DOCSLIB.ORG

Victim Witness Intimidation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Victim Witness Intimidation ENT OF M JU U.S. Department of Justice T S R T A I P C E E D B O J C S Office of Justice Programs F A V M F O I N A C I J S R E BJ G O OJJ DP O F PR National Institute of Justice JUSTICE National Institute of Justice R e s e a r c h i n A c t i o n Jeremy Travis, Director October 1995 Highlights Victim and Witness Intimidation: Prosecutors in some jurisdictions re- port an increase in victim and wit- New Developments and Emerging Responses ness intimidation: some prosecutors have estimated intimidation as a by Kerry Murphy Healey factor in 75 to 100 percent of the violent crimes committed in some Intimidation of victims and witnesses witnesses by gangs or drug-selling groups gang-dominated neighborhoods. This Research in Action summarizes undermines the functioning of the justice promotes the communitywide perception recent developments in gang- and system by denying critical evidence to that any cooperation with the criminal jus- drug-related intimidation of victims police and prosecutors. This long-stand- tice system is dangerous. and witnesses, current responses to ing problem also erodes confidence in the problem by police and prosecu- the government’s ability to protect citi- This Research in Action is based on struc- tors, and emerging models and zens. Victim and witness intimidation tured interviews with 32 criminal justice strategies for its prevention and has usually been associated with orga- professionals from 20 urban jurisdictions, suppression. nized crime and domestic violence including prosecutors; victim services di- cases. But this form of intimidation is rectors; Federal, State, and local law en- The nature of intimidation 1 developing new characteristics as its oc- forcement officers; judges; and scholars. ● Gang- and drug-related intimida- currence increases in urban drug- and Also included are the insights offered by a tion may be case-specific or gang-related violent crime. working group of 20 criminal justice pro- communitywide. The wholesale in- fessionals, who met in September 1994 timidation of neighborhoods can be Intimidation can be characterized as: to exchange information on emerging as harmful to witness cooperation responses to the problem of victim and ● as an explicit threat made against Case-specific—threats or violence in- witness intimidation. The preliminary an individual. Each case-specific act tended to dissuade a victim or witness findings of this National Institute of of violence against victims or witnesses from testifying in a specific case. Justice-sponsored project indicate many promotes the communitywide percep- recent developments in the nature of tion that any cooperation with the ● Communitywide—acts by gangs or criminal justice system is dangerous. drug-selling groups intended to foster a witness and victim intimidation and a wide general atmosphere of fear and noncoop- range of existing and emerging strategies ● Factors that contribute to the eration within a neighborhood or com- to address the problem. reluctance of witnesses to step munity. forward include fear, strong com- Characteristics of victim and wit- munity ties, or a deepseated distrust The wholesale intimidation of neighbor- of law enforcement. Community ness intimidation hoods by gangs or drug-selling groups members may also consider gang can be as harmful to witness cooperation Most interview respondents estimated that and drug crimes as outside the scope more victims were murdered and otherwise of their concern or responsibility. as an explicit threat against an indi- vidual. Communitywide and case-spe- intimidated in domestic violence cases in ● Factors that increase the likeli- cific intimidation may operate separately their jurisdictions each year than in gang or in tandem. However, each case-spe- or drug crime-related intimidation at- cific act of violence against victims or tempts. Respondents and working group continued . R e s e a r c h i n A c t i o n Highlights members agreed that intimidation in tors noted that only unsuccessful intimi- dation attempts ever came to the atten- continued . domestic violence cases is different in nature from gang-related intimidation tion of police or prosecutors.5 Today, because of the close relationship between prosecutors report that extremely violent hood of intimidation include the vio- domestic partners and the near univer- intimidation attempts—which are almost lent nature of the initial crime, a pre- sality of intimidation in domestic violence always successful—are coming to their vious personal connection to the cases. However, respondents agreed attention with increasing frequency. defendant, geographic proximity to the defendant, and membership in a that intimidation associated with gang- These extremely violent intimidation at- culturally vulnerable group. and drug-related violent crime was es- tempts are often gang- and drug-related. calating, while intimidation linked to Police and prosecutor approaches domestic violence was continuing at a A recent national assessment of gang steady rate. prosecution sponsored by NIJ provides ● Traditional approaches to the important new data supporting anecdotal problem of victim and witness intimi- The extent of the problem. A number estimates of the prevalence of victim and dation include warnings to the de- witness intimidation offered by police fendant concerning obstruction of of prosecutors linked the increase in vio- 6 justice laws, high bail, aggressive lent victim and witness intimidation to administrators and prosecutors. Accord- prosecution of reported intimidation the advent of gang-controlled crack sales ing to this assessment, 51 