AMERICAN

CRIMINAL comms
ClgfRobers0n FmnI<],DiMarino 4 A
’é
ri
x
Cliff Roberson, LLM, Ph.D.
Academic Chair Graduate School of Criminal justice,
Kaplan Universigz
Emeritus Professor of Criminal justice,
Washburn Universigz
Frank DiMa.rino, LLM
Dean, School of Criminal justice,
Kaplan Universig;
Executive Editor; Professional Issues in Criminal
justice journal
Prentice Hall
Boston Columbus Indianapolis New York San Francisco Upper Saddle River
Amsterdam Cape Town Dubai London Madrid Milan Munich Paris Montréal Toronto
Delhi Mexico City Sao Paulo Sydney Hong Kong Seoul Singapore Taipei Tokyo
Vice President and Executive Publisher: Vernon Anthont
Senior Acquisitions Editor: Enc Krassow
E.dlt0rla.l Assistant: Lynda Cramer
Media Project Manager: Karen Bretz
Director of Marketing; David Gesell
Senior Marketing Manager: Adam Kloza
Senior Marketing Coordinator: Alicia Wbzniak
Production Managerr Holly Shufeldr
Creative Director: jayne Conte
Cover Design: Suzanne Duda
Cover I1lustrati0n/ Photo: Fotolia
Pul.l·Servlce Project Managem¤1!/Cnmposltiom Nitin Agarwal/Aptarag. inc.
Printer/Binder: Edwards Brothers
Cover Printer: Lehigh-Phoenix Color

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Education, 1 lake Street, Upper
Saddle River, Newjersey 07458. All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America. This
publication is protected by Copyright, and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any
prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission rn any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying. recording, or likewise To obtain permrssion(s) to use material from this work,
please submit a written request to Pearson Education, [nc , Permissions Department. Pearson Education, 1 lake
Street, Upper Saddle River, New jersey 07458,
Library of Congress Cataloging-in·P•|b11catlon Dau
Roberson, Cliff
American criminal courts / Cliff Roberson. Frank DrManno
P CW
Includes index.
ISBN-15 978-0-13-$1111176
ISBN-10 O-15-511111-0
1. Criminal courtwtlnited States Z Criminal yustice. Administration of—!Jnrted States 1 Title
KF9225.R59 2012
545.7501--dc22 2010034540
10 9 B 7 6 5 4 1 2 1
Prentice Hall
is an imprint of
ISBN 10 O-15511111-0
V V wWW.peIr!¤NhIgl\eIed.C¤m ISBN 15. 97E-0-15511111-6
De
CO
v
I
2C
Ch
IC
Ch
10
11 Chapteri • Our Criminal Courts
If t.he act violates both state and federal law, the case may be tried in both. For ex-
ample, if a police officer uses excessive force in the arrest of a suspect, the officer may be
charged with assault and battery in state court as a violation of that state’s criminal code. `
The officer also may be tried in federal court if the officer's conduct also violates the fed-
eral civil rights of the suspect. I
Federal courts may not decide issues originally tried in state courts unless there is a
federal question involved, for example, the state criminal coun conviction infringed a
right protected by the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute. For example, the police offi-
cer discussed above is tried in state court for assault and battery. During the trial, a state-
ment made by the officer is used in evidence against her. After conviction, t.he officer files `
a writ in federal court alleging that the statement was taken in violation of her federal
constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution, Whether or not the statement was taken in violation of her federal constitu-
tional rights is a federal question and may be decided by the federal courts.
State courts are required to protect an individual’s federal rights and those rights
guaranteed by the state constitution or state statutes. Accordingly, while state courts are
responsible for protecting a person's federal civil rights, the court normally has no jurisdic-
tion to try and punish a person for violations of U.S. criminal laws. lf exclusive federal ju-
risdiction exists or me offense is only a federal cri.me, then a state court has no jurisdiction.
The state supreme court or court of criminal appeals is the highest court of appeal
for state criminal cases that do not involve federal issues. The decision of a state supreme
court that a particular practice violates the state constitution is not subject to review by
the U.S. Supreme Court (Payton v. Mw York, 1980).
In most states, death penalty cases are reviewed automatically by the state supreme
court. The state supreme court generally has original jurisdiction (along with court of
appeals and superior courts) in habeas corpus proceedings. ln other criminal cases, the
state supreme court accepts only those cases decided by the court of appeals. Except in
death penalty cases, an accused generally has no absolute right to have the state supreme
court decide his or her appeal of a criminal conviction.
The state supreme court may in most states, before a decision is entered, order a
case transferred from a court of appeal to the state supreme court. The state supreme
court generally also may review any decision of a court of appeals.
State supreme courts generally do not have the jurisdiction to render advisory
opinions (Younger rz. Superior Court 1978). Accordingly, there must be an actual case or
controversy pending in the court before an opinion will be issued. For example, New
LAW IN ACTION
The coun of last resort tor citizens in Arizona is the Arizona Supreme Court. Following is a description of
the court. it is very typical to most state courts One interesting fact regarding this coun is that the jus-
tices must retire at the age of 70 Contrast that with the history of the U.S. Supreme Court where many
of the justices senze well into their 80s and even 90s Another interesting iact is the requirement that the
justice have been a resident of Arizona for at least ‘l0 years priorto appointment While Arizona requires
that thejustices to the state supreme court be attorneys, there is no similar requirement for membership
on the UTS. Supreme Court although there has never been a non·Iawyer appointed to that court.
The Arizona Supreme Court
The Arizona Supreme Courts primaryjudicial duties under Article Vi, § 5 of the Arizona Constitution,
are to review appeals and to provide rules of procedure for all the courts in Arizona it is the highest
court in the state of Arizona and is often called the court of last resort.
1l Chapter 1 · Our Criminal Courts
Jersey enacts a new statute making it unconstitutional for a citizen to move from one
county in the state to another county in the same state. In most instances, the New jersey
Supreme Court would not issue an opinion as to the validity of the statute until there is
an actual case involving the statute before the court.
Courts of appeals decide appeals from superior or district courts and have original juris-
diction in habeas corpus proceedings. In most cases, an accused has a right to have his or her
appeal of a criminal conviction in superior or district ooutt decided by the court of appeals.
Superior or district courts are considered as courts of general jurisdiction and have
original jurisdiction in all cases except those given by statutes to other trial courts. Superior
or district couns have jurisdiction to try misdemeanors not otherwise provided for and
felonies (criminal offenses punishable by death or by imprisonment ln the state prison).
