DOCSLIB.ORG

Group 3 Issues Concerning Prosecution in Relation to Conviction, Speedy Trial and Sentencing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Group 3 Issues Concerning Prosecution in Relation to Conviction, Speedy Trial and Sentencing RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53 GROUP 3 ISSUES CONCERNING PROSECUTION IN RELATION TO CONVICTION, SPEEDY TRIAL AND SENTENCING Chairperson Mr. Kyoji Ishikawa (Japan) Co-Chairperson Ms. Pauline Christine Ngo Mandeng (Cameroon) Rapporteurs Mr. Madan Lal Sharma (India) Mr. Jonathan John Mwalili (Kenya) Dr. Meen Bahadur Poudyal Chhetri (Nepal) Members Mr. Mohamed Jameel Ahmed (Maldives) Mr. Yutaka Kubo (Japan) Mr. Takahiro Ueda (Japan) Adviser Professor Yuzuru Takahashi (UNAFEI) I. INTRODUCTION The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental human right. It has been The main objective of the criminal trial affirmed in the Universal Declaration of is to determine whether an accused person Human Rights 1948 and enshrined in the has violated the penal law and where found consitutions and statutes of some guilty, to prescribe the appropriate countries. Speedy trial is a vital element sanction. Prosecution is an executive in the administration of criminal justice. function of the state and is usually In fact, unnecessary delay in the trial discharged through the institution of the constitutes a denial of justice. The prosecutor. The burden of proof rests on the prevention and control of crime as well as prosecution as per the prescribed standard the effective rehabilitation of the convict of proof. The prosecutor faces several are enhanced by speedy trial. The problems in proving the guilt of the accused prosecutor is at the center stage of a person. Some of these problems fall beyond criminal trial and plays a leading role in the scope of his duties and responsibilities. its conduct. In the second part of the paper, The legal framework, the law enforcement the group has examined some of the laws infrastructure and the quality of the and practices which prevail in different personnel operating within the legal countries where this right is guaranteed. system, amongst other factors, Factors affecting the realization of a speedy considerably affect the conviction rate. In trial have also been discussed from the the first part of the paper, our group has perspective of the prosecutor. defined conviction rate, and analyzed the Sentencing is the final stage of a criminal reasons for variation in rates in different trial. An appropriate sentence is one which countries. The group has discussed some strikes a balance between the preservation of the problems which may arise in proving of social order and the rehabilitation of the the case in a court from the perspective of convict. The participation of the prosecutor the prosecutor under four categories in sentencing and the stage of the such relating to investigation, prosecution, trial, participation differ depending on the legal and legal and systemic factors. The group systems as practiced in different countries. has also proposed solutions to some of these Sentencing remains the prerogative of the problems. 348 107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE REPORTS OF THE COURSE presiding judge/magistrate who usually B. Conviction Rate enjoys wide discretion, and the The conviction rate may be taken to recommendations of the prosecutor are not mean the ratio of cases convicted out of the binding on him. In the third part of this total number of cases decided in a given paper, the group discussions revealed year. problems which may arise in the Our group is of the view that the sentencing process. The countermeasures conviction rate is a reasonably good proposed therein, are intended to ensure indicator of the efficiency and efficacy of that the prosecutor effectively assists the the criminal justice system prevailing in a court in arriving at an appropriate country. Of course, there is a limitation to sentence. the significance of the conviction rate as an indicator of prosecutorial efficacy. II. HOW WELL DOES THE Distinctive conviction rates are caused by PROSECUTION ESTABLISH ITS the differences in the evidential standard CASE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT? required at the initiation of prosecution, more fundamentally the differences in the A. Preface role of investigators and prosecutors to The preservation of life and property is refer cases to the court. In countries where one of the fundamental functions of the a considerably low evidential standard is state. Over the millennia, the state has required to send a case to court, it should endeavored to perform this function be tasked to pass judgement of conviction through various institutions. Crime and or non-conviction based on such criminality are as old as humanity itself prosecution, the conviction rate is and their total elimination appears to be systematically lower than the countries beyond human ingenuity. The requiring a higher evidentiary standard. investigative, prosecutorial, adjudicatory