Dear Student:
Greetings and welcome to a fascinating look into the lens of American Criminal
Procedure to better understand the rights of the accused. My name is Gene Straughan and I
am the course instructor. My educational background is in political science, law, and
criminal justice. Along with this course I teach introduction to criminal justice,
criminal law, comparative criminal justice systems, introduction to the social sciences,
American national government, law and society, constitutional law, and other courses at
Lewis-Clark State College. My research interests focus on how public policy seeks to work
out conflicts within the United States between a dominant culture and various subcultures,
probing the significance of the unwritten character of the law and calibrating the weight
to be assigned to societal values. I also work closely with various agencies on projects
dealing with juvenile delinquency, adult corrections, management, policing, and so on.
Underscoring my experiences is a keen interest in how and why a delicate balance must be
maintained between controlling crime and protecting rights.
What makes the study of American criminal procedure so intriguing is the enduring struggle
to apprehend, prosecute, and punish criminals under the confines of due process of law.
The right of the people to live safely must be balanced against the protection of personal
rights. Imagine a hypothetical case where Don Defendant has been selling drugs on the
campus of Lewis-Clark State College. After receiving an anonymous tip about such
activities, the Lewiston Police Department is eager to arrest Don. The law of arrest
requires the police to have probable cause—a reasonable belief that a crime has been
or is about to be committed by Don, such as evidence linking him to drug sales. If the
police apprehend Don merely because they wonder how he got the money to buy his new car
and discover evidence of drug sales, then Don may avoid conviction on the grounds that the
police violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Once a lawful arrest has been made of Don,
the LPD may conduct a search subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
Ordinarily the police must have a warrant based upon probable cause and a particular
description of the location and nature of the incriminating evidence to search inside
Don’s apartment. But outside his dwelling the police may upon probable cause conduct
a warrantless search of Don’s person and the immediate area for purposes of seizing
evidence and protecting the officer. The police must also refrain from interrogating Don
while he is in custody until he has been informed of his Fifth Amendment right to remain
silent and his Sixth Amendment right to have an attorney present. Of course, there are
many exceptions to the operation of these general rules during the law enforcement phase
of criminal justice.
Shifting to the formal judicial proceedings, the local prosecutor must decide whether to
charge Don with a crime or divert the case to a drug treatment agency. To charge Don with
a crime the prosecutor needs more than probable cause to detain but not proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. There are also prohibitions on the prosecution’s introduction of
illegally obtained evidence under the exclusionary rule. At a preliminary hearing, Don
also has the right to seek reasonable bail, an amount normally based on the severity of
the crime and the likelihood he will return for trial. Don is entitled to a fair, speedy,
and public trial under the Sixth Amendment. But court backlogs and legal maneuvering can
delay a criminal trial as much as a year after his arrest. The Fifth Amendment protects
Don against being compelled to give incriminating testimony against himself. The defendant
also retains his Sixth Amendment rights to confront witness against him and compel others
to testify on his behalf. Jury trials are required for serious crimes like selling drugs,
unless that right is waived by Don. Under the Idaho code, the defendant is entitled to a
jury consisting of twelve people and a unanimous jury verdict is needed for conviction.
The fact-finder is suppose to either acquit or convict Don but may become a hung or
deadlocked jury. Perhaps the acquittal or conviction may even be a wrongful one. Assuming
the jury convicts Don, the Eighth Amendment further requires that the punishment imposed
against the defendant be proportionate to the criminal offense. The Constitution does not
guarantee an appeal after conviction, but state law allows Don to appeal his verdict to a
higher court with legal assistance and access to the transcripts of the original trial. Of
course, the criminal case of Don Defendant was only a hypothetical one or was it?
In any event, the maze like rules of criminal procedure can be overwhelming. But remember
that the genius of the law is that for most procedural rules there are exceptions,
reflecting the competing ideological positions of due process and crime control. Which
view is right or wrong is left up to how your soon to be developed and informed judgment
directs you. What I hope you will learn is that rules of law must be formulated and
applied with a scrutinizing eye toward achieving a better and richer quality of life. It
is not enough that we draw the battle lines as simply a choice between catching criminals
or protecting rights per se. We must search for a healthy balance, recognizing that
American society needs to be peaceful but also free to be a truly democratic one. Call me
foolish, or perhaps idealistic, but the philosophical justifications and implications of
the law should be the primary focus rather than an often heated and nebulous search for
the truth. Remember that nothing is graven in stone. There are no final lessons to
understanding the struggle to stop crime, punish the guilty, and protect the innocent.
Sincerely yours,
Gene T. Straughan, Ph.D., Justice Studies/Social Sciences Professor
|
Home