percent of attempts, and, in extreme cases, in the mid- to late-1980’s. As crack sales prosecutors in large jurisdictions and 43 threatened individuals’ entry in the grew, some urban prosecutors noted an up- percent in small jurisdictions said that Federal witness security program. turn in gang- and drug-related homicides.2 the intimidation of victims and witnesses was a major problem, while an additional ● Several prosecutors estimated that today Some innovative interventions to 30 percent of prosecutors in large gang- and drug-related intimidation victim and witness intimidation is sus- jurisdictions and 25 percent in small include emergency relocation and pected in up to 75-100 percent of the support for threatened witnesses, violent crimes committed in some gang- jurisdictions labeled intimidation a mod- innovative courtroom security mea- dominated neighborhoods.3 erate problem. sures, interagency cooperation to move threatened witnesses who re- The 1992 National Crime Victimization Causes of individuals’ reluctance to be side in public housing to new areas, Survey suggests that in neighborhoods witnesses. Examples of mass intimida- secure segregation of intimidated vic- not plagued by gangs and drug sales, tion given by police and prosecutors (see tims and witnesses in correctional fa- fear and intimidation play a much less “No One Is Willing to Testify”) suggest cilities, and community outreach and significant part in the failure to cooper- that fear is only one factor contributing collaboration among criminal justice, ate with police and prosecutors.4 The to the reluctance of witnesses to step for- social service, and community discrepancy between the perception of ward; strong community ties and a deep- groups. urban police and prosecutors and the seated distrust of law enforcement may ● Emerging strategies also empha- findings of the National Crime Victim- also be strong deterrents to cooperation. size intimidation prevention and con- ization Survey is important: victim and The communities in which many of these trol through community outreach witness intimidation is endemic in neigh- gangs operate are often worlds unto based on community policing and borhoods infested with gang activity and themselves—places where people live, prosecution approaches and en- drug sales and virtually invisible to attend school, and work, all within a ra- hanced communication among law people outside those neighborhoods. dius of only a few blocks—from which enforcement, prosecutors, and the The majority of citizens outside gang- they rarely venture out. More impor- judiciary. dominated neighborhoods learn about tantly, victims and witnesses usually know the gang members and defendants Target audience: Prosecutors; law victim and witness intimidation only enforcement officials; criminal justice through the media. against whom they are asked to testify; researchers in the fields of prosecu- typically, victims and witnesses are the tion, community policing, and crimi- Victim and witness intimidation resists children of the gang member’s friends or nal gangs; judges; and providers of quantitative analysis, but some data are relatives, members of the same church, victim services. emerging that give a clearer picture of classmates, or neighbors. Furthermore, the problem. A decade ago, commenta- the community may regard many of the 2 R e s e a r c h i n A c t i o n crimes for which witnesses are sought from cooperating. Communitywide in- ● A previous personal connection to as private business matters among timidation was the most frustrating type the defendant. gang members or drug dealers, not of intimidation for prosecutors and po- crimes against the community. lice because, even if no actionable ● Geographic proximity to the defendant. threat is ever made, witnesses and vic- ● Cultural vulnerability—that is, Both case-specific and communitywide tims are still deterred from testifying. membership
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Civil Rights Violations
    Civil Rights Violations Police Misconduct Nicholas S. Kamau, Esq. Police Misconduct Any improper or illegal behavior engaged in by a police officer while attempting to administer justice Types of Police Misconduct Excessive Force – The use of force that exceeds the amount of force that a police officer reasonably believes is necessary. Whether the amount of force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances is a factual issue to be determined by the jury. Types of Police Misconduct Sexual Misconduct- Sexual misconduct includes sexual harassment or sexual assault, indecent assault, an act of indecency, possession of child pornography or other behaviors of a sexual nature which are crimes in Pennsylvania. Sexual misconduct is the second most reported form of police misconduct. Types of Police Misconduct Witness Tampering –This behavior concerns an officer who attempts to either change a witness’ testimony, or prevents a witness from testifying in a criminal or civil proceeding. Types of Police Misconduct False confessions – Some officers convince individuals to give false confessions, convincing them to plead guilty to something they did not actually do. Types of Police Misconduct Racial profiling – Racial profiling is the use of someone’s race or ethnicity as a justification for suspecting him of committing a crime. For instance, assuming a man must be a terrorist because he’s Muslim, or assuming a black man driving an expensive car must have stolen it. Types of Police Misconduct False Arrest - A false arrest is an arrest that is made without a warrant, or without probable cause. A person may sue on the grounds of false arrest if there was not a legitimate reason to arrest him in the first place.
    [Show full text]
  • Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the First Circuit)
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE 2019 REVISIONS TO PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT DISTRICT OF MAINE INTERNET SITE EDITION Updated 6/24/19 by Chief District Judge Nancy Torresen PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Preface to 1998 Edition Citations to Other Pattern Instructions How to Use the Pattern Instructions Part 1—Preliminary Instructions 1.01 Duties of the Jury 1.02 Nature of Indictment; Presumption of Innocence 1.03 Previous Trial 1.04 Preliminary Statement of Elements of Crime 1.05 Evidence; Objections; Rulings; Bench Conferences 1.06 Credibility of Witnesses 1.07 Conduct of the Jury 1.08 Notetaking 1.09 Outline of the Trial Part 2—Instructions Concerning Certain Matters of Evidence 2.01 Stipulations 2.02 Judicial Notice 2.03 Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statement 2.04 Impeachment of Witness Testimony by Prior Conviction 2.05 Impeachment of Defendant's Testimony by Prior Conviction 2.06 Evidence of Defendant's Prior Similar Acts 2.07 Weighing the Testimony of an Expert Witness 2.08 Caution as to Cooperating Witness/Accomplice/Paid Informant 2.09 Use of Tapes and Transcripts 2.10 Flight After Accusation/Consciousness of Guilt 2.11 Statements by Defendant 2.12 Missing Witness 2.13 Spoliation 2.14 Witness (Not the Defendant) Who Takes the Fifth Amendment 2.15 Definition of “Knowingly” 2.16 “Willful Blindness” As a Way of Satisfying “Knowingly” 2.17 Definition of “Willfully” 2.18 Taking a View 2.19 Character Evidence 2.20 Testimony by Defendant
    [Show full text]
  • Working with the Justice Sector to End Violence Against Women and Girls
    Working with the Justice Sector to End Violence against Women and Girls Developed by: Cheryl Thomas, Director, Women’s Program Laura Young, Staff Attorney, International Justice Program Mary Ellingen, Staff Attorney, Women’s Program Contributors: Margarita Alarcon, Lawyer (Cuba) Dr. Kelly Askin, Senior Legal Officer, International Justice, Open Society Justice Initiative, United States Lisa Dailey, Lawyer (United States) Geraldine R. Bjallerstedt, Lawyer, Head of Nairobi Office, Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (Kenya) Terence Fitzgerald, Senior Program Specialist, Justice Operations Division, International Justice Mission (United States) Loretta Frederick, Senior Legal and Policy Advisor, Battered Women’s Justice Project, (Minnesota, United States) Albena Koycheva, Lawyer (Bulgaria) Audrey Lee and Ann Campbell, International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific (Malaysia) Sara A. Lulo, Executive Director, Avon Global Center for Justice, Adjunct Professor of Law, Cornell Law School (United States) Patricia MacIntosh, Deputy Minister of Community Services (Canada) Aileen Marques, Lawyer (India) Eniko Pap, Lawyer (Hungary) Dr. Maria F. Perez Solla, Lawyer (Austria) Justice Sonia A.C. Rivera, Senior Judge, Gender Violence Specialized Court (Madrid, Spain) Dr. Anicée Van Engeland-Nourai, Lecturer in Law, University of Exeter, Research Associate, SOAS (United Kingdom) Joan Winship, Executive Director, International Association of Women Judges (United States) Justice Sector Module 1 December 2011 INTRODUCTION