A high conviction rate, however, is not the and correctional institutions aim at primary objective of the criminal justice containing criminality within socially system. acceptable limits. The state causes Notwithstanding the aforesaid, a high sanctions to be imposed upon the criminals conviction rate may be indicative of commensurate with the gravity of their methodical and painstaking investigations crimes. and effective prosecution. On the contrary, Any violation of the law is investigated an excessively low conviction rate definitely by the competent agencies and if a prima indicates unsuccessful and ineffective facie case is made out, a charge sheet/bill prosecution. of indictment is filed in the competent It should be made clear, however, that it court. Prosecution is conducted by the is not the mandate of the prosecutor to prosecutor on behalf of the state. The court secure conviction at any cost. He is required adjudicates the case on the basis of to be fair, impartial and must present all evidence adduced and either convicts the the facts, including facts and circumstances offender or acquits him. The court imposes favorable to the offender, before the court the sentence on the convict after it has for an appropriate decision. This is the heard him and the prosecutor. The general practice in most common law aforesaid procedure is followed in most countries, where the prosecutor does not jurisdictions, with occasional variations to have the authority to withhold a case from punish the offender as per the procedure prosecution. established by law. The correctional Our group realizes that no conviction services attempt to rehabilitate him. handed down by the court of first instance 349 RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53 is final until confirmed by the highest court 3. Indonesia3 in the event of an appeal. However, as no The overall conviction rate was 98.4 published data is available in relation to percent in 1994. Of offenders, 84.17 percent the decisions of appellate courts, data were sentenced to terms of imprisonment regarding the convictions as rendered by and others were fined/paroled or given the courts of first instance is used. minor sentences. Similarly, the convictions obtained through the plea bargaining process shall be dealt 4. Nepal4 with in this paper. According to a survey conducted in 20 districts of Nepal in 1996, the average C. Overview of Conviction Rate in conviction rate was found to be 16 percent. Some Countries 5. Japan5 1. England and Wales1 The conviction rate in Japan is The conviction rate in England and extremely high. In District Courts, it was Wales was 90.6 percent in 1992-93; 90.2 99.91 percent in 1994; 99.92 percent in percent in 1993-94 and 90.3 percent in 1995 and 99.94 percent in 1996 in cases 1994-95. It may, however, be added that the wherein the defendant had pleaded guilty. newly created Crown Prosecution Service In cases wherein the defendant had not has the power to withdraw a case from pleaded guilty, the conviction rate was prosecution under certain circumstances. 97.73 percent in 1994; 97.92 percent in Further, about 85 percent defendants 1995 and 98.01 percent in 1996. In pleaded guilty. Summary Courts, the conviction rate was 99.79 percent in 1996 wherein the 2. India2 defendant had pleaded guilty and 94.90 Under the Indian Penal Code offences, percent in cases wherein the defendant had the conviction rate was 47.8 percent in 1991 not pleaded guilty. In grave offences such and 42.1 percent in 1995. In 1995, the as homicide, robbery, bodily injury, rape or conviction rate for grave offences was as larceny, the acquittal rate is as low as follows: murder, 37.0 percent; culpable between 0.1 to 0.3 percent. homicide not amounting to murder, 36.3 percent; rape, 30 percent; kidnapping and 6. Republic of Korea6 abduction, 30.3 percent; robbery, 34.1 Conviction rate in 1993 was 99.5 percent; and burglary, 42.7 percent. percent. It was 99.11 percent in murder; However, for the Special and Local Laws, 99.87 percent in robbery; 99.74 percent in the conviction rate was 85.8 percent in rape and 99.59 percent in bodily injury 1995. This is largely explained by a high cases. In special code offences, conviction conviction rate in traffic related offences rate was 99.61 percent. i.e., 90.4 percent. 3 Bureau of Central Statistics, Government of Indonesia, 1994, p. 26. 1 Mr. G.D. Ethrington’s paper on “The Crown 4 As per country paper presented by the participant Prosecution Service and the Public Interest” of Nepal in this course. published in UNAFEI Resource Material Series 5 The White Paper on Crime, 1996, Research and No.49, p. 93. Training Institute, Ministry of Justice, Government 2 As per data published by National Crime Records of Japan, p. 112. Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, 6 The White Paper on Crime published by the in Crime in India, 1995. Government of Korea, 1993, p. 182. 350 107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE REPORTS OF THE COURSE 7. Thailand D. Analysis of Conviction Rates The conviction rate ranges between 97 The conviction rate is largely affected by to 98.40 percent from 1991 to 1993, as per the quality of investigation and the statistics published by the Attorney standard of proof prescribed by law to send General’s Office.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The “Radical” Notion of the Presumption of Innocence
    EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE FUTURE OF JUSTICE POLICY THE “RADICAL” MAY 2020 Tracey Meares, NOTION OF THE Justice Collaboratory, Yale University Arthur Rizer, PRESUMPTION R Street Institute OF INNOCENCE The Square One Project aims to incubate new thinking on our response to crime, promote more effective strategies, and contribute to a new narrative of justice in America. Learn more about the Square One Project at squareonejustice.org The Executive Session was created with support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation as part of the Safety and Justice Challenge, which seeks to reduce over-incarceration by changing the way America thinks about and uses jails. 04 08 14 INTRODUCTION THE CURRENT STATE OF WHY DOES THE PRETRIAL DETENTION PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE MATTER? 18 24 29 THE IMPACT OF WHEN IS PRETRIAL WHERE DO WE GO FROM PRETRIAL DETENTION DETENTION HERE? ALTERNATIVES APPROPRIATE? TO AND SAFEGUARDS AROUND PRETRIAL DETENTION 33 35 37 CONCLUSION ENDNOTES REFERENCES 41 41 42 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AUTHOR NOTE MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE FUTURE OF JUSTICE POLICY 04 THE ‘RADICAL’ NOTION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE “It was the smell of [] death, it was the death of a person’s hope, it was the death of a person’s ability to live the American dream.” That is how Dr. Nneka Jones Tapia described the Cook County Jail where she served as the institution’s warden (from May 2015 to March 2018). This is where we must begin. EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE FUTURE OF JUSTICE POLICY 05 THE ‘RADICAL’ NOTION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE Any discussion of pretrial detention must Let’s not forget that Kalief Browder spent acknowledge that we subject citizens— three years of his life in Rikers, held on presumed innocent of the crimes with probable cause that he had stolen a backpack which they are charged—to something containing money, a credit card, and an iPod that resembles death.
    [Show full text]
  • Demanding a Speedy Trial: Re-Evaluating the Assertion Factor in the Baker V
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 67 Issue 1 Article 12 2016 Demanding a Speedy Trial: Re-Evaluating the Assertion Factor in the Baker v. Wingo Test Seth Osnowitz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Seth Osnowitz, Demanding a Speedy Trial: Re-Evaluating the Assertion Factor in the Baker v. Wingo Test, 67 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 273 (2016) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol67/iss1/12 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Case Western Reserve Law Review·Volume 67·Issue 1·2016 Demanding a Speedy Trial: Re-Evaluating the Assertion Factor in the Barker v. Wingo Test Contents Introduction .................................................................................. 273 I. Background and Policy of Sixth Amendment Right to Speedy Trial .......................................................................... 275 A. History of Speedy Trial Jurisprudence ............................................ 276 B. Policy Considerations and the “Demand-Waiver Rule”..................... 279 II. The Barker Test and Defendants’ Assertion of the Right to a Speedy Trial .................................................................. 282 A. Rejection of the
    [Show full text]
  • Speedy Trial
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 68 Article 7 Issue 4 December Winter 1977 Speedy Trial Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Speedy Trial, 68 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 543 (1977) This Criminal Law is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 68, No. 4 Copyright @ 1977 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A. SPEEDY TRIAL United States v. Lovasco, 97 S. Ct. 2044 (1977). The Supreme Court of the United States has v. Marion,7 the Supreme Court focused on the recognized that the right to a speedy trial "is language of the sixth amendment8 and con- one of the most basic rights preserved by our cluded that the sixth amendment speedy trial Constitution."' The right, as encompassed by provision does not apply until an individual the sixth amendment to the United States Con- becomes an accused, that is either through stitution,2 can be traced to the Magna Carta of arrest or indictment. The Court also stated 1215,3 which states, "we will sell to no man, we that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal will not deny or defer to any man either justice Procedure9 is limited in application to post- or right.
