DOCSLIB.ORG

The Criminal Indictment: Fatal Defect, Fatal Variance, and Amendment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Criminal Indictment: Fatal Defect, Fatal Variance, and Amendment ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BULLETIN NUMBER 2008/03 | JULY 08 The Criminal Indictment: Fatal Defect, Fatal Variance, and Amendment Jessica Smith Contents I. Introduction 3 II. General Matters 4 A. Date or Time of Offense 4 1. Homicide 4 2. Burglary 5 3. Sexual Assault 5 4. Failure to Register as a Sex Offender 7 5. Larceny 7 6. False Pretenses 8 7. Possession of a Firearm by a Felon 8 8. Impaired Driving 8 9. Conspiracy 8 10. Habitual and Violent Habitual Felon 8 11. Sexual Exploitation of a Minor 9 B. Victim’s Name 9 C. Defendant’s Name 11 D. Address or County 12 E. Use of the Word “Feloniously” 13 F. Statutory Citation 14 G. Case Number 15 H. Completion By Grand Jury Foreperson 15 I. Prior Convictions 15 J. “Sentencing Factors” 16 III. Offense Specific Issues 16 A. Homicide 16 B. Arson 18 C. Kidnapping and Related Offenses 18 D. Burglary, Breaking or Entering, and Related Crimes 20 1. Burglary and Breaking or Entering 20 2. Breaking into Coin- or Currency-Operated Machine 23 The author is a School of Government faculty member who specializes in criminal law and procedure. 2 UNC School of Government Administration of Justice Bulletin E. Robbery 23 F. Assaults 25 1. Generally 25 2. Injury Assaults 26 3. Deadly Weapon Assaults 26 4. Assault on a Government Official 28 5. Habitual Misdemeanor Assault 28 6. Malicious Conduct by Prisoner 28 G. Stalking 28 H. Resist, Delay, and Obstruct Officer 29 I. Disorderly Conduct 29 J. Child Abuse 29 K. Sexual Assault 29 L. Indecent Liberties 32 M. Larceny, Embezzlement, and Related Crimes Interfering with Property Rights 32 N. Receiving or Possession of Stolen Property 38 O. Injury to Personal Property 38 P. False Pretenses and Forgery 38 1. False Pretenses 38 2. Identity Theft 39 3. Forgery 40 Q. Perjury and Related Offenses 40 R. Habitual and Violent Habitual Felon 40 S. Drug Offenses 43 1. Sale or Delivery 43 2. Possession and Possession With Intent to Manufacture, Sell, or Deliver 44 3. Trafficking 45 4. Maintaining a Dwelling 45 5. Drug Paraphernalia 45 6. Obtaining Controlled Substance by Fraud or Forgery 46 7. Amount of Controlled Substance 46 8. Drug Name 47 T. Weapons Offenses and Firearm Enhancement 48 1. Shooting into Occupied Property 48 2. Possession of Firearm by Felon 48 3. Possession of Weapon of Mass Destruction 50 4. Firearm Enhancement 50 U. Motor Vehicle Offenses 50 1. Impaired Driving 50 2. Habitual Impaired Driving 50 3. Speeding to Elude Arrest 51 4. Driving While License Revoked 51 V. General Crimes 52 1. Attempt 52 2. Solicitation 52 3. Conspiracy 52 4. Accessory After the Fact to Felony 52 W. Participants in Crime 53 This bulletin replaces Administration of Justice Bulletin No. 2004/03. The Criminal Indictment: Fatal Defect, Fatal Variance, and Amendment 3 I. Introduction To pass constitutional muster, an indictment “must allege lucidly and accurately all the essen- tial elements of the [crime] . charged.”1 This requirement ensures that the indictment will (1) identify the offense charged; (2) protect the accused from being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; (3) enable the accused to prepare for trial; and (4) enable the court, on conviction or plea of nolo contendere or guilty, to pronounce sentence according to the rights of the case.2 If the indictment satisfies this requirement, it will not be quashed for “informality or refinement.” 3 However, if it fails to meet this requirement, it suffers from a fatal defect and cannot support a conviction. As a general rule, an indictment for a statutory offense is sufficient if it charges the offense in the words of the statute.4 However, an indictment charging a statutory offense need not exactly track the statutory language, provided that it alleges the essential elements of the crime charged.5 If the words of the statute do not unambiguously set out all of the elements of the offense, the indictment must supplement the statutory language.6 Statutory short form indictments, such as for murder, rape, and sex offense, are excepted from the general rule that an indictment must state each element of the offense charged.7 Although G.S. 