    [Show full text]
  • PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the THIRD CIRCUIT ___No. 10-2790 ___UNITED STATES of AMERI
    PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 10-2790 _____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GLORIOUS SHAVERS, a/k/a G, a/k/a G-Bucks, a/k/a Julious Colzie, a/k/a Glorious Grand Glorious Shavers, Appellant _____________ No. 10-2931 _____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JERMEL LEWIS, a/k/a STAR, a/k/a PR-STAR, a/k/a P Jermel Lewis, Appellant _____________ No. 10-2971 _____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ANDREW WHITE, Appellant _________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Crim. Nos. 08-01616-001, 08-0161-002, 08-0161-003) District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner Argued March 19, 2012 _________________ Before: RENDELL, FISHER, and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges. (Filed: August 27, 2012) 2 Keith M. Donoghue, Esq. (Argued) Robert Epstein, Esq. Kai N. Scott, Esq. Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 601 Walnut Street The Curtis Center, Suite 540 West Philadelphia, PA 19106 Attorneys for Appellant Glorious Shavers Paul J. Hetznecker, Esq. (Argued) Suite 911 1420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Attorney for Appellant Jermel Lewis Carina Laguzzi, Esq. Laguzzi & Associates 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Suite 200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Attorney for Appellant Andrew White Robert A. Zauzmer, Esq. (Argued) Arlene D. Fisk, Esq. Office of United States Attorney 615 Chestnut Street Suite 1250 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Attorneys for Appellee 3 __________________ OPINION __________________ CHAGARES, Circuit Judge. This is a consolidated appeal by three codefendants, Glorious Shavers, Andrew White, and Jermel Lewis (collectively referred to as the “appellants”), who were convicted of robbery affecting interstate commerce, conspiracy to commit robbery affecting interstate commerce, witness tampering, and using and carrying firearms during and in relation to a crime of violence.
    [Show full text]
  • STATE V. ORTIZ—CONCURRENCE BISHOP, J., Concurring in Part and Concurring in the Judgment
    ****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con- necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro- duced and distributed without the express written per- mission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE v. ORTIZÐCONCURRENCE BISHOP, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. I believe that the evidence at trial was suffi- cient to convict the defendant, Akov Ortiz, of tampering with a witness in violation of General Statutes § 53a- 151 (a), not for the reasons stated by the majority, but because the trial evidence permitted the jury reasonably to infer, from the defendant's threatening behavior toward the victim, that he intended to prevent the victim from testifying at trial.
