Booker and United States v. the U.Fanfan. even though the judge eventually decides that the Guideline range is not reasonable for the defendant in question.C. United States. In Burton v.S. United States. if any. Try this terrific resource for a treasure trove of information about guideline sentencing. 402 F. (2).S. 13 (2005). (4 . 85 (2007) and Gall v. shed even more light on Blakely.latest Booker-Fanfan cases).S.S. 544 U. So the Guideline calculation is supplied to the sentencing judge but the weight. Rita v.S. 270 (2007). Fanfan.Fanfan site and then to the Berman Blawg. The U. Sentencing Commission can continue its work. The Booker . Sentencing Guidelines authorization of sentence enhancements based on facts found by the sentencing judge. that federal judges give to the Guidelines in determining the appropriate sentence to impose is now discretionary.S. 147 (2007) the U. See also (1).S. go to the federal defender Booker. (3 . indicated that the U. Stewart. 549 U. rather than by a jury or admitted by the defendant violates the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial and that statutory provisions that require federal judges to apply the guidelines when sentencing offenders must be severed from the federal sentencing scheme. United States. in United States v.3553(a).S. In Kimbrough v.Sentencing Reporter (December 2004). United States v. 220 (2005) and United States v. California. United States.S.C.C. the U. Fanfan held 5-4 in an opinion by Justice Stevens and relying on Blakely that the U. federal judges are directed to consult the Guidelines in exercising their sentencing discretion. and breaking developments. left the question of the retroactivity of Booker unanswered.S. See also Washington v. the determinate sentencing system of California was struck down.S.Shephard v.S. 212 (2006) indicating that a harmless error review is permissible in cases on appeal when Blakely was decided. The Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law Symposium.S.S. Booker.a symposium on Booker). 548 U.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful