Prepared by Rachel Singer of John Jay College CUNY

IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF

THE AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Chapter Two

Federalism in the United States

The United States uses a form of government called federalism, which was created at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

Federalism means that the central government has the power and authority to handle national problems, and the states have the power to regulate local needs and problems.

Federalism in the United States

Federalism allows for diversity and flexibility at state and local levels of government.

States are responsible for public safety and can enact laws they believe are most effective in providing for public order and an efficient, effective criminal justice system.

Tenth Amendment & Individual Rights

The Tenth Amendment states powers not delegated to the U.S. are reserved to the states or the people – reinforcing the federalism concept.

The concept of federalism also recognizes the right of the individual to object to laws that upset the constitutional balance between the federal government and the states.

Bond v. U.S.131 S.Ct 2355 (2011)

Bond was charged with violation of a federal statute prohibiting use of a chemical that could cause death or serious bodily injury.

Bond argued the federal statute was part of an Act implementing a chemical weapons treaty but that her actions were totally local in nature and thus were reserved to the states pursuant to the Tenth Amendment.

The Court of Appeals held she could not raise the Tenth Amendment as a defense.

The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that in proper circumstances, where an individual alleges direct injury from government action, one can claim the federal statute violated the Tenth Amendment.

Federalism and the Law of Evidence

The powers of the U.S. Congress, the President, and the U.S. Supreme Court are limited to those powers granted in the Constitution.

Each state is sovereign, and the officials of each state have the powers granted to them by the Constitution of that state. Each state has its own criminal codes, and

each has enacted a code of criminal procedure and evidence.

These codes and the ruling of state courts must conform to the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

State laws and state court rulings may provide additional rights to the people of the state and to criminal defendants within the state, beyond those extended by the Constitution. The Federal Rules of Evidence were enacted in 1975

by Congress.

Most states have adopted rules of evidence almost identical to the federal rules, with local modifications.

Federalism and the Law of Evidence

Each state retains the power to interpret and modify those rules of evidence.

The meaning and application of the federal rules of evidence can vary between federal courts and state courts.

The federal rules of evidence and most state rules of evidence apply in both civil and criminal trials.

Some rules or parts of rules may apply differently in criminal cases.

Federalism and the Law of Evidence

State and Federal Jurisdiction Over Crimes in the United States

The great majority of crimes committed in the United States are violations of state criminal codes.

Some crimes are federal offenses in violation of the federal criminal code. A small percentage of criminal offenses are violations

of both the federal criminal code and a state criminal code.

The U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government a general police power, nor has there ever been federal criminal common law.

All federal crimes have to be statutory crimes enacted by Congress.

States have general police power to regulate in providing for domestic tranquility.

Common law refers to the rules developed over years by courts and judges.

State and Federal Jurisdiction Over Crimes in the United States

Criminal laws may be enacted by the federal government in the following areas: To protect itself, its officials and employees, its

property, and the administration of its authorized functions;

To regulate interstate and foreign commerce; To protect civil rights; and To enact criminal laws for places beyond the

jurisdiction of any state, such as the District of Columbia, federal territories, and federal enclaves such as military bases and national parks.

State and Federal Jurisdiction Over Crimes in the United States

Gonzales v. Raich125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005)

The Court attempted to define the scope of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Users and growers of medical marijuana brought an action to declare the federal Controlled Substances Act unconstitutional

The Court held that Commerce Clause does permit Congress to regulate intrastate production of marijuana.

Law Enforcement in the American Federal System

In the United States, there are 17,000 law enforcement agencies.

Most are at the local levels of government (city, counties, towns). Local law enforcement agencies enforce city and

county ordinances in addition to the criminal laws of their states.

State rules of evidence are used in both municipal and state courts.

Law enforcement agencies working at the state level of government are generally created by state law to enforce state criminal laws or to enforce hunting, fishing, health, sanitation, fire, and other state codes. Over 24 million violent and property

felonies area committed annually. 50% of violent crimes; such as rape, are

unreported.

Law Enforcement in the American Federal System

The Adversarial System

The function of the criminal trial within the American court system, is to provide a venue (location) for determining the facts upon which the guilt or innocence of the accused is based. The main actors in the courtroom are the judge,

the jury, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney.

In the American adversary system, the prosecutor and the defense attorney assume the adversarial role.

The American Adversary System

During a trial, both the prosecutor and the defense attorney have two main goals: To present the facts that are the most advantageous to

their position. To make it difficult for their opponent to do the same.

The prosecutor must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt by an unanimous jury.

The defense attorney’s duty is to represent their client zealously within the bounds of the law.

The judge and jury must be unbiased and willingly to examine the facts as presented.

The American Adversary System

Witness testimony and physical evidence are presented within the framework of the rules of evidence and court procedure.

Witnesses are questioned by each side and evidence admitted during the trial can be challenged.

A judge presides neutrally over the trial and is responsible for safeguarding both the rights of the accused and the interest of the public at large.

The American Adversary System

The jury is considered the finders of the facts in order to determine the truth.

The rules of evidence are in place to ensure that the evidence presented to the jury by both adversaries is relevant, reliable, and competent.

Holbrook v. Flynn475 U.S. 560 (1986)

The Court held that central to a fair trial is the principle that “one accused of a crime is entitled to have his guilt or innocence determined solely on the basis of the evidence introduced at trial, and not based on official suspicion, indictment, continued custody, or any other circumstances not adduced as proof at trial.”