15A-923(e) states that a bill of indictment may not be amended, the term “amendment” has been construed to mean any change in the indictment that “substantially alter[s] the charge set forth in the indictment.”8 Thus, amendments that do not substantially alter the charge are permissible. Even an indictment that is sufficient on its face may be challenged. Specifically, an indictment may fail when there is a fatal variance between its allegation and the evidence introduced at trial. In order for a variance to be fatal, it must pertain to an essential element of the crime charged.9 If the variance pertains to an allegation that is merely surplusage, it is not fatal.10 Fatal defects in indictments are jurisdictional, and may be raised at any time.11 However, a dis- missal based on a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof at trial or based on a fatal defect does not create a double jeopardy bar to a subsequent prosecution.12 1. State v. Hunt, 357 N.C. 257, 267 (2003) (quotation omitted). See generally G.S. 15A-924 (contents of pleadings). 2. See Hunt, 357 N.C. at 267; State v. Hines, 166 N.C. App. 202, 206-07 (2004). 3. G.S. 15-153. 4. See, e.g., State v. Wade, 161 N.C. App. 686, 692 (2003). 5. See, e.g., State v. Hunter, 299 N.C. 29, 40-42 (1980) (although kidnapping indictment did not track the language of the statute completely, it did charge every necessary element). 6. See State v. Greer, 238 N.C. 325, 328-31 (1953); State v. Partlow, 272 N.C. 60, 65-66 (1967). 7. See Hunt, 357 N.C. at 272-73; see also infra pp. 16-17 (discussing short form for murder in more detail) and pp. 29-32 (discussing short forms for rape and sex offense in more detail). Also, G.S. 20-138.1(c) allows a short form pleading for impaired driving. G.S. 20-138.2(c) does the same for impaired driving in a commercial vehicle. 8. See State v. Price, 310 N.C. 596, 598 (1984) (quotation omitted). 9. See, e.g., State v. Langley, 173 N.C. App. 194, 197 (2005). 10. See infra pp. 4-53 (citing many cases distinguishing between fatal and non-fatal defects). 11. See, e.g., State v. Snyder, 343 N.C. 61, 65 (1996); State v. Sturdivant, 304 N.C. 293, 308 (1981). 12. See State v. Stinson, 263 N.C. 283, 286-92 (1965) (prior indictment suffered from fatal variance); State v. Whitley, 264 N.C. 742, 745 (1965) (prior indictment was fatally defective); see also State v. Abraham, 338 N.C. 315, 339-41 (1994) (noting that proper procedure when faced with a fatal variance is to dismiss the 4 UNC School of Government Administration of Justice Bulletin The sections below explore these rules. For a discussion of the use of the conjunctive term “and” and the disjunctive term “or” in criminal pleadings, see Robert Farb, The “Or” Issue in Criminal Pleadings, Jury Instructions, and Verdicts; Unanimity of Jury Verdict (Faculty Paper, July 1, 2008) (available on-line at www.iogcriminal.unc.edu/verdict.pdf). II. General Matters A. Date or Time of Offense G.S. 15A-924(a)(4) provides that a criminal pleading must contain “[a] statement or cross reference in each count indicating that the offense charged was committed on, or on or about, a designated date, or during a designated period of time.” Also, G.S. 15-144 (essentials of bill for homicide), G.S. 15-144.1 (essentials of bill for rape), and G.S. 15-144.2 (essentials of bill for sex offense) require that the date of the offense be alleged.13 However, a judgment will not be reversed when the indictment fails to allege or incorrectly alleges a date or time, if time is not of the essence of the offense and the error or omission did not mislead the defendant.14 Likewise, when time is not of the essence of the offense charged, an amendment as to date does not substantially alter the charge. Time becomes of the essence when an omission or error regarding the date deprives a defendant of an opportunity to adequately present his or her defense,15 such as when the defendant relies on an alibi defense16 or when a statute of limitations is involved.17 The cases summarized below apply these rules. 