    [Show full text]
  • Bail Reform and Speedy Trial Act
    Bail Reform and Speedy Trial Act • Substantial change to existing law that impacts pretrial incarceration decisions and the manner in which certain cases will be processed through the Court system. – Constitutional Amendment allowing Defendant’s to be held without bail (passed by referendum in 2014) – Statutory changes impacting the manner in which pretrial incarceration decisions are made, and how a criminal case is processed for incarcerated offenders • These changes have already been passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor. The effective date of the law, statewide, is January 1, 2017. • We are a pilot county. (Other pilot programs in Morris, Passaic, and Camden). Anticipated effective date of changes for Sussex County is May of 2016. Current Processing of a Criminal Case ARREST/CHARGE SUMMONS WARRANT Central Judicial 1st Appearance/Bail AP not Processing Review (within 72 AP is present Hours) present Plea Hearing Case Resolved Early Case Not Resolved Grand Jury Disposition Presentation Conference Sentencing Arraignment Conference Status Conference Pre-Trial Conference Trial Aspects of Existing System That Will Change • Under the current system, the SCPO is not required, and does not, have an AP present at CJP Court. − CJP Court currently sits 1 day per week and is in session for about 4 hours • Under the current system, for defendants remanded to the jail on a warrant, no weekend appearance is necessary. − This is so because the first appearance/bail review does not need to take place for 72 hours. − Therefore, for a defendant arrested on a Friday, we can legally wait until Monday for the first appearance/bail review Aspects of Existing System That Will Change (Continued) • Under the current system, there are no lengthy testimonial hearings prior to the EDC conference.
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of the Right to Speedy Trial on Nolle Prosequi William S
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of North Carolina School of Law NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 46 | Number 2 Article 7 2-1-1968 Constitutional Law -- Effect of the Right to Speedy Trial on Nolle Prosequi William S. Geimer Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation William S. Geimer, Constitutional Law -- Effect of the Right to Speedy Trial on Nolle Prosequi, 46 N.C. L. Rev. 387 (1968). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol46/iss2/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 19681 RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL allow the court to continue the appointment if it determined counsel was required.50 STEPHEN E. CULBRETHr Constitutional Law-Effect of the Right to Speedy Trial on Nolle Prosequi In Klopfer v. North Carolina,'theUnited States Supreme Court held that the sixth amendment guarantee of the right to speedy trial is a basic right protected by the Constitution and is therefore incorporated into the due process clause and made obligatory upon the states under the fourteenth amendment.2 Implicit in the de- cision is the proposition that the speedy trial guarantee is to be en- forced against the states according to the federal standard.3 In Klopfer, a violation of the sixth amendment was found in the use of the North Carolina procedural device of "nolle prosequi with leave." Its objectionable characteristic is the power given the state solicitor to suspend indefinitely action on a case, after an indictment has been filed, and notwithstanding defendant's timely demand for trial.
