©2016 cengage learning. all rights reserved. history and development of the law of criminal...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL
EVIDENCE
Chapter 1
![Page 2: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Learning Objectives
Explain the importance of the Magna Carta.
Explain the function of the writ of habeas corpus.
Identify how the U.S. Supreme Court made the Bill of Rights applicable in state court criminal cases.
List the rights identified and made available to a criminal defendant under the U.S. Constitution.©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 3: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Evidentiary Rules
Gates through which evidence flows in our criminal court system.
Most have their origins in English law.
Important to safeguard rights of accused persons in a fair trial and to ensure the interests of the public in the proper functioning of the criminal justice system.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 4: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Early Methods of Determining Guilt or Innocence
Use of ordeals was common; e.g., duels in which winners were considered innocent and losers were guilty.
Later, judgment was often pronounced by the clergy through oaths and oath-helpers (similar to witnesses today). Presentment juries composed of community
residents were also used.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 5: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Early Methods of Determining Guilt or Innocence
Petit juries were charged with not only determining guilt or innocence but also with finding facts about this determination.
Rules were gradually developed to govern the introduction of facts into criminal trials.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 6: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Witchcraft as a Crime
Numerous trials charging witchcraft as a crime were held in ancient Rome and later in Europe.
In Salem, Massachusetts witchcraft trials were conducted and people were executed and imprisoned.
The crime of witchcraft no longer exists in the American criminal justice system and can never be resurrected.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 7: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Magna Carta
Established minimum standards for arresting and imprisoning individuals accused of crimes.
Required a demonstration of probable cause before a person can be arrested or held in custody.
This principle influenced the drafters of the American Declaration of Independence.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 8: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Writ of Habeas Corpus
This writ serves as a safeguard against unlawful imprisonment.
The writ requires that an official must present himself to a court to show cause for holding a person in custody.
The right of habeas corpus is incorporated into the U.S. Constitution in ARTICLE I, SECTION 9.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 9: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Writ of Habeas Corpus
Habeas corpus writs provide another form of review in criminal convictions and sentences in addition to the appeal process. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and 28 U.S.C. § 2255
authorize federal and state courts to hear petitions for habeas corpus.
The petitioner must show the normal appeal process has been exhausted.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 10: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Habeas Petitions
Prior to 1996, federal courts heard habeas petitions under “de novo” review which gave little deference to state court decisions.
Since 1996, writs are limited to cases where the conviction or sentence was contrary to a clearly established federal law or based on “unreasonable determination of the facts.”
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 11: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Cullen v. Pinholster131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011)
Affected review of habeas petitions by federal courts.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with petitioner’s claim that his conviction and death sentence were flawed because his mental condition was not taken into account.
U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that evidence presented at a habeas hearing could not be considered.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 12: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Thaler v. Haynes130 S. Ct. 1171 (2010)
Illustrates limitations to habeas petitions.
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned a Texas homicide conviction, was reversed by the Supreme Court because the appellate court applied a legal principle that had not be clearly established by the Supreme Court.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 13: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Habeas Corpus and Enemy Combatants
Enemy combatants at Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba have appealed their detention using habeas petitions.
In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court held that detainees on U.S. military bases had habeas corpus rights. Suspected enemy combatants can be tried
in military tribunals as opposed to federal district court.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 14: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
The American Declaration of Independence
British abuses abounded in the colonies prior to the creation and signing of the Declaration.
Many of these abuses concerned liberty, freedom, and the judiciary.
Eventually many of these abuses were specifically corrected in the U.S. Constitution.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 15: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
The American Declaration of Independence
In declaring independence from Great Britain, this U.S. document repudiated the doctrine of the divine right of kings. Declared that governments derive power
from the consent of the governed.
Stated that all men are created equal and “endowed with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 16: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
The U.S. Constitution
The delegates sought to write a Constitution which supported the new American democracy and would create a practical government to serve the people. The concepts of habeas corpus and the
right to a trial by jury were incorporated. Bills of attainder and ex post facto laws
were prohibited.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 17: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
The Bill of Rights
The first ten Amendments to the Constitution were added to “embody certain guarantees and immunities which were inherited from our English ancestors.” Originally, these rights were applicable
only to the federal government. The U.S. Supreme Court, through the
Fourteenth Amendment, applied these rights to the states.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 18: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Fifth and Sixth Amendments
Individual rights in criminal prosecution are present in various parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments provide
an extensive list of those rights.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 19: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Fifth Amendment
Protects the accused from: detention without a presentment or
indictment by a grand jury; double jeopardy; self-incrimination; and deprivation of life, liberty, or property
without due process.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 20: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Sixth Amendment
Provides the accused with the right to: a fair, speedy and public trial; an impartial jury; information about the nature and cause
of the accusation; the ability to confront and cross-examine
witnesses; and counsel for assistance in defense.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 21: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Innocence Until Proven Guilty
In a criminal prosecution, the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In Taylor (1978) and Pagano (2002), the
courts have consistently held the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the defendant’s presumption of innocence is a basic component of a fair trial.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 22: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Public and Speedy Trial
The Sixth Amendment provides that “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” A public trial means all court sessions
must be open to the public unless the trial court gives sufficient, specific reasons for closing the courtroom.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 23: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
The Promptness Rule
Suspects arrested without warrant must be given a probable-cause hearing within 48 hours of arrest.
