All right. Ready to dive into some criminal
law? We're going to be looking at
criminal law and procedure today.
Yeah, this is going to be great for anybody getting ready for
finals or the bar exam. We'll break it down, give you
what you need for those hypotheticals.
Perfect. So imagine this.
You've got a heated argument, things escalate, somebody throws
a brick and boom, someone's dead.
Classic law school hypotheticals.
Exactly. And to figure out like, what are
the potential charges, you got to understand the elements of a
crime. It all starts with the building
blocks, right? So first up, we've got actus
Reus. That's your guilty act.
It's not just thinking bad thoughts.
You actually have to do something.
So like if I accidentally bump into someone and they fall and
break their arm, I'm not necessarily liable?
Right, you didn't voluntarily act to 'cause that harm.
But then things get a little tricky, because sometimes
failing to act like an omission can be the actus Reus.
OK, so an omission. Like if I see someone drowning
and I'm just like well too bad. Well, it depends.
Did you have a legal duty to act?
Were you a lifeguard, a parent? Or did you like push them in the
water in the first place? So you have to have like a
specific legal duty, not just like a moral 1.
Exactly. OK, now let's get into the mind
of a criminal Mens Rea, the guilty mind.
And this is where the Model Penal Code comes in.
That's got those 4 levels right. Purpose, knowledge,
recklessness, negligence. So it's not enough to just do
the act. The law actually cares about
what you were thinking when you did it.
Totally, and different crimes require different levels of Mens
Rea, like with homicide. If you plan on a murder that
premeditation, that's purpose, right?
First degree murder territory. That makes sense, but what if
you're not trying to kill someone but your actions?
They're just super risky. They could easily lead to death.
That's where knowledge comes in. Let's say you set a building on
fire, knowing people are inside. You may not have wanted them
dead, but you knew it was going to happen.
This is like depraved tart murder.
You got it. OK, let's dial it back a bit.
What about those times when someone's not trying to hurt
anyone, but they're just being really careless?
That's where recklessness and negligence come into play.
Think about like a drunk driver. They're not out to cause harm,
but they're taking a huge risk. And if someone dies because of
that, that's manslaughter. Right, because they were
consciously disregarding that risk.
Then we've got negligence. That's the should have known
better category. More like a reasonable person
would have known better, like leaving a baby unattended in the
bathtub. You're failing to perceive a
risk that any reasonable person would have seen.
So an accident can be a crime if it's the result of negligence.
Absolutely. And that line between
recklessness and negligence, sometimes it gets blurry.
You got to look at the facts of each case.
OK, so we've got the act, the mental state.
What else do we need to prove a crime?
Causation. We need to connect the
defendant's actions to the harm like it's a chain of events and
there are two links, actual cause and proximate cause.
OK, actual cause seems simple enough like, but for the
defendant's actions, the harm wouldn't have.
Happened exactly, but proximate 'cause that's about
foreseeability. Was this harm a likely outcome
of the defendant's actions? So like if you hit someone
directly with a brick causing a head injury, that's pretty
foreseeable, right? Yeah, that's straightforward.
But what if that person startled by the brick jumps back, falls
into a manhole, and dies? The act of throwing the brick is
still the actual cause, but was that kind of freak accident
foreseeable? Proximate cause can get pretty
complicated. It can, and that's where we look
for intervening causes, things that break that chain.
Was there something so unexpected that it really became
the main cause of the harm? So you really have to analyze it
all. You do.
OK, now let's talk about some specific crimes.
What about crimes against the person, like homicide?
That's always a good one. Yeah, feels like every exam has
a murder hypothetical. Homicide is a big topic, right?
You've got everything from first degree murder down to
manslaughter. All right, so murder.
How's that defined? Common law says it's an unlawful
killing of another human being with malice aforethought, but
that doesn't always mean premeditation.
Malice aforethought sounds serious.
What does it actually mean? Well, it could be an intent to
kill, right? But it could also be intending
to cause serious injury, even if you didn't mean for them to die.
So like if you get into a fight you really want to hurt someone
but then they die because of it, that could be murder.
Exactly, and it doesn't even have to be intentional acting
with a depraved heart, just being super reckless and
indifferent to human life. If someone dies, that can be
murder too. Wow.
OK, So what about unintentional killings?
Where do those fit in? That's where we get to
manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter.
That's your classic heat of passion crime.
You're provoked, you lose control, and in that moment, you
kill. So like you catch your spouse
cheating and you just snap? Potentially, but the provocation
has to be something that would make a reasonable person lose
control, and it has to happen right then in the heat of the
moment. No cooling off period.
So no revenge killings 2 weeks later?
Nope, that's premeditation. Now involuntary manslaughter.
That's where negligence comes back, those unintentional
killings because of carelessness or recklessness.
Like the drunk driving example we talked about before.
Yep, or our daycare worker who left the baby in the bathtub.
They didn't mean to kill, but they were so careless that it
led to a death. OK, so we've covered homicide.