    [Show full text]
  • Ground Lost and Found in Criminal Discovery Roger J
    University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Published Scholarship The onorH able Roger J. Traynor Collection 1964 Ground Lost and Found in Criminal Discovery Roger J. Traynor Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/traynor_scholarship_pub Recommended Citation Roger J. Traynor, Ground Lost and Found in Criminal Discovery , 39 N.Y.U. L. REV. 228 (1964). Available at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/traynor_scholarship_pub/21 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the The onorH able Roger J. Traynor Collection at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Published Scholarship by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 7c Ti, L GROUND LOST AND FOUND IN CRIMINAL DISCOVERY ROGER J. TRAYNOR Reprinted from New York University Law Review April 1964, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 228-250 New York University School of Law Arthur T. Vanderbilt Hall 40 Washington Square South New York, N. Y. 10003 Q Copyright, 1964, by New York University GROUND LOST AND FOUND IN CRIMINAL DISCOVERY ROGER J. TRAYNOR system is that it elicits a reasonable T HEapproximation plea for the ofadversary the truth. The reasoning is that with each side on its mettle to present its own case and to challenge its op- ponent's, the relevant unprivileged evidence in the main emerges in the ensuing clash. Such reasoning is hardly realistic unless the evidence is accessible in advance to the adversaries so that each can prepare accordingly in the light of such evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • The Forfeiture by Wrongdoing Exception To
    THE FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING EXCEPTION TO THE CONFRONTATION RULE * JAMESMARKHAM JULY 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.................................................................................................................1 I. Background..........................................................................................................4 II. The Forfeiture Exception to the Crawford Rule..................................................4 A.A Note on Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6)..............................................5 B.Intent to silence...............................................................................................7 1.Cases Finding No Intent-to-Silence Requirement......................................8 2. Cases Preserving the Intent-to-Silence Requirement.................................9 C.Reflexive Application of the Forfeiture Rule...............................................11 1.Cases Applying Forfeiture Reflexively....................................................13 2.Cases Refusing to Apply Forfeiture Reflexively.....................................16 D.Standard of Proof..........................................................................................17 Conclusion................................................................................................................19 INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington1 transformed its doctrine governing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. UnderCrawford, the Confrontation
    [Show full text]
  • Witness Tampering Is Against the Law!
    WITNESS TAMPERING IS AGAINST THE LAW THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NEVER THREATEN OR BRIBE YOU! If someone is trying to stop you from going to court or telling the truth in court you can get help with a SAFETY PLAN: WITNESS The ASU Diane Halle Center for Family Justice TAMPERING IS (602) 258-1656 It is against the law for the defendant AGAINST THE to offer a bribe to a victim or witness. Phoenix Family Advocacy Center (602) 534-2120 or (888) 246-0303 LAW! What is a bribe? Under the law a bribe is a promise of Voice for Victims “any benefit” to a witness to stay (480) 600-2661 or (602) 416-6780 quiet, lie, or not show up in court. The Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence Examples: (602) 279-2900 or (800) 782-6400 Each of the following statements could be a bribe: “If you testify . Maricopa County Attorney’s Office “I will stop beating you.” Investigations Division (602) 506-8370 “I will pay the rent.” If someone bribes you or “I will buy you a car." Remember… threatens to stop you from “I will buy the kids presents.” If you need immediate help or if you are in an emergency, testifying in court, you may be a victim of “witness tampering.” call 9-1-1 right away! *Witness tampering is the most common crime committed KNOW THE LAW ON against abuse victims. *Please share widely* WITNESS TAMPERING *Help us stop it! The ASU Diane Halle Center for Family Justice By Hannah Burnidge, 3L & Prof. Sarah Buel with thanks to the many who gave suggestions.
    [Show full text]
  • Witness Intimidation: Meeting the Challenge T�� P����������’ R������� �� V������� A������ W����
    Witness Intimidation: Meeting the Challenge T�� P����������’ R������� �� V������� A������ W���� 1100 H S����� NW, S���� 310 MainW���������, | 202- 55DC8- 200050040 Fax | 202-393-1918 ���.AE������R�������.��� © quitas: The Prosecutors’ esource on Violence gainst a project of the Pennsylv gainst 2013 AE R A Women, This projectania was Coalition supported A by GrantRape. No. 2010-MU-BX-K079 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Of�ice of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the SMART Of�ice, and the Of�ice for Victims of Main | 0 - 8-0040 Fax | 0 - - 18 1100 H S����� NW, S���� 310 | W���������, DC 20005 Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not represent Thethe of�icial information position provided or policies in this of thepublication U.S. Department is for educational of Justice. purposes only and is not intended 2 2 55 2 2 393 19 ���.AE������R�������.��� to provide legal advice to any individual or entity. Table of ContentsTABLE OF CONTENTS I. The Scope of the Problem .....................................................................................7 A. What is intimidation? .............................................................................................7 Physical violence ...........................................................................................................7 Verbal