1. Homicide State v. Price, 310 N.C. 596, 598-600 (1984) (no error to allow the State to amend date of murder from February 5, 1983—the date the victim died—to December 17, 1982—the date the victim was shot). State v. Wissink, 172 N.C. App. 829, 835-36 (2005) (trial court did not err by allowing the State to amend a murder indictment on the morning of trial; the original indict- ment alleged that the murder occurred on or about June 26, 2000, and the evidence showed that the murder actually occurred on June 27, 2000), rev’d in part on other grounds, 361 N.C. 418 (2007). charge and grant the State leave to secure a proper bill of indictment); State v. Blakney, 156 N.C. App. 671 (2003) (noting that although the indictment was fatally defective, the State could re-indict). 13. The short forms for impaired driving also require an allegation regarding the time of the offense.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • One Hundred Fifteenth Congress of the United States of America
    S. 2896 One Hundred Fifteenth Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen An Act To require disclosure by lobbyists of convictions for bribery, extortion, embezzlement, illegal kickbacks, tax evasion, fraud, conflicts of interest, making false statements, perjury, or money laundering. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Justice Against Corruption on K Street Act of 2018’’ or the ‘‘JACK Act’’. SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF CORRUPT MALPRACTICE BY LOBBYISTS. (a) REGISTRATION.—Section 4(b) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1603(b)) is amended— (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and (3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following: ‘‘(7) for any listed lobbyist who was convicted in a Federal or State court of an offense involving bribery, extortion, embezzlement, an illegal kickback, tax evasion, fraud, a conflict of interest, making a false statement, perjury, or money laun- dering, the date of the conviction and a description of the offense.’’. (b) QUARTERLY REPORTS.—Section 5(b) of the Lobbying Disclo- sure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1604(b)) is amended— (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and (3) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(6) for any listed lobbyist who was convicted in a Federal or State court of an offense involving bribery, extortion, embezzlement, an illegal kickback, tax evasion, fraud, a conflict S.
    [Show full text]
  • Fraud and Investigation Policy KEYWORDS: Fraud, Investigation, Fraudulent, Cheat, Cheating, Swindling, Embezzlement, Deceit
    Fraud and Investigation Policy KEYWORDS: Fraud, investigation, fraudulent, cheat, cheating, swindling, embezzlement, deceit, deception, swindler. PURPOSE: Depending on the circumstances, investigations may be conducted by the Security, Corporate Compliance and/or Legal Department. These investigations provide a sound foundation for the protection of the innocent, the removal of wrong-doers from the ranks of St. Joseph's Healthcare System, appropriate judicial action when warranted and the basis for filing bond and insurance claims. SCOPE: All St. Joseph's Healthcare System Facilities. LEGAL/REGULATORY CITES: N/A DEFINITIONS: Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in person gain. Policy The Corporate Compliance and Security Departments have been directed to make themselves available and receptive to receiving relevant information concerning any situation involving possible impropriety matters pertaining to the operations of St. Joseph’s Healthcare System. Employees are expected to contact members of the Corporate Compliance Department through the Compliance Hotline (973-754-2017) or e-mail ([email protected]) to report potential ethical or legal concerns, possible breaches of patient privacy and confidentiality or fraudulent activities. Procedure Upon being notified of a potentially fraudulent activity, the Corporate Compliance Department will notify, as appropriate, legal counsel, administrative personnel and Security. If the notification is through the Compliance Hotline reporting system, the date, nature and name of the informant (if known) will be logged in the Corporate Compliance Hotline Log. The following investigative procedures will be followed: 1. No investigative techniques verging on illegal activities will be used (e.g. recording, photography devices). 2. All interviews and interrogations will be conducted in such a manner as not to discredit persons being interviewed, and will be conducted by two persons charged with investigative responsibilities.