Generally, a superior or district court has no jurisdiction over a case charging only a misde-
meanor in a county with a county, municipal, or justice court, Superior or district courts in
most cases have appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases that are tried in county, municipal.
and justice courts.
Municipal, county, and justice courts usually have jurisdiction in criminal matters as
follows;
1. to hear and decide cases involving misdemeanors and infractions;
2. to conduct the following procedures in felony cases;
a. arraignment,
It. bail setting and reduction,
c. accept pleas, and
d. preliminary hearings; and
3. to issue search and arrest warrants.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Most state constitutions provide that no judgment shall be set aside, or new trial granted,
in any cause, on the ground of misdirectlon of the jury, or of the improper admission or
rejection of evidence, or for any error as to any matter of pleading, or for any error as to
any matter of procedure, unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the
evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a
miscarriage of justice.
COURTS IN ACTION
D0 you agt•• with dtl•fJtn1I¤ John Jay. that |url•| |r• the best judges of hcts1 How do
you dlstlngulsh hetwnn n question nfhcund n quntlon of Inf!
Cltlef Justice John Jay. U.S. Supretna Coun on tho provlnm of the jury
Georgia v, Bratisiord, 3 U S, 1, 4 (U S 1794)
It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of
lact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province oi the court to decide. But it
must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction,
you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves tu judge of both, and to determine the law as
well as the fact in controversy On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you
will pay the respect, which is due to the opinion oi the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed,
that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the
best judges of law. But still both objects are lawfully within your power of decision
Gh
16 Chapter 1 · Our Cmnt;-tal Courts
credibility that [it] permits the jury to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the People have
proven their case. . .
Crimes are defined by elements. The focus of a trial is to determine whether or not the prose-
cutlon can prove each of the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
During the course of a trial, things happen. You hear testimony You can spend your delibera-
tion time trying to resolve each and everything that you heard My suggestion is you try to resolve
only the things that you need to resolve in order to make a determination whether the People have
proven the elements of a charge beyond a reasonable doubt
Ajury makes factual findings. The elements must be established beyond a reasonable doubt if
they're going to be established at all. . .
What your concern is: Did the People prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of a rob-
bery; and, equally, if not more importantly the accuracy of the identification of Mr. Burvvell and Mr
Brown as the person or persons involved in the crime. .
With regard to identification cases, as this is, it’s the judges responsibility to focus the jury on
the considerations that a jury should go through in deciding whether or not the People have proven
an accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt I'll go through these things.
But, with respect to the credibility factors and the identification considerations, you'|l see
that an intelligent, functioning adult human being instinctively would think of or examine, assess
virtually all these things, if not all these things, in trying to determine whether the People have met
their burden.
First of all, you’ve got to decide the credibility of li/lr. Degll-Adalberti, as well as any other
witness. Because only by initially making factual decisions do you have a basis on which to draw
your ultimate conclusions Vou've got to decide what facts you're working with. That means
you’ve got to decide as the witnesses are conveying testimony here, is their testimony accurate
and credible.
So, with respect to whether the identification is truthful, that is not deliberately false, you must
evaluate the believability of the witness who makes an identification. In doing so, you may consider
the various factors for evaluating the believabillty of a witness' testimony that I listed for you a while
ago with regard to whether the identification is accurate...
These factors are common sense things that any intelligent person would assess in making the
determination whether the defendant or defendants are correctly identified.
You heard me say crimes are defined by elements. Essentially, there are three elements with re-
gard to robbery. . .
So, there are three elements, each of which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Was there a theftT Ordinary meaning.
Was there force used7 Force is any physical force beyond some incidental touching
And, was there a person present vvho was present, ready willing and able to aid in the com-
mission of the robbery, the theft. . .
Those three elements have to be proven separately as to each person, li/lr. Burwell and
Mr. Brown
If the People prove the three elements as l've just described them beyond a reasonable doubt,
each one of them, then you have no choice, you must convict the person If the People miss any one
or more or all of the elements, miss proving that beyond a reasonable doubt, you have no choice, you
have to acquit the person. . .
Does the jury unanimously agree as to the charge against Mr. Bunxvell, as to the charge against
Mr Brown? When you get into the jury room, conceivably, there would be disagreements among
you Not surprising.
The two most important civic functions that people do are to vote and to serve on juries. And
for centuries elections have been closely decided. 50.i beats 49.9 every time, and then you're stuck
with somebody for two, foun six or in the case of some judicial elections fourteen long years. And,
yet, for 230 years now, juries, the same pool of people who can't agree on a candidate, have been
unanimously deciding cases. So, how does that happen? It happens, obviously because within the
jury deliberation context, people sometimes change their minds
Ch
18
20
V 2 ' * v.=,v A A:?=w cw AA
* ,V-,;l A V ’‘;v ;As¥L
Vi'
=¤ ·V=*rV r ’»v. .;;hv’‘;‘ ;~ vii " " “ ‘ ’ ~
j’> if" “ ..... {A ’ -
‘=’ AA; >’_ ' · f ··¢» . A ‘ ·
ATT A * ihv " ‘ J 'AV' QQ A;’A 92: i A '‘'’ T `”; A A
;?v ‘ 1 Y AA ~ ~ AVAA AAAA AAAAA AA A AA A‘-¤€‘‘‘ Y AAA
AA A V t ~ V- ,.·· ¢‘>¢A= ·’’:’’¢ ’AAv to A’·v ’ ‘‘=‘
A ·I"AA A ¥ AAr= ·‘ =‘ ‘ ‘ A·-2
AA ·V‘’’‘¤ A=vA ·‘·; A ’· V
‘? A‘A’ Q · ·, » AAV. { t r.vA - ’
_AAA rr; . A·
rxr; .a=·Ar:.r. °. ¤.=§’·<;;.rs:i* sr,'=i¤=·‘t¤ A.A.AA . .A.AA.A ’ '~· ; tr ;_,·:#;e
.
V
eats,. er re ..... ...A t. ...A. . - .·= ;4·=·· · · t = ·; g f j ==¤=zi=wwzeairai25Zii;xArzrrri&~?
tie », . “‘ wasszztzszsss2s=·=st=>;»<stsi r ‘I"tI`§§i· ·· .» ‘ -~ ~
AAA

<;2ze2zzct<s¢zs<>sA2ezz2=t2s’<>z*<=>s¤·>=¤z¢;t;;~#=;2=¤=r;·ztaz;s AA2s=¢é¤2=sz;¤·2··2;sz;¤·2 =~;q~~;y~»;eeer--~iwwzre,rweeaer·»e»~~rrereieimei~-AV~me~ersr¤rre¤¤§;re¢,W,,,,_; a _ gi;

"
`
t AAAA iii;
{AZ 'rr. AA V ’ `·
thelaw 3;
* tc ;Aj1[AgAi{{;;IA~itsieoarrs tiecidecases, the law is applied to pmctical disputes and plays rr vrrat rele rrrjuiera;irreAo5;;g{g2;A
’ f**<5urr4<>éiély. A A A A . · ~ ~~»A AA
* I Cours are divided into three levels; trial courts, intermediate appellate courts, and c<>ut1s¥<$flsist resort. '
V j I Access to courts and the protections of law are open to everybody, including citizens and ntm<*itizens.
I Traffic courts, municipal courts, juvenile courts, small claims courts, probate Acourts, and farttily oourts,
are known as ‘*inFerior courts" because they have limited authority to only hear cermirt types of cases.
— I Trial courts have witnesses testify, admit evidence, and are the triers of fact in any criminal prosecution r
I Appellate couns review the procedures and conclusions made by a trial court based upon the record
made during the trial courts proceedings.
I Appellate courts do not admit testimony or other evidence during the consideration of an appeal.
I Appellate courts decide cases based upon briefs and arguments submitted by counsel and the record
of the proceedings in the trial coun, ‘
I Courts of last resort decide what appeals will be heard by the court based upon the Supreme Ct>utl’s
discretion.
I A judge presides over court proceedings to assure that procedures and laws are followed, proceedings ‘
are orderly, and resolution is fairly and justly obtained.
I ln the federal court system, judges are appointed for life.
I in the state court system, judges must run an electoral campaign to be elected to their position for
each term.
22
Ch
30
Ch
Ch
Ch
42
Ch
44
ch
Chapter 3 • Thejudicial Process 49
COURTS IN ACTION
Wi-Fi for Jurors

According to the Charlotte Observer, Mecklenburg County, N.C., is trying to make jury duty less
of a chore. The juror assembly room in the downtown Charlotte courthouse has free wireless
Internet, a business center, a day care center and even a place where mothers can pump
breast milk. There's a 90-minute lunch break and two movies are offered. The courthouse
provides free popcorn. Court officials recognize most people don't look forward to jury duty,
so the amenities and services aim to make performing the public obligation more pleasant, offi-
cials said.
Of course, there’s another incentive to performing your civic duty. Those who don't show
up may have to explain their absence to a judge. The efforts seem to make a difference. The
benchmark-setting National Center for State Courts says fewer than five percent of jurors
should be no-shows. In Mecklenburg County, four percent of those called from motor vehicle
and voter registration records never show up. [Cleve R. Wootson, lr "Comfort in the
courthouse" Charlotte Observer, Monday, Aug. O2, 2010, B·1; web site http;//www.
charlotteobsen/er.com/2 O1 0/08/02./1 5961 24/comfort-in-the-courthousehtml#ixzz0vlyjcJAq Accessed
on August 7, 2010.]

7. Reading of charge and plea

8. Opening statement by prosecuting attomey
9. Opening statement by defense (this may be waived entirely or until prosecution
rests)
10. Calling of first prosecution witness and administration of the oath
11. Direct examination
12. Cross-examination (may be waived)
13. Redirect examination (may be waived)
14. Recross-examination (may be waived)
IS. Calling of additional prosecution witnesses, administration of oath, direct examina-
tion, and other procedure as in case of first witness
16. Prosecution rests
17. Motion for judgment of acquittal by defense (if denied, then the following
procedure)
18. Opening statement by defense (if not previously given)
19. Calling of first defense witness and procedure followed as in case of first prosecu-
tion witness
20. Defense rests
21. Rebuttal presentation by prosecution
22. Closing arguments by prosecution and then by defense
23. Rebuttal closing argument by prosecution
24. Instructing the jury
25. Deliberation
26. Retum of verdict (if guilty verdict returned, then the following procedure)
27. Request for new trial by defense (if denied, then the following procedure)
28. Sentencing the defendant if adjudged guilty.
Ch
Chapter 5 • Thejudicial Process 55
showing is made, adds to that burden. it seems apparent that there are times when to deny this
privilege prior to trial might result in the hearing itself being delayed—at a considerable expense to
the State—whi|e such an examination or tests are made, We believe justice dictates that the defen-
dant be entitled to the benefit of any reasonable opportunity to prepare his defense and to prove
his innocence.
We are of the opinion that such a rule is in the interest ofjustice, and that it is left to the sound
discretion ot a trial court when a proceeding is pending therein as to whether such inspection and ex-
amination should be allowed or not.

(1965) that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused

upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to
punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” The court
noted that the governments obligation to disclose exculpatory information includes evi-
dence that may be used to substantially impeach the credibility of a government witness.
The court concluded that the touchstone of the governrnents disclosure obligations is tl1e
*materiality“ of the information, that is, evidence for which there is a reasonable possibil-
ity that, had tl1e evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding
would have been different.
The court noted that the defendant in the instant case was seeking information re-
lating to the reliability of the confidential informant (Cl) who provided information in
connection with the search warrant. The court concluded that there was no question that
in analyzing a warrants validity, a court may assess a source’s reliability or personal back-
ground. [The court then ruled that a motion for discovery was not the proper procedure
to attach the sufficiency of a search warrant.] The court then held that the defendants re-
quest for reliability infomation conceming the CI who provided information in connection
with the search warrant was denied, subject to renewal if the defendant submits evidence
that the search wan·ant affidavit contained false information and that absent such evidence
the court lacked probable cause for the warrant.
Frosecuti¤n's Right of Pretrial Discovery
Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure grants to the government (the prose-
cution) almost the identical rights of pretrial discovery that are granted to the defendant.
More states in the future may follow the precedent set by the federal government in
granting the right of pretrial discovery to the prosecution
Most states that recognize the right to pretrial discovery have granted little pretrial
right of discovery to the prosecution. This trend supports the contention that the right of
pretrial discovery is a one-way street. The most convincing argument against allowing
pretrial discovery by the prosecution is that the right would compel the defendant to be
a witness against himself or herself. Many legal scholars are at a loss to understand how
furnishing the names and addresses of witnesses or the defense to be used—such as an
alibi or insanity defense—would be self-incrimination, but there are state courts that
have prohibited the prosecution from exercising the right of pretrial discovery upon the
sel.t'-incrimination claim.
In addition to the self-incrimination allegation, the supreme court of one state has
held that the prosecution must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
and that any discovery by the prosecution that would lessen that burden is not pemtissi-
ble. It is almost impossible to imagine any discovery that would not, in some respect,
lessen the burden of the prosecution. This holding by that court has been highly criticized
in legal circles as being too restrictive and without merit.