    [Show full text]
  • Rate My District Attorney: Toward a Scorecard for Prosecutors' Offices
    Rate My District Attorney: Toward a Scorecard for Prosecutors’ Offices Katherine K. Moy, Dennis M. Martin, and David Alan Sklansky 2018 Rate My District Attorney: Toward a Scorecard for Prosecutors’ Offices A Report of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center January 2018 Katherine K. Moy, Dennis M. Martin, and David Alan Sklansky* * Katherine K. Moy and Dennis M. Martin are third-year students at Stanford Law School. David Alan Sklansky is Stanley Morrison Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and Faculty Co-Director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center. 1 The Stanford Criminal Justice Center (SCJC), led by faculty co-directors Joan Petersilia, David Sklansky, and Robert Weisberg and executive director Debbie Mukamal, serves as a research and policy institute on matters related to the criminal justice system. For more information about our current and past projects, please visit our website: http://law.stanford.edu/criminal-justice-center. Copyright © 2018 Stanford Criminal Justice Center All rights reserved. Stanford, CA Stanford Criminal Justice Center Stanford Law School 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5 Prior Efforts at Developing Metrics for Prosecutors’ Offices ................................................ 6 Fig. 1: NDAA Chart
    [Show full text]
  • Florida's New Speedy Trial Rule: the "Window of Recapture"
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 13 Issue 1 Article 2 Spring 1985 Florida's New Speedy Trial Rule: The "Window of Recapture" John F. Yetter Florida State University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation John F. Yetter, Florida's New Speedy Trial Rule: The "Window of Recapture", 13 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 9 (1985) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol13/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA'S NEW SPEEDY TRIAL RULE: THE "WINDOW OF RECAPTURE" JOHN F. YETTER* The Florida Supreme Court amended the criminal speedy trial rule, Rule 3.191, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, effective January 1, 1985.1 Under the previous rule, an accused was abso- lutely discharged from prosecution if the time provisions were vio- * Professor of Criminal Law and Associate Dean, Florida State University. Chairman, Criminal Procedure Rules Committee of the Florida Bar. Lehigh University, B.A., B.S., 1963; Duquesne University, J.D., 1967; Yale University, LLM., 1968. 1. Florida Bar Re: Amendment to Rules-Criminal Procedure, 462 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1984). Neither the amendment, nor the commentary to it, contains any provision relating to the transitional period. The state may contend that the amendment permits recapture of defendants in any case where the underlying speedy trial time had not expired as of January 1, 1985.
    [Show full text]
  • Speedy Trials: Recent Developments Concerning a Vital Right Stephen F
    Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 4 4 Article 6 Number 2 1976 Speedy Trials: Recent Developments Concerning a Vital Right Stephen F. Chepiga Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Stephen F. Chepiga, Speedy Trials: Recent Developments Concerning a Vital Right, 4 Fordham Urb. L.J. 351 (1976). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol4/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES SPEEDY TRIALS: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING A VITAL RIGHT I. Introduction Historically, Anglo-American law has jealously guarded the right of an accused to have a speedy trial in a criminal prosecution., Englishmen formally claimed the right in the Magna Charta of 1215.2 In the United States, it is extended to defendants in. federal cases by the sixth amendment to the Constitution.' Through incor- poration into the fourteenth amendment, the protection is likewise available to defendants in state prosecutions.' Notwithstanding constitutional provisions and Supreme Court decisions, the concept of a speedy trial in the United States has always been ambiguous. Until recent times it has been considered a matter that could only be defined in the context of the special circumstances of individual cases.5 The right was said to be "consis- tent with delays"; 6 thus there has been less than an absolute guar- antee that a defendant would be tried within a short time of his arrest or indictment.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Ref.Pdf
    Table of Contents (Nominal) CONTENTS Page No. Chapter 1. Introduction 1-16 Chapter 2. Data Analysis 17-89 Chapter 3: Major findings 90-117 Chapter 4: How long the Wheels of Justice shall hold 118-144 on for appearance of the accused? Chapter 5: Whose case is it in any way? Police, 145-166 Prosecution or the Victim Chapter 6 Can there be a time frame for completing 167-175 Investigation? Chapter 7 Recommendations 176-182 i Table of Contents (Detailed) Chapter Page No. CONTENTS No. List of Abbreviations vii List of Cases viii - x List of Tables xi Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1-16 A. What amounts to delay? 7-13 B. Objectives of the Study 14 C. Limitations of the Study 14 D. Methodology 14-16 Chapter 2 DATA ANALYSIS 17-89 A. Stage I: Analysis of Form 1 17-29 B. State II: Analysis of Form 2, 3 and 4 30-40 C. Stage III: Sample Study of life cycle of 41-49 pending and disposed of cases D. Stage IV: Questionnaires 50-89 Chapter 3 MAJOR FINDINGS 90-117 A. Non-appearance of the accused at 90-95 different stages of Trial B. Fall out of absconding on criminal 95-98 ii adjudication C. Procedural and penal safeguards to 98-102 check and deal with non-appearance of the accused D. How far Sec.299 Cr.P.C been 102-107 effective? E. Avoidable delays at the stage of 107-111 commitment of cases to the court of sessions F. Delay at the stage of Prosecution 111-116 Evidence G.