    [Show full text]
  • A Federal Criminal Case Timeline
    A Federal Criminal Case Timeline The following timeline is a very broad overview of the progress of a federal felony case. Many variables can change the speed or course of the case, including settlement negotiations and changes in law. This timeline, however, will hold true in the majority of federal felony cases in the Eastern District of Virginia. Initial appearance: Felony defendants are usually brought to federal court in the custody of federal agents. Usually, the charges against the defendant are in a criminal complaint. The criminal complaint is accompanied by an affidavit that summarizes the evidence against the defendant. At the defendant's first appearance, a defendant appears before a federal magistrate judge. This magistrate judge will preside over the first two or three appearances, but the case will ultimately be referred to a federal district court judge (more on district judges below). The prosecutor appearing for the government is called an "Assistant United States Attorney," or "AUSA." There are no District Attorney's or "DAs" in federal court. The public defender is often called the Assistant Federal Public Defender, or an "AFPD." When a defendant first appears before a magistrate judge, he or she is informed of certain constitutional rights, such as the right to remain silent. The defendant is then asked if her or she can afford counsel. If a defendant cannot afford to hire counsel, he or she is instructed to fill out a financial affidavit. This affidavit is then submitted to the magistrate judge, and, if the defendant qualifies, a public defender or CJA panel counsel is appointed.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Jury Duty in Ohio
    A grand jury is an essential part of the legal system. What Is a Grand Jury? In Ohio, a grand jury decides whether the state Thank you for your willingness to help your has good enough reason to bring felony charges fellow citizens by serving as a grand juror. As against a person alleged to have committed a a former prosecuting attorney, I can attest crime. Felonies are serious crimes — ranging that you have been asked to play a vital role from murder, rape, other sexual assaults, and in American democracy. kidnapping to drug offenses, robbery, larceny, financial crimes, arson, and many more. The justice system in America and in Ohio cannot function properly without the The grand jury is an accusatory body. It does not dedication and involvement of its citizens. determine guilt or innocence. The grand jury’s I guarantee that when you come to the end duty is simply to determine whether there is of your time on the grand jury, you will sufficient evidence to make a person face criminal consider this service to have been one of the charges. The grand jury is designed to help the best experiences of your life. state proceed with a fair accusation against a person, while protecting that person from being Our society was founded on the idea of equal charged when there is insufficient evidence. justice under law, and the grand jury is a critical part of that system. Thank you again In Ohio, the grand jury is composed of nine for playing a key role in American justice.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal
    Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal Release 20, September 2019 NOTICE TO USERS: THE FOLLOWING SET OF UNANNOTATED MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS ARE BEING MADE AVAILABLE WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER, MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY, INC. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FULL ANNOTATED VERSION OF THESE MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS IS AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE FROM MATTHEW BENDER® BY WAY OF THE FOLLOWING LINK: https://store.lexisnexis.com/categories/area-of-practice/criminal-law-procedure- 161/virginia-model-jury-instructions-criminal-skuusSku6572 Matthew Bender is a registered trademark of Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. Instruction No. 2.050 Preliminary Instructions to Jury Members of the jury, the order of the trial of this case will be in four stages: 1. Opening statements 2. Presentation of the evidence 3. Instructions of law 4. Final argument After the conclusion of final argument, I will instruct you concerning your deliberations. You will then go to your room, select a foreperson, deliberate, and arrive at your verdict. Opening Statements First, the Commonwealth's attorney may make an opening statement outlining his or her case. Then the defendant's attorney also may make an opening statement. Neither side is required to do so. Presentation of the Evidence [Second, following the opening statements, the Commonwealth will introduce evidence, after which the defendant then has the right to introduce evidence (but is not required to do so). Rebuttal evidence may then be introduced if appropriate.] [Second, following the opening statements, the evidence will be presented.] Instructions of Law Third, at the conclusion of all evidence, I will instruct you on the law which is to be applied to this case.