Each state has authority to commence a criminal prosecution if sufficient evidence is available to justify the criminal charges.

Relevant Evidence

Relevant evidence is direct or circumstantial evidence that is of consequence to the outcome of the case, rendering the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Rule 403-Legally Relevant Test: Allows for relevant evidence to be excluded if it may Unfairly prejudice a party; Confuse the jury; or Waste the court’s time.

Reliable Evidence

Reliable evidence is evidence that possesses a sufficient degree of believability. Evidence which is deemed unreliable is

inadmissible at trial.

Reliable and admissible evidence is required to justify charging a person with a crime.

Each state has the authority to commence a criminal prosecution if sufficient evidence is available to justify the criminal charge.

Competent Evidence

Competent evidence includes relevant, reliable evidence that is not otherwise rendered inadmissible. The rules of evidence are designed as

complements to the adversary system.

The rules of evidence controls the flow evidence during the trial so that the jury will see and hear only that evidence which properly should influence their deliberations.

The American Accusatorial System

The United States and most of the English-speaking democracies in the world use the accusatorial system in criminal investigations and in criminal trials.

Under this accusatorial system suspects and defendants have an absolute right to remain silent about matters that could incriminate them. Most European countries and other democracies

of the world use the inquisitorial system.

The Inquisition System

Under this system, defendants do not have the absolute right to remain silent. Relies heavily on obtaining confessions to

solve crimes. Some countries resort to torture as a way

to induce a confession from a suspect.

Disclosing the Information in the Adversary System al

When someone has been charged criminally, both the prosecution and defense begin separate investigations of the facts.

The U.S. Supreme Court has created legal requirements to disclose information about the case.

This disclosure is referred to as “discovery” and both sides will be compelled to share information with each other before the trial starts.

Notice of Alibi Statutes

An alibi defense alleges the defendant could not have committed the crime that is charged because they were not physically present at the time the crime was committed.

Most states have notice of alibi statutes that require defendants who plan to use an alibi defense to serve “notice” on the prosecutor within a certain period of time before trial.

Fry v. Piller127 S.Ct 2321 (2007)

Defendant was convicted of murder after two successive mistrials.

During trial he tried to introduce the testimony of several witnesses that a third party had committed the murders. The trial judge excluded one of the witnesses from testifying.

The defendant appealed and filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal court and ultimately to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme court granted certiorari to consider the scope of review of constitutional error in habeas corpus cases.

The Court affirmed the lower courts holding denying habeas relief, holding that even if the testimony was wrongly excluded a trial judge’s decision to exclude evidence can only be overturned if it has a “substantial and injurious effect” on the jury verdict.

Exculpatory Evidence

It is evidence that tends to show innocence.

A prosecutor has a duty to disclose evidence favorable to an accused upon request where the evidence is material to the defendant’s guilt or innocence.o This requirement is extended to law enforcement

officers as well.

The accused does not have the right to all information available to the prosecutor.

The Brady Rule

This defines the duty of the prosecution and police to disclose any evidence that would tend to show the “innocence” of an accused.

This is referred to as exculpatory evidence

This type of evidence can include recantation of witnesses, discovery of physical evidence or results of forensic testing.

Brady v. Maryland373 U.S. 83 (1963)

Despite a request from defense counsel, the prosecution withheld a statement by an accomplice admitting to killing the victim.

The real issue was the “suppression” of the statement favorable to the accused upon the request of that information; this was deemed a violation of due process since the evidence was material to both guilt or punishment.

Lost, Misplaced and Destroyed Evidence

The U.S. Supreme Court has established rules concerning the government’s duty to preserve evidence.

The court held that lost, misplaced or destroyed evidence is not a violation of due process unless the following is shown: Bad faith on the part of the police or other law

enforcement official. The evidence was likely significant to the defendant’s

case.

If a Brady violation is discovered, the penalty is severe – often a new trial or a dismissal of charges.

The Use of False or Perjured Evidence

The deliberate use of false or perjured evidence during trial is considered a crime itself.

This conduct could also be the basis for a civil lawsuit in which compensatory and punitive damages could be awarded. Mooney v. Holohan (1935) Morris v. Yist (2007)

Miller v. Pate386 U.S. 451 (1967)

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the defendant’s murder and rape conviction because during the trial the prosecutor repeatedly referred to “blood stained shorts” during the trial when the prosecutor knew, but did not reveal to the court or defense, that the red stain was actually paint.

The Court held that the prosecution had “deliberately misrepresented the truth” and had used false evidence during the trial.

Civil Commitment

Civil commitment can be authorized under state or federal statutes to involuntarily confine a person who is deemed a present danger to themselves or others because of mental health problems or sexual predator histories among other things. Most states have mental health laws authorizing involuntary,

short-term mental observations of persons with mental illness. Longer detentions requested by the government require them to

prove the potential for violence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court has held that civil commitment of prisoners beyond the date of release is constitutional if the government can show proof of future dangerous behavior. U.S. v. Comstock (2010).

U.S. v. George625 F.3rd 1124 (9th Cir. 2010)

The 9th Circuit held the Necessary and Proper Clause permits Congress to make SORNA law applicable to require sex offenders to register even if they do not travel interstate.