Further delay requires the government to demonstrate why the circumstances could not be avoided. Sanctions may include preclusion of
evidence collected during the delay.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 24: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Presley v. Georgia130 S. Ct. 721 (2010)
Pursuant to the Sixth Amendment the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.
The Presley court held that “public trial” includes the voir dire (juror examination) portion of a trial.
Closing the courtroom to the public requires the trial court to provide “sufficient” reasons or to consider alternatives.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 25: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
The Right to a Speedy Trial
The Sixth Amendment includes granting the defendant a speedy trial. Courts are split as to whether this applies
in situations where sentencing is delayed.
A defendant may waive the right to a speedy trial with permission of the court. The federal government and many states
have enacted statutes that prescribe the time limit within which a case must go to trial.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 26: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Right to an Indictment
About half of the states follow the Fifth Amendment requirement of a grand jury indictment for capital or “infamous” crimes.
In other states, elected prosecutors determine whether to charge a defendant and what crimes to charge. Defendants charged with a felony by a
prosecutor have the right to a preliminary hearing.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 27: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Right to a Fair (Not Perfect) Trial
Under the Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the law does “not require a defendant receive a perfect trial, only a fair one.” If a defendant is convicted in a trial where
a harmless error occurred, the defendant is not entitled to a new trial.
If an error during the trial is deemed harmful, reversible, or plain, the defendant is entitled to a new trial or to have the charges dropped.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 28: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Right to Assistance of Counsel
If charged with a crime, a person has the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. If the defendant cannot afford an attorney,
one will be provided by the state or federal government.
The right to effective counsel applies at all stages of a criminal prosecution.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 29: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Strickland v. Washing-ton466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984)
A convicted defendant claiming inadequate or ineffective defense must prove:
the defense fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and
a reasonable probability exists that the results would have been different but for the lawyer’s errors.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 30: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Right to Be Informed of Charges
The Sixth Amendment provides that “the accused shall enjoy the right … to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.” Can be an issue when a defendant later
seeks to retract a guilty plea because it was not “voluntary and intelligent.”
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 31: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Bousley v. United States523 U.S. 614 (1998)
A defendant’s guilty plea must be “voluntarily and intelligently” made in order to be constitutionally valid.
If circumstances show that the defendant was misinformed by either the court or the prosecutor, the guilty plea is invalid.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 32: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Right to Compel Witnesses
The Sixth Amendment provides that “the accused shall enjoy the right … to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.” Witnesses can be compelled to appear
through the use of subpoenas.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 33: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Right to Testify or Not Testify
It is the defendant’s choice whether to testify in his or her own defense.
Most defendants do not testify, for a variety of tactical reasons. A defendant who testifies is subject to
cross-examination.
Many defense lawyers want to avoid this risk.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 34: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Right to Confront Witnesses
The Sixth Amendment provides that “the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The famous trial of Sir Walter Raleigh in
1603 was one of the reasons the Confrontation Clause was included in the Sixth Amendment.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 35: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Freedom from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
The Fourth Amendment forbids searches without a warrant unless a justifiable exception can be shown.
The historic foundation for the Fourth Amendment can be traced back to the Magna Carta and the probable cause requirement.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 36: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Right to an Impartial Jury
This right is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
Juror challenges, either for cause or peremptory, are designed to help ensure an impartial jury.
Excusing jurors for cause has been an issue in death penalty cases.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 37: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Uttecht v. Brown127 S. Ct. 2218 (2007)
U.S. Supreme Court identified four principles that must be used to determine if a juror has been properly excused for cause in capital cases:1. The prosecution may not
challenge for cause any juror who expresses doubt about capital punishment.
2. The state has a legitimate interest in having jurors who are willing to apply capital punishment where the law so permits.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 38: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Uttecht v. Brown, cont.
3. Unless a juror is “substantially impaired” in his or her ability to impose the death sentence, the juror’s excusal for cause is improper.
4. The trial judge is entitled to deference in the determination of when a prospective juror is “substantially impaired.”
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 39: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Peremptory Challenges and Discrimination
During jury selection, both sides are given peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors from being selected. Both sides are also given unlimited challenges for cause.
Preemptory challenges are determined by state law and are not required by the U.S. Constitution.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 40: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Peremptory Challenges and Discrimination
Both parties are generally entitled to strike any prospective juror for cause. They may also strike a limited number of
potential jury members without having to explain the reasons, called a “peremptory challenge.”
The peremptory challenge can be used to exclude potential jurors who might be reluctant to find the defendant guilty.©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 41: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Batson v. Kentucky476 U.S. 79 (1986)
Prohibited the use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race of juror.
Prosecution needs “race-neutral” reasons to justify the challenges during jury selection.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not extended the Batson holding to include peremptory strikes based on other factors such as religion.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 42: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
The Right of a Defendant to be Present During Trial
Common law principles mandate a defendant has the right to be present during his criminal trial and cannot be trial in absentia.
The Supreme Court has held that federal rules require that in felony cases the defendant must be present at the beginning of the trial.
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
![Page 43: ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Chapter 1](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081603/56649e905503460f94b95ae6/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Crosby v. United States506 U.S. 255 (1993)
Court held that Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires a defendant be present at the beginning of any felony criminal trial, forbidding in absentia trials for defendants who were not “initially present.”
©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.