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming the Grand Jury Indictment Process
    The NCSC Center for Jury Studies is dedicated to facilitating the ability of citizens to fulfill their role within the justice system and enhancing their confidence and satisfaction with jury service by helping judges and court staff improve jury system management. This document was prepared with support from a grant from the State Justice Institute (SJI-18-N-051). The points of view and opinions offered in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Center for State Courts or the State Justice Institute. NCSC Staff: Paula Hannaford-Agor, JD Caisa Royer, JD/PhD Madeline Williams, BS Allison Trochesset, PhD The National Center for State Courts promotes the rule of law and improves the administration of justice in state courts and courts around the world. Copyright 2021 National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, VA 23185-4147 ISBN 978-0-89656-316-2 Table of Contents Introduction ...........................................................................................................1 What Is a Grand Jury?............................................................................................2 Special Duties .........................................................................................................3 Size Requirements...................................................................................................4 Term of Service and Quorum Requirements ...........................................................5 Reform
    [Show full text]
  • 20201209154816476 20-5133
    No. 20-5133 ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _______________ STEVEN BAXTER, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION _______________ JEFFREY B. WALL Acting Solicitor General Counsel of Record BRIAN C. RABBITT Acting Assistant Attorney General JOHN M. PELLETTIERI Attorney Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 [email protected] (202) 514-2217 ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the court of appeals correctly determined that the warrantless search by federal customs officers of packages crossing the customs border between the United States customs territory and the United States Virgin Islands did not violate the Fourth Amendment. (I) ADDITIONAL RELATED PROCEEDINGS United States District Court (D.V.I.): United States v. Baxter, No. 17-cr-24 (Nov. 26, 2018) (order granting motion to suppress) United States Court of Appeals (3d Cir.): United States v. Baxter, No. 18-3613 (Feb. 21, 2020) (II) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _______________ No. 20-5133 STEVEN BAXTER, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION _______________ OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 3a-25a) is reported at 951 F.3d 128. The opinion of the district court (Pet. App. 28a-69a) is not published in the Federal Supplement but is available at 2018 WL 6173880.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Western District of Kentucky Bowling Green Division Criminal Action No. 1:03Cr-43-M United States O
    Case 1:03-cr-00043-JHM-HBB Document 229 Filed 02/01/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY BOWLING GREEN DIVISION CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 1:03CR-43-M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF V. RICHARD ALLEN WASHAM DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on motions by Defendant, Richard Allen Washam, pro se, for release of information on the grand and petit juries in accordance with 28 U. S.C. § 1867 and for dismissal of the indictment due to grand jury composition [DN 200, DN 206]. Washam contends that this Court failed to follow the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 (“JSSA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1861, et seq., depriving him of his right to a trial before a jury representing a fair-cross section of the community. Specifically, Defendant seeks a “court order for a detailed list of the racial composition of . grand jurors and petit panel jurors for the years . 2003-2006” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1867(f). [DN 206]. Additionally, Defendant requests a list of jurors and seeks “to know how may times these listed jurors have been called for jury service within the last two years (2005-2006).” Id. Defendant argues that there is a long-standing policy in the Western District of Kentucky to have inadequate representation of minorities in the grand and petit jury panels. As a result, Defendant moves for a “court order be entered into [the] record for dismissal of the indictment due to grand jury composition, with prejudice.” Id.
    [Show full text]
  • Fleeting Data: Using Artificial Intelligence to Make Sense of the Border Exception
    FLEETING DATA: USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO MAKE SENSE OF THE BORDER EXCEPTION BRENDAN SULLIVAN* INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 61 I. THE PURPOSE OF THE BORDER EXCEPTION IN A DIGITAL WORLD65 A. How Have Fourth Amendment Rights at the Border Developed? ............................................................................. 67 B. Border Policy .......................................................................... 69 C. Balancing Governmental Interests .......................................... 71 D. What’s Reasonable When it Comes to Technology These Days? ................................................................................................ 72 II. IS A DEVICE SEARCH AS INTRUSIVE AS A STRIP SEARCH? ........... 73 A. Routine and Non-Routine Border Searches ............................ 75 B. Does Technology Make the Search More Intrusive or Less Intrusive? ................................................................................ 76 1. Forensically Intrusive ........................................................ 77 2. Manually Intrusive ............................................................ 77 3. Temporally Intrusive ......................................................... 78 C. When is a Border Search Not a Search Incident to Arrest? .... 79 D. Application to Vessel Searches ............................................... 80 III. HOW CAN CONGRESS PREVENT THREATS WITHOUT BORDER OFFICIALS INTRUDING ON PRIVACY? ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • State of New Jersey V. Robertson & Mens