    [Show full text]
  • Putting Forfeiture to Work
    Putting Forfeiture to Work Sarah M. Buel* Intimate partner violence (“IPV”) victims are increasingly turning to the courts for help, too often with poor results. Successful witness tampering by offenders sabotages the court system by silencing victims through an array of unlawful conduct, including coercion and violence. The doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing should afford a viable solution, but several obstacles constrain its efficacy. Much confusion exists regarding witness tampering and forfeiture law as a result of the recent trilogy of the Crawford, Davis, and Giles Supreme Court decisions. Their cumulative effect is decreased doctrinal uniformity within a perplexing scheme that is difficult to implement. The resulting uncertainty contributes to massive ongoing underenforcement of witness tampering laws and conflicting interpretations of forfeiture doctrine. In response, this Article advances two main arguments: first, the forfeiture doctrine’s application in IPV cases has been woefully inadequate; and second, a more robust notion of forfeiture is needed to clarify and empower the intent-to-silence calculus. A pernicious backlash by legal stakeholders against IPV victims further taints the process, as does the frequent and system-wide minimization of victim harm. This Article locates the courts’ ambivalence in community norms that must evolve to ensure forfeiture can be the remedy its drafters intended. A more vigorous forfeiture doctrine will further the legislative intent of offender accountability coupled with victim protection and resuscitate the law’s crucial signaling aspect. IPV victims’ * B.A., Harvard Extension School; J.D., Harvard Law School; Clinical Professor, University of Texas School of Law; former domestic violence and juvenile prosecutor, and advocate since 1977.
    [Show full text]
  • Witness Intimidation
    WITNESS INTIMIDATION WHAT YOU CAN DO TO PROTECT YOUR WITNESS Prosecutors’ Center for Excellence May 2016 WITNESS INTIMIDATION WHAT YOU CAN DO TO PROTECT YOUR WITNESS Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 INITIAL MEETING AND SAFETY ASSESSMENT .......................................... 1 CONSIDERATIONS FOR SEARCH WARRANTS ........................................ 10 ARREST TO ARRAIGNMENT......................................................................... 11 ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENTS AND NOTICES ................................................................ 11 INITIAL ARRAIGNMENT .................................................................................................. 12 THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND GRAND JURY ......................................................... 15 FELONY ARRAIGNMENT ................................................................................................. 17 DISCOVERY ........................................................................................................ 16 HEARINGS AND TRIAL ................................................................................... 20 PREPARING FOR HEARING AND TRIAL ......................................................................... 20 HEARINGS ........................................................................................................................ 23 TRIAL ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring the Presumption of Innocence
    Restoring the Presumption of Innocence SHiMA BARADARAN* The most commonly repeated adage in U.S. criminaljustice is the presumption of innocence: defendants are deemed innocent until proven guilty. Historically, this presumption carried important meaning both before and during trial. However, in light of state andfederal changes in pretrialpractice, as well as Supreme Courtprecedent restrictingthe presumption'sapplication to trial,the presumption of innocence no longer protects defendants before trial. These limitations on the presumption are fundamentally inconsistent with its constitutional roots. The results of the presumption's diminution are also troubling as the number of defendants held pretrialhas steadily increasedsuch that the majority ofpeople in our nation'sjails have not been convicted of any crime. Few contemporary legal scholars have focused on the dwindling pretrialpresumption, let alone its constitutionalimplications. This Article fills the void by examining, historically, how the Due Process Clause provides the constitutional basis for the presumption of innocence and how that presumption secures at least one pretrial right: the right to release on bail, absent serious flight risk. This Article introduces three principles to ensure that the pretrial presumption of innocence remains true to its constitutional roots. Returning the presumption to its constitutionalfoundation and ensuring its application in ways that are consistent with that foundation will result in less confusion in the courts and a more consistent approach to pretrial decisions. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 724 II. HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE... 727 A. Bail Was Presumedfor NoncapitalCases and Guilt Was Not D etermined Pretrial................................................................ 728 B. Purpose of Bail Was Return to Court, Not Preventing A dditional Crimes ..................................................................
    [Show full text]