    [Show full text]
  • A Lack of Conviction
    A LACK OF CONVICTION DEDICATION On June 23, 2015, 34-year-old Alvin Cochran Jr., of Columbia, died from injuries sustained when his motorcycle was struck by a drunk driver on Father’s Day weekend. A Good Samaritan stopped to assist Alvin and granted his dying wish to call his family. Alvin never regained consciousness after the call. Alvin’s family was forced to endure more stress due to complications with the investigation that threatened their need for justice. Alvin was the only child to his parents, Alvin Sr. and Ramona Huff. He was a loving father to his children, Alvin III and Alaisia. He was a hard worker who always wanted the best for his children, family, and friends. He loved spending time with his children, playing basketball, riding his bike and working on cars with his friends. Alvin’s mother states that the hardest part of losing her son was telling his children, then ages 12 and 5 that their daddy was gone. Alvin’s family now celebrates Father’s Day beside his grave. He has not been there for his children’s birthdays, award ceremonies or to see them off on their first day of school. As they continue to struggle with their loss, Alvin’s family is committed to seeing MADD’s mission of NO MORE VICTIMS realized. His family hopes that no other family is left with only memories, photos, and videos. For them, it is all they have left, photos of him with his children and videos of him dancing to “Before I let you go” by Frankie Beverly and Maze.
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Brief
    No. 16-1495 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ___________ CITY OF HAYS, KANSAS, Petitioner, v. MATTHEW JACK DWIGHT VOGT, Respondent. ___________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ___________ BRIEF OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SCHOLARS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT ___________ ELIZABETH B. WYDRA BRIANNE J. GOROD* ASHWIN P. PHATAK** CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER 1200 18th Street NW, Ste 501 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 296-6889 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae * Counsel of Record December 20, 2017 **Not admitted in D.C.; supervised by principals of the firm TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .......................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................. 2 ARGUMENT ......................................................... 4 I. THE TEXT, STRUCTURE, AND DRAFT- ING HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SELF-IN- CRIMINATION CLAUSE IS VIOLATED WHEN COERCED, INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS ARE INTRODUCED AT PRE-TRIAL PROBABLE CAUSE HEAR- INGS ............................................................. 4 II. THE HISTORICAL PRACTICE AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDING CONFIRMS THAT THE SELF-INCRIMINATION CLAUSE IS VIOLATED WHEN CO- ERCED, INCRIMINATING STATE- MENTS ARE INTRODUCED AT PRE- TRIAL PROBABLE CAUSE HEARINGS ... 21 CONCLUSION .................................................... 26 (i) ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977) ................................... 7 Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 (1968) ................................... 20 Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 581 (1871) .................... 5 Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896) ................................... 20 Browning-Ferris Indus. of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257 (1989) ................................... 14 Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Rule 1. Scope; Authority of the Chief Judge; Definitions (A) SCOPE
    Rule 1. Scope; Authority of the Chief Judge; Definitions (a) SCOPE. These rules govern the procedure in all criminal proceedings in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. (b) AUTHORITY OF THE CHIEF JUDGE. The Chief Judge by order may arrange and divide the business of the Criminal Division as may be necessary for the sound administration of justice, except that branches within the Division may be created or eliminated only by court rule. (c) TAX DIVISION. All proceedings brought by the District of Columbia for the imposition of criminal penalties under the provisions of the statutes relating to taxes levied by or in behalf of the District of Columbia shall be conducted in the Tax Division. (d) DEFINITIONS. The following definitions apply to these rules: (1) “Attorney for the government” means: (A) the Attorney General of the United States or an authorized assistant; (B) a United States Attorney or an authorized assistant; (C) the Attorney General for the District of Columbia or an authorized assistant; and (D) any other attorney authorized by law to conduct proceedings under these rules as a prosecutor. (2) “Civil action” refers to a civil action in the Superior Court. (3) “Court” means a judge or magistrate judge performing functions authorized by law, except where the term is used to mean the court as an institution. (4) “District Court” means all United States District Courts. (5) “Judge” means the Chief Judge, an Associate Judge, or a Senior Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. (6) “Law enforcement officer” or “investigative officer” means an officer or member of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia or of any other police force operating in the District of Columbia, or an investigative officer or agent of the United States or the District of Columbia.
    [Show full text]