Ch
ch
Ch
66
72
Chapter 4 · Federal Courts 73
COURTS IN ACTION
Fair Sentencing Act of 2010

For three decades, individuals convicted of crack offenses faced far harsher penalties than defendants
convicted of stmilar offenses involving cocaine powder. A person in possession of 500 grams of powder
cocaine would face a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. Crack offenders would face the same
penalty for a mere 5 grams. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 [Public Law No: 111-220] reduces the sen·
tenclng disparity to 18 to 1, meaning that a person convicted of selling 28 grarns of crack would face
the same five-year mandatory minimum as someone with 500 grams of cocaine. The law also elimi-
nates mandatory minimum sentencing for simply possessing crack cocaine. The U.S. Sentencing
Commission says that between 5.500 and 6,000 offenders are sentenced for crack offenses each year.
The law will reduce by up to 27 months sentences for about 3,000 offenders each year.
According to the Washington Post, for the past three decades most of those arrested for crack
offenses were mostly young, African American men and they faced far harsher penalties than the
white and Hispanic suspects most often caught with powder cocaine. A person found holding 500
grams of powder cocaine would face a five-year mandatory minimum; crack offenders would have to
bein possession of a mere S grams to face the same obligatory sentence Crack offenders faced a
10-year mandatory minimum for carrying 10 grams of the drug; the same penalty would not kick in
for a powder-cocaine suspect unless caught with 1,000 grams. ["Editorial: The Fair Sentencing Act
corrects a long-time wrong in cocaine cases" Washington Post, August 3, 2010, p. A-18]
Georgia. Each division may have a federal courthouse and is the location for the trial of
cases arising from among select counties assigned to that division.
District courts are among the busiest in the nation. Not only do district courts hear
civil cases involving large sums of claimed damages involving personal injury and con-
tracts, but also they hear criminal cases. The number of criminal cases continues to grow,
NF Quit Fish . W
. gl M ¤itlig§,,;iex.r. l ’
t*=¢¤**§ · se ri. ·*
ililliiiilillilli .rt riiiifllgyr. ¤~r “·
’ , · . . , . Q rt=gg::""vl· ._ _i ; _ in . ·- si
y · ll ‘ dh ,t §l·§§l§s:;l3lf§llg¤ iv; §¥’g·3;;ii·r:tllllj,.E;Z;;. _.r·rs;· ci-
` i yM..g;»;ti.{€{,rli in iillrmt :2..;;, ., »» _ ,_· M
‘ Qril regs; ~ Jllrtlzrt ary t ·\ ne
·~ r ‘ r §g£s··l*¤l· _tg;;t<.r•e,“;L — M¤
[til .¢ "$l§ll§i·§tti§l~;¤Q .2· i °°
W will lilfllls•1•$l=*·*·¢‘2ll "l’;··*· FED
ir ..,..=:;»rrm . ymmlm L >`;}m1£liI..;.£\?;]trr
¤»< §,;;;;,· ,!l,,,,,..._ msi ¤·
[ 'iti§§{§ ,iiti:sillli»lrg2§§§ll ·
» 4 ·;a.a, · ~ rat ,
ui; r ., . . ll'l¢:i•r(l§"}l;riJl -- · $212; ; Lvl
V 5 .. .; ·-·· gg §§gii;!$' ,lé;·se;tg9lt •rmt** ‘
l { i itlilg ,;§;}i¥ V, ’ll¥lts· iter.
M ` Qlllllroillllh ‘ "
I
aw au *" *" wig
neun: 4-: u.s. Courts or Appeals Circuits and u.s. District Courts
Ch
Ch
Ch
Ch
lC
Courtroom Work Group
to an expert witness, generally, cannot testify to opinions, inferences, impressions, or
conclusions. Conclusions are within the domain of the jury sitting as the fact finder in a
criminal prosecution.
An expert witness, on the other hand, may testify as to her opinion. There are sev-
eral qualihcations to this general rule. First, the expert witness must be qualified as an
expert by specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to the extent
that her opinion would probably aid t.he jury to determine the facts. It is sufficient that the
expert be qualified on only one of these grounds. This means that an expert witness need
not be a formally educated scientist or physician, although some are, but may be a trades-
man, such as a plumber or carpenter, or other professional, such as a policeman. What is
LAW IN ACTION
Eyewitness identifications

Eyewitness identification is vital to the prosecution of many criminal cases. When the victim of a crime is
called upon to testify about the identification of her attacken the iury takes special notice about the cer-
tainty and verification of the perpetrators identity The victim is asked· "Do you see the person who com-
mitted the crime in the courtroom?" When the answer is a point of the witnesss finger to the defendant
seated at counsel table with the confident words, "lt is hirn," the evidence is difficult to rebut.
Recent research, howevet has begun to question how accurate is visual memory. The CBS
News Show "60 Minutes” reported on a 1984 case in which 22-year-old college student Jennifer
Thompson was raped in her off campus apartment.
She studied her attackers face the best that she could and identified the perpetrator three days
later in a photo array and later in a physical lineup. At a trial, based upon Thompsons in-court iden-
tilication, Ronald Cotton was convicted and sentenced to prison.
After 1 1 years, Cotton was released because his DNA did not match the DNA at the crime scene.
It was a case of mistaken identity and an innocent man was convicted. Now Thompson and Cotton speak
together at conferences as advocates for the reform of the eyewitness identification process To see more
about this fascinating case. view the video and read the report, go to this link; www.cbsnews.corn/
stories/2009/03/06/60minutes/maln4B4BO39_page3.shtml?tag=coriter1tMain;contentBody
Excerpts from Jones in State, 213 Ga. 213 (Ga. 2000)
When a trial court concludes that an identification procedure is impermissibly suggestive, the
issue becomes whether, considering the totality of the circumstances, there was a substantial
likelihood of irreparable rnisidentificahonl If not, then both the pretrial and in-court identifica-
tions are admissible. Factors to be considered in determining whether there was a substantial
likelihood of misidentification include: (1) the witnesss opportunity to view the accused at the
time of the crime; (2) the witnesss degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the witness's prior
description of the accused; (4) the witness's level of certainty at the confrontation with the
accused; and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. The ultimate
question is, whether under the totality of the circumstances, the identification is reliable.