    Pace Environmental Law Review Volume 15 Issue 2 Summer 1998 Article 10 June 1998 A Little Knowledge Can Be a Dangerous Thing - State of New Jersey v. Robertson & Mens Rea in the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act of 1987 Barry Capp Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr Recommended Citation Barry Capp, A Little Knowledge Can Be a Dangerous Thing - State of New Jersey v. Robertson & Mens Rea in the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act of 1987, 15 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 655 (1998) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol15/iss2/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Environmental Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES AND COMMENTS A Little Knowledge Can Be a Dangerous Thing- State of New Jersey v. Robertson1 & Mens Rea in the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act of 1987 BARRY CAPP* I. Introduction .................................... 657 II. Background .................................... 659 A. Origins of Mens Rea ........................ 659 1. Common Law Origins ................... 659 2. "At Peril" Doctrine ...................... 660 3. Public Welfare Doctrine ................ 661 a. Strict Liability Generally ........... 661 b. Strict Liability for Public Welfare Offenses ............................. 663 c. Characteristics of Public Welfare Offenses ............................. 664 (i). Protection of Public Health and Safety .......................... 664 (ii). Nature of the Action ........... 666 (iii). Absence of a Mens Rea Requirement ................... 666 1. 670 A.2d 1096 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1996). * B.S./B.A. 1994, Rutgers University; J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Miranda, Berghuis, and the Ambiguous Right to Cut Off Police Questioning
    MIRANDA, BERGHUIS, AND THE AMBIGUOUS RIGHT TO CUT OFF POLICE QUESTIONING Laurent Sacharoff ABSTRACT Miranda v. Arizona requires police warn suspects they have the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. It also requires that if a suspect invokes his right to remain silent or his right to counsel, the police must terminate the interrogation. But the warnings do not tell the suspect he has the right to end the questioning, or how he may end it. Worse, despite a failure to explain the right, the Court in 2010 in Berghuis v. Thompkins, required that suspects invoke the right “unambiguously.” This requirement—that suspects invoke unambiguously a right they do not know exists—has created tremendous uncertainty in lower courts. These courts have no concrete standard against which to measure whether an assertion of the right was unambiguous. This article surveys the recent case law to show how a test that was supposed to simplify whether suspects had invoked their right by imposing an objective, plain meaning test has simply shifted the debate and confusion to what counts as “unambiguous.” I. INTRODUCTION The Court in Miranda v. Arizona1 required police warn suspects they have the right to remain silent and the right to counsel during any interrogation. But Miranda also created an important new right for suspects that scholars rarely discuss expressly: the right to cut off police questioning.2 Indeed, the Court in Miranda identified lengthy questioning as a chief culprit in creating a potentially coercive atmosphere, compounded by a suspect’s belief that the police will interrogate until he talks.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana United States of America Criminal Action Versus No. 19-60-Wbv-Kwr I
    Case 2:19-cr-00060-WBV-KWR Document 361 Filed 05/10/21 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL ACTION VERSUS NO. 19-60-WBV-KWR IMAD FAIEZ HAMDAN SECTION: D (4) ZIAD ODEH MOUSA ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is a Motion For Production of Jury Selection Records, filed by defendants, Imad Faiez Hamdan and Ziad Odeh Mousa (collectively, “Defendants”).1 Defendants seek the production of certain jury selection records pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1867(f), claiming that the information is necessary for Defendants to supplement their pending Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Stay Proceedings Due to Jury Selection Violations. 2 Defendants’ specific requests are set forth in an exhibit attached to their Motion, but they generally seek information related to the grand jury that returned the Superseding Indictment against them in 2019, the petit jury that will try the case in August 2021, and jury selection under the most recently emptied Master Jury Wheel.3 Defendants assert that, “These requests are similar to the discovery already ordered produced by Judge Ashe in the Age case.” 4 The Government filed a Response to the Motion, opposing Defendants’ request to the 1 R. Doc. 342. 2 See, R. Doc. 284. 3 See, R. Doc. 342-3. 4 R. Doc. 342-1 at p. 4 (citing Criminal Action No. 16-32-BWA-JVM, United States v. Stanton Guillory, et al. (E.D. La.)). Case 2:19-cr-00060-WBV-KWR Document 361 Filed 05/10/21 Page 2 of 7 extent Defendants seek information beyond the information that was recently ordered to be produced in a criminal case pending in another Section of this Court, United States v.
    [Show full text]