The admission of expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification is in the discretion of
the trial court. Where eyewitness identification of the defendant is a key element of the States
case and there is no substantial corroboration of that identification by other evidence, trial courts
may not exclude expert testimony without carefully weighing whether the evidence would assist
the jury in assessing the reliability of eyewitness testimony and whether expert eyewitness testi-
mony is the only effective way to reveal any weakness in an eyewitness identification. Howeven
the admission or exclusion of this evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court,
whose decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.
e vA''A *Z·“ 3% ' A V~‘·
.·’r f ¢‘· i ; ·: V’V,,V ;, . ‘ ,#‘ra T ··
'.·& ,g‘>,,,,.Q§ji;§lg ·.’‘. ,
,V ,v;‘‘‘ ? l
; i=" YH ··7Tr?’??{ -''` Q Z,
— »:¤·.m¤·.#· · · re. ¤ . · .t · · _
T ‘ · ,· ;,,, ,‘’v ; vv’*vy. ‘ ‘ ‘ ·y‘,, .
Yi Vv·V·VV 1 T ¤ it t ‘ 1
: ·*·· “ . .· V g
. `''‘””
V ».= mzzzzeziremasees.; - · ·
`L¤ ~ jet ·: ,·,., ..
i ; .$·vv
· J W.., ‘·;‘“ ~ 2f"_§=*
· ··· ···’ , ·: ,
,,,,,
'A
·H
*A
;—tm—te ~;;i melt; —_r¤ at>=¤¤»<¤¤¤t¤¢#~2aas4;eztzwzzzse<~éteiz22222s’:=zs=z:zezzszzaziszzsszsstsazzszase <;ezzz=2szz==;at222itzsszzzsssstztzeszzzzzssatz;»¢e~¤zz22=w~t.,::.r···;~» ~z
·
·A
·
'
°‘h?¥?P¥*?*T¢??*P¥€i¥¢**$ii*f% ZE [ I . “ ``'` ” zi; €§2‘i?Y¥E* ii
n Atttiiitéys zs·we1:1‘as titlxcrs rnayiberheld contemptrmore than once during atrial and may bexfij Tg , » ti . il
prrnishedtfoiteacli tiiziethey are so helcl. . A " ' ' “Z ..r'
¤ Tlre.1J,$. Supreme Court has hcldthat under these circumstances, the offender is entitled to at html on f T ` V _ l
the contempt charge, . 1 I . V '
1 ¤ if the judge waits until the eonclutairm of the trial to take the contempt action, the offender is entitled ' `
to a trial an the contempt charge,
¤ Defense counsels are held in contempt more frequently than prosecuting attorneys.
¤ The judge should uphold the independence and integrity of the judiciary, shall perform the duties of
the office impartially, and shall avoid irnpropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the
judges acrivwties.
¤ A judge shrill avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
n A jadge should not make public comment on the merits of a ruatter pending or impending in any court.
¤ A judge should require similar restraint by eonrt personnel subject to the judges direction and control.
¤ Every state has some commission or- panel to serve as more or a tt atchdog on its judges.
n What constitutes judicial misconduct is an oljten litigated question
¤ The lest for rntpropriety is tvhether thc conduct eomprcrnises the ability of the judge to carry out
jtttlieiul rtzsptmsibilities with independence, integrity, impartiality. and competence.
¤ The attor·ney»client privilege basically means that intorrnation ltirnished to an attorney in confidence
by his or- her client may not be dist‘|<>sct.\ without the permission of the client.
n The attorney-client privilege normally shields only confidential cemmuniczatitxns from client lo attorney.
163
18
’“ ‘??V'‘ * ‘‘’‘' I ''‘.. ’ “ ‘.’’ V V V `’'`
``'VV” V· ·
’vvvry· ’;V`’‘”‘ M i=l
r,v= V , ¥’'= V
3 j ’V,’ ? V ‘ ° · V r
1 ·’··Z r·2=·;;;3 .;:v r », .;yE Q"-?
'’,’ i .:¢;
·,’* ‘ " r.v,' r 4 , ‘-
, ···r 1
itseerrrrra . .r - i , e;;,;;;;;;;;;;;;;;¤z;;;g· . i _ ·
r- r Hiiibf ·ii?;¤:¥%?%5e¤;;;;;;; e ==*‘°é¢*i¢’ =’:= . ·s
.
' "rii."l"~Lir " 1J‘ ‘· = ?~ · ··‘ j
_;;r4; r ;w;;,r r~» .e»»:. ,~. ”
·
,·-· .· ·
·
ll??€EE5E¥?§“?i€E"€?$??&?7iiEZiE'°P?’i?ifTEEQEY£E?é‘?:E?$°%::'i’?i?£EEE;i!§ii:E:::<E?*E***¤"¥$2I$EEEEEE’BE‘.2Z5€EE%’ll2FE’?"§2i$EE§”“**‘éZ€':%£@5E’EE€'!EE?:$?i$i??E§€`:$;::.·:i£!’d¤ a- . r··=¤?s25Z
·=
·

»»>,~>;¤;:¤=»¢~»;;;;,_~ »_ ii?*72IEZ?if*?€??€“Yiili??¥?fl?€??¥¥$??¥?l€f??¥$¥H
·A

'
$#1; :,6 ri » » i >¥**%¥i L
· r>rrrrterprirrs·§a>ii<:trrrr$nee;rsiirrrinltoreoliyFrequent ming. T " _ F V ' *’
I The ultimate goal of drug addiction treatment is toenable the individual tojachieve lasting abstinence, _ V
witlithc irumecliate goals to reduce drug abuse, improve the individuals ability to function, and" , r r ; -'~` Q , '
minimize the medical and social complications ofdrug abuse and addiction. i V L ’ ,
¤ Omg rrearrnent court must take into accounr that defendants in the early srages of recovery may resist
treattnent and most probably do not remember how ro perform mundane rasks such as grocery
shopping.
¤ Critics of drug court programs frequently eonrend that the drug court entry process is a type of forced
plea bargain, which involves intimidation and threat of virulent coercion.
¤ The treatment programs generally involve cornmunirv supervision designed ro help the partieipanrs
eoinbal their addiction, prevent relapse as well as to obey the law and comply with program
conditions,
, ¤ ln mosr states rhere is a treatment court hearing before an individual is assigned to the program, ln
, addition, there are frequent conferences vtirh the treatment court coordinators to rnoniror the
individuals participation and progress and to alter case nizmagcment plans as needed,
n Drug treatmenr programs frequently provide ancillary services in an attempt ro provide effective
rehahilirarion for the participants.
l ¤ Drug court treatment programs generally conduct frequent and random substance abuse resrs of
participants.
¤ The testing is designed ro derer future usage. ro idcnrify parrieipanis who arc both maintaining
abstinence or who have relapsed, and to guide rrcatrncnt and sanction decisions.
181
Ch
21
224 Index
0601111111 wo1l1 cmup (eonunuw D E
11111, 117 11,1111111 11 171111111 .:111111. 110-119 011111-uoy 1. K111;1 177
Km =*· “"’“'¢¤¢ **7 1>11111o111 1o111p11 1-:11111111 1111111111 of 111111111
N1111111 D1111111 111o111y1 111o11111o1·1 ..bn8h,_Hm mm,. 4 Mmmm, v_ mm ua
N“‘*""‘*_°“’“°‘ f°' C°“""“““V 191011111 1111111111 111111 co1111·1 ¤1111lo1 . 125
*’*°°°°““°‘*· *’·° 1o111111111 1111611. 121 01ro111111111o1;11111111111111111, 34
*"°P'* ”- mk **9 11111-1111111111o1, 115 1:111111 161111161 1111 1111111. 5
1111111 oi 118 1111111111 or 111111. 124 01111111 1111111, 11111; 111111,
P“'*€*P*°s_°£ *20 1>1o1-1111 11111 of11-111111111 1111111111 192-191
r¤i¤r1¤¤§h11?w11h1 117 11,11 31 m(l1), 124 Evide1·wc,p·r=s¤1¤¤¤¤
1=¤P¤¤¤·b·*·¤J 9*1 **7 1111111111 or, 110 111111 111111111, sa
¤'¤¤¤‘=*d5 '°*» **8 11111111 1/:111111111 1. Hella 116 11111111.1 1111111111 by 11111111
1111111 charsxcnerlsticn 1111 11111111 DW V, Hmm", wg Mmm 58
”**‘“*' me °“'°°m°*· **9 1711111111 11 G11111111, 161 111111111 111.11111. S8
1111111. 115 _ I p11; 110 1>w1 111111.1 1111111111
5**** *PP°**'** *¤**¤8¤‘* d*f°¤***¤' 1111111111 1111111,11 crowexamlnauon. 56
111111.11, 112 U 11111111 or, 192 law 11 1111111, 57
R"*’B"J’ "- ‘·`°“"’J’· *22 oo1111111111y 111p11v111o1, 109 leading qu1s11¤11s, $5-57
11111 111111;1111111 11 1111111 11111111y 111111111, 190 Expert 1111111111
'“*°’ *°¤ **6 11111111n1111o1 11111111, 109 1111111111 111111111111o11, 126
111111111 :11111 1111111111m.·1 121 111111 111111-1111111 111111111, 109 p1o111111111 111111, 127
1111111111 hzlfway houses, 190 11111111111111111 1o. \25—lZ6
11o11.1111111111o1. 121 1111111111 detoxification 111111111. 189 1z1111w11·111111y 1111-111, us
"°‘» *2** 111111111 o111p111111. 190 Allaway 1. M1c11111111 116
M“““*"”°"“ " M°’*"‘•'·D*’# 11111 11111 111111111111 1111, 190 6111111111 1:11
125 1111111111y 1111111110 111111111-11 11111, 131
¤=**¤f¥ bv- *2* _ 1111111111 111111111, 190 11111-11 16, 155
C°°"-* *= ·¤$¤"¤*°¤" °* *°<¤* °'•*¤6° 111111.1111o1.111111111 111111111, 190 1111111111 wo11111 11111 11. 155
”’°“’” ”~ ”°“'·' °/““°¤"°”· *°‘ 1111111111 111111o111111o1 111111111, 109 1111111111 of
com oflast 111611 (001.111 1111-11111111 11111111111111y, 190 1111111, 145
¢==¤*¤ P”"“·*‘Y W =v1><·¤ ¤¤¤ ¤·¤·¤ *1*0*- 111111111. 111.111 1:11111 1. 1111111. 111
°9‘“‘· ***7 4 _ _ 1111111 1111111, 192-191 111111111 by. IM
‘**’°"**°”“'Y1“’*’“*‘°“°**1 *07 Florida 11111 or11l111111l p1oo1111111 5 170. 192 011;1M1a¤1¤u 1: my 11/
c111111 11 111111111 1¤111111111¤1 CHM 191 e11111g11 11s
°°“¤‘Y md '¤“¤*°*P”* °°“"-’· *0** go111. 105 1111111161 of c111111 $11111. 157
i“*'*‘° °f P€“f° _ ` ` g111111111o11, 191 Daniels v. L*r1t¤edSmr¤. 118-149
“°‘·"‘ °f **'"*'°** i“*'“***°"°¤- *0* 111111111111 1111 196 A111e1l 1:11111 c111111111A11 or 1984
J“"*°° °' *’“°° ·‘*‘*· *02 u1cl>, 19; (AGCA), 115-149
¤¤¤*¢1w¤r 1¤d0¤#— 102-104 _ 1.1111111 11111 11111111. 194 111111111o1. 1;:
my 1; w11111 11111111 11 w1>1111;11 M,_DD_ 1,; 11111111 1111/1111111w. 1a9
10a ,,,1111,,,n,, 1,,_ 19; 1111111 1o1p111 or. 100
D"'J'” H¤'”P'°”1 *05 1111111111 1111o¤11111 1111, 101 adopted 11. 157
¤<=¤=¤<kv ¤¢>¤¤_¤F=1>1>==*¤· 102 1111,1111;.111 ,1111111 11po11 1111 11111111 111111. IM
K°¤'“°kY 'W°"*°* ‘*'*“* °°“*" 1·11o111111111111o1-1, lu folklom of, 157
$V**°m1 *°* p1o111111111 11111111 11111111 111111 11 1111111111;,
Nmb **1 R¤-¤·’L *0**05 1o1111o1 111 1111 111111 11111. 106 11111. us
1111>o11111111 111011111 o1111111, 101 muy pmm 188 wud by_ Us
¤¤¤¤'9 1>1¤f¢¤=¤¤¤¤* ¤¤¤ff· *29 111111 P1111111111111 1111111111111111 1111111111 111111111. 150
n1-1111 11111111 11111111. 9—10 ,11111;.111. 106 1111111611 1o, 150
1111111 11111111 11,100 Rm 1.11111111 150
1111111111 law. 2 ,1,, 1,1.,;,..,1.,8 ,1,11, 1116 s1o111 1. raweu 138
11111111, 2 111111 111 111111 p1o11111o1 1111 111111, 109 1111 oi. 157. 111
B“*‘*°**°°’ 1111111111 11~111p111111, 107-100 111111111111/p1ol11l>l1lo11, 125-151
°°¤¤“'“¤°"*· Z 1111111111 1111111 11101;, 191 1ll0w ro1, 119
111111 11111. s 1111111111o1, 191 11111 or. 155
1“**‘°**‘* °P*“*°"¤· 5 1:111; 11111111111111 1111 11ef11-11111-11*1 11111111 Minnesma banned w¤111¤1's legal
_ §*¤“**°¤· **5 _ law 11 1111111, 76 advocacy proim
¤¤·¤·¤=* 1-7 ¤=*·¤*¤·~¤·¤¤¤ Due 1111111 1111111. 1.111 111111111. 111
c1is11·lc1/01.u1e's nrrcrnrys plmm,. 11 1.).111111111 use cf. 135
.1111111 or, 9 1111 111111111. 45 0y1w1111111 1111111r11111o11, 126
we ¤n9r¤=7 s=¤¤r¤¤. 8-9 11,111. 111,111. 1111111-1 111|o111y op111o1. 1111011. 126
°¤““'¤* "*"*· 9* 111111111, 1;-16 711111 11 11111, 126
index 225
F Federal Rules of Evidence. 76 tnter-national courts and tribunals, 150
Fm S - Am of mm Fifth Amendment to United States Abagninm v, AMVAC Chem. Carp., 152
mum in acgan 73 Constitution. 77 coun of justlce of European communities,
Federal ulu Financing coun systems, 210-212 158
Amd: m 0{U S C . mn 74 Maron vS1ltxn 211 compcsed nf, 1511
mle 72 ' ` Flond.1 rule nl criminal procedure 3 170, Pr0¤»¢d¤r¤ Stage!. 159
. ' . . drug coun, 192 Purpose to, 155
In S5; ngnzzglgongl manga 204 Fcruneenth Amendment and State judicial ICC, 150, 152-155
I 'U Smcbw 205 Proceedings IC], 150, 157-158
‘Z . . _ . ' eoune in action international crimes
B '”,;;s;;@"C0° I;0°';”'d due process nna, 41 cnrnes against nutnnnrty, 151
meter judgeqjudicial atntoe ·”'“”" " M”‘€“"'· H $;‘.{°;;_f?fé:’l‘5l
role of, 74 . ' .
acquittal sttunnnnntre gm Wm A ··¤·;:=_jjh;y_L=;;·**y;jm°¤¤=¤· *57
alibi and griozfarth, 78 Gwrgw U- Bmuwmt M smbddc and 157
;"a§“;° ~ cr-rss see cuvetnntit runway surety mj, of j,,,,_ ley
czghig msumems 77 association (GHSA) 6 Rome statute of intematinnal cnrturtal
7 ’ Gilbert rz Stat: q/Oklahoma, 1 7 C°,m_;_ jg;
counselzopening statements, 75 Gam': U supmor coun dum. Cmmav NIE of bw connptl B0
;;°;‘;';mmmmm 77 habeas ¢¤rp1:, wrrgsff. 143 tsntted Nauorfs teeotuttmt 1695. 156
. ‘ G¤v=rn¤r`= Hts wav ery Aa¤¤¤a•1¤¤ us. federal couns to enforce
d"°" °"°""““““"* 76 tot-rss), 195 inter-nannttnt raw, rss
$$2* 75 Graduation, drug court. 191 Arun; tr Amb mma, i59
7a§°w,mcws ’77 Grand Jury u1¢1¤¤u11¢ru convention on, 160
‘ . law rn anim 5¤—51 court decision 159-160
Fifth Amendment to Lntted States ’
. . tam, 159
77 Pl; www wm Immigration nnn Nationality net, rm
' f, 160
hearsay. 76 nnutetronnt-n and eftecttve Death Penalty 5,::,; 16,7
hunt rurv- 78 Art of 1996 tacoma, 145 ,n,mmn;, mm
77 B M2 Crimes against humanity, 151
l V 7 ‘ * genocide, 151
;i::‘:,Sz2::Fn?n ·*mmaw,. , nl »~»=»·m·»
xbm, mmm; 77 °"°'"1"’ '“‘1°“‘Y °F‘“ °“· rntet-national Mrrrtaty Tt1bun.al(IMT), 151
mm, 78 ‘ ‘“" E hw B9 International ennunni coun rrccy, isc
'·,14
surr1m¤ned,71 Anntenonsm and t·:ti‘eettve Death :;;:7, can ,55457
"”‘"“'“°“" 78 *"“"’Y A°‘» **1 eetnurterteer rsz
wu due 75 decision by u,s. arnnct coun judge
wrh af h¤¤=¤¤ ¤¤rt=u¤» 71 Raymond j, vetune, r;a.t4o ‘ °°°.°d f°? 'S4 .
tenant judges rnatenmttoutn ,,,,7, , ,,,0 ¤¤*···¤·'¢¤m==- D3
courts in action S IEE Y M 159 U1‘\i\¢d Nili¤ats` secunty council,
*rr¤·~"··=~¤*6 ¤;'»¥¤;¥i¤¤m9 ,,..,,,I§,T1°t ..,n“'“.‘§7"°,..t,".§'3.`;t1ti“»$"tet
chief judge selectlpn, 87 twthevmoon rz Illinois. 141 `
complaint process against judge, B8 Hughes; sms mum, 27 J
courts of appeals, 87
ctlminal case, B7 I Jones v Siam 126
district courts, 87 IACP. See Lnternauunal association of chiefs Judges. 115
federal magistrate judges, 87 of police (IACPJ docket schedule, 28
judge assignment methods, sa icc. sea tntetnanunai ettnunat coun ucc) federal bureau of init-srizaaon. 116
judgeshrps creation, B7 tcj. see international court of justice ttcjr good listeners, so
jurors. B8 lllinaiv rx Allen, 177 knowledgeable about law, 30
jury Act, 86-89 Immigration and Nationality Act. 160 Personal llfe, 50
jury duty notice. B8 impeachment prucss, court’s role tn, 15 Public officials and, 52
qualifications for, B7 1MT. $ee1.t·rternaum·ra.l military trlbunal (IMT) trial calendar, 28
senior judge. B7 lntemauomi assocrauon of chiefs of police witness, 115-116
Federal judiciary, esublrshment (LACP), 195 Judges Elll of1925, 67
boundanes of dtstnct courts, 66 Inter-national coun of justice (ICJ). 150. drafting cf, 68
district coun judges. 66 157-158 jurlsdlctlpn, 68
judiciary Act of 1789, 66 uses, 158 venue, 68-69
nj.-uquye ¤|_ 69 mmpmcd ng 157 judge's denial of appointed counsel, 214
Federal Magistrates Act, 619 functions oi 157 Gideon v Wainwrrght, 214
226 Index
judicial campaigns, 53 legal Newton 11. Rumery 187
judicial concepts citation, 18 Nanis 1} Scholten, 154
Bill of Rights in U.S. Constitution, 3 digests. 19 Nmrb 121 RussclL 102-105
due process clause, 5 encyclopedias. 19 North Western Reporter, 18
pmt in cnmtnst pmcccdtng. 5-4 research, 17
state constitutions, rights to citlaens, 5 LexisNexis eledtonlc legal research 0
1u¤11¢u1 cermnns, 11 umm, zo “0=1i1·h=11>¢1i." 5
1u¤1c1u1 cum lm Angeles County Municrpal cnun Rule Official 1¤1>¤1¤¤1. 19-19
me at mnaucr for United ssz 6. s ¤hi¤ ¤¤¤i¤
gum, judge, jurisdictron of, 28
adludlcative responsibilities, 158 M stzrucrure, Z9
constitution or state or New yum, 168 M-*i¤i>1 fre M¤thr1= =1;¤·¤¤ 111111111 <11·ivi¤a ¤1·isi¤zi J¤1isdi¤i¤11 by 11 S 5¤p1<11i¤ ¤¤¤¤
Judgdat mgsconducr (MADD) courts in action, 81-82
black collar crime, 171 M*El‘U'*[* |“dB°$» 70 0*1-* M·7¢*-7'WM V~ CW Q/`Cb¥¢¤B0
conflict of 1n1¤r¢r1, 172 M¤1¤r 11111 ¤¤¤ri= =111¤1¤¤1t- 141
llnltvd States U. Kaacvnshy 172 state malor criminal trial courts conclusivrl. 148
Constitution of smc cr Mrsstsslppr, 171 busy for, 105 counsel, 145
state law against judrcral corruptlorr, €lN\·\l\ wl-ir!. 105 sizrernent, 145-146
170 court of common pleas, 105 Otter Taillbwer C0 v Vtm Bank 8
unc nr r1¤r1nu. action rpms: yuager, =¤1=¤1¤¤1 ¤¤¤1t 105 ¤¤¤1>¤¤¤111 =1¤¤¤¤ifi¤1=i¤¤ s<~i¤¤¤. 199
16*9-170 supreme court, 105 P
United States 11. Abernathy 169 Mandamus writ _
judlcxal selection, a1-az ¤ii¤w f¤11 155 ""“°‘i’“"·‘ ‘“ dm! “’“" i’“‘i5"*"‘· M
Juurcnry Act or 17119, 24, ss ¤v1¤=¤ ¤f» 155 '“>""' ” Y'?"5 *2 _ _
J,,,1,drc,,°,,_ Z1 Mandatory precedent. s P=¤·1¤11·¤1i1= 1 iiizh ¤¤¤¤111¤¤¤¤¤. 214
of sure courts, subject matter junsdlctron, M¤¢¤¤¢bi*—°*¤'¤ if M¢!¢M'¤-Di¢=r 125 P"°1""’ "· A"d*""°"· 195
99_99 Mcnrtand 11. stan; 123 Pevpie v. Brwbx 9
colonial courts, 97 Mental status of defendant People vt Doble H9
cuun or general gurnrtnmcn. as ¤¤¤¤ii¤¤i¤¤» 65 RW" " “"’”" "
exception of, 97 Court conclusion. 63 Pwple v Fa-Wen 17 ·
federal and num constitutions, as ii·1W¤1=i¤· A» PW" "· "““"5 "’
ruuunu rnmlnn nw., 95 =rv=i1¤== ¤¤¤1t 62-65 "°°P'*’ " J°"”-‘°'5 *76
justice ur peace gr), gms 11111 competency imnng in 62 '=··P'* ·* f*¢1”·€”°*’=‘·”¤ CWM
Km, V Unmd $,,1,,;, 96 Fifth and Fourteenth Arnendments C°“"·’ ln ““°'n· 60'61
m,E1,,,,,,,, 97 of u s ccrunnuunn, ss Pwcvjl- U¤11¢·1Sw¢s 19911 69
mm mum history, as i¤¤i1¤¤=· 63 I"' ‘€‘ ‘““°“· 7°
types of insanity and cornpererrcy_ 55 Persuas1v¤>pre¤ed»=¤¤. H
over person, 111 U s Supreme Court Flu 1>¤11r¤1111¤s. 59
nm www runner, 111 in cooper r onzammm, se b¤11¤fi1¤ ¤f· 60
Jmm Mgdngshuudgcs Ach 66 Political pressure, 205-206
mum in umm. 47 Mom! ,, guy,/A[b“,,M g Unlrsd States v. Bayltss 205-206
Jury Mom"; against drunk dygvgng (MADD), lgg Precedent (guide) for situations
Clerk of Coun, 127 Mmmn to change venue, 41 P mandatory and persuasive, B
3;;;*;*,1gg . . pmwdm mg ctrnnntrru rtnnaa, zos
me svzmy 1z7_]zB N Probation revocation use
Tlumms wr U3 National Center for State Courts (NCSC). 100 magistrate ]udge`s report and
. n Process HB initiatives. 101 recommendation
Smwu Adam`; lh pace oflilipuon ln urligg trial courts, 101 ;or1c?.;¤ns, 184
. Vrrgtnia court system, act,
]`"°“'l° °'““ °°“""‘ M Nnnmut cnmuuu Vlctimlzation Survey recommendation. 1ss
K (NCVSJ. 94 Untrcd slam u Chundlqv, 184
Klmmcky Node, um (mm sysmmv 102 National District Attorneys Associations Procedures. drug court
King u. mnurg 175 National Center Fur Community cccrcton in drug court piers, 186
gum ,, [;,,;,,d_g·m_95’ g6 Prosecution, 120 Boykin U Alabama, 187
Kyk V Wbmex uy Nauonal Reporter System, 15 Newton 11. Rumery, 187
NCSC. See National center for state courts entry process, 188
I. (NCSC) offense dlsqualiflers, 188
ladyjustjce, 7 NCVS. SeeNational criminal vlcrlmizatlnn forced parttcrpatlon ln drug treaunent
language barriers to justice, 206-207 survey (NCVS) program
report by (hhfomia commission, .VebmsI•a Prv¤As: 'v1 v. Shun Robinson 12 Calyiimta, 186
20&207 law of action, S9 models in
law reviews, 19 New Mexico court, B defendant waives, 188