What about crimes against property?
There are a lot of tricky distinctions there too.
Oh yeah, we've got larceny, robbery, burglary, arson, all
the classics. OK, so what's the difference
between larceny and robbery? They both involve taking stuff
right? True, but robbery involves force
or the threat of force. Larceny is just taking someone's
property with the intent to keep it.
Think shoplifting. So snatching a person running is
larceny, but holding someone up at gunpoint for their wallet?
That's robbery. You got it.
And the amount of force used matters to like simple mugg
might be second degree robbery but pull out a weapon that bumps
it up to armed robbery much more serious.
Got it. OK, What about burglary?
That's just breaking into a house, right?
Well, at common law it was breaking and entering a dwelling
at night with the intent to commit a felony inside.
So jimmying a window at 2:00 AM to steal ATV?
That's classic burglary. Textbook, but modern laws have
broadened it. Now it can be any structure, not
just houses, and it doesn't have to be at night anymore.
So breaking into a storage unit in broad daylight, that could
still be burglary. Yep, as long as you're entering
unlawfully to commit a crime inside.
OK. And arson.
That's just setting stuff on fire.
Basically the malicious burning of property, but it has to be
intentional or super reckless. Like if you accidentally start a
fire while cooking, that's not usually arson.
So burning down a rivals business or even your own house
for the insurance money, That's arson.
Bingo. And just like burglary, it's
expanded beyond just houses. Lots of states include any
structure, even personal property.
OK, So what happens when someone tries to commit a crime but they
just totally fail? Are they off the hook?
Not necessarily. That's where we get into
inchoate offenses. Those attempted crimes we're
talking about attempt solicitation and conspiracy.
The crime might not be complete, but the intent is there, and
that's what the law cares about. Let's start with attempt.
Sounds pretty straightforward. You try to do something illegal,
but you mess up. It's a bit more than that.
You need the intent to commit the crime and a substantial step
towards doing it. Just thinking about robbing a
bank isn't enough. So if you start casing the
joint, drawing a blueprints, getting a getaway car, those are
substantial steps. Exactly.
You're moving from thinking to actually doing.
And here's the thing, factual impossibility.
It's not a defense for attempt. Factual impossibility?
What's that? Let's say you try to pickpocket
someone, but their pocket is empty.
You still took that substantial step.
You had the intent, so it's attempted larceny.
Doesn't matter that it couldn't actually happen.
Interesting. So what's the difference between
attempt and solicitation? Solicitation is getting someone
else to do your dirty work. You ask, encourage, command them
to commit a crime, and the crime is complete the moment you ask,
even if they say no. So if I pay someone to steal my
neighbor's award-winning poodle, but they refuse, that's still
solicitation. You got it.
Of course, if they do steal the poodle, then it becomes theft
and the solicitation kind of gets absorbed into that.
Got it. OK, last one.
Conspiracy always picture like shadowy figures making secret
deals. It does have that air of
mystery. You need an agreement between
two or more people to commit a crime, plus an overt act in
furtherance of that conspiracy. So just talking about robbing a
bank. Isn't enough, right?
You need action. Buying ski masks, scoping out
the bank, That's an overt act. It shows you're moving from talk
to action. Now, what about liability?
If you're part of the plan, but you don't actually do the
robbery, are you still in trouble?
Good question. Under the Pinkerton rule, you
can be liable for the crimes of your Co conspirators if those
crimes were foreseeable and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
So if they go rogue and rob a jewelry store on the way to the
bank heist, that's probably not on me.
But if they shoot a guard during the bank robbery we planned,
that's different. Exactly.
You're responsible for the foreseeable consequences of the
conspiracy, even if you didn't personally do every bad thing.
Conspiracy is a tricky one. What about accomplices?
Like if I'm the getaway driver, am I just as guilty as the
person who goes in with the gun? Usually, yes, accomplices aid,
abet, encourage assist. They make the crime happen and
they're liable for the foreseeable consequences, just
like with conspiracy. Wow, there's a lot to consider
when it comes to criminal liability.
But what if someone commits a crime but they have a good
excuse? That's where defenses come in.
Not all criminal acts lead to convictions.
Defenses are a huge part of criminal law, and they can make
the difference between guilty and not guilty.
OK, let's talk defenses. What are the main categories we
need to know? We can divide them into capacity
defenses and justification excuse defenses.
And what's the difference? Capacity defenses.
They attack the defendants mental state at the time of the
crime, like because of some mental incapacity they couldn't
form Mens Rhea or understand what they were doing was wrong.
So it's like they weren't in their right mind.
Exactly, the insanity defense is a classic example.
Rarely works in real life, but it's always on the exam.
Right. And with insanity, the defendant
has to prove they didn't know right from wrong.
Well, there are a few different tests.
The Vim not in Rule is about knowing right from wrong.
Then you've got the Irresistible Impulse test and the Model Penal
Code test. So a lot of different ways to
evaluate insanity. Yeah, but it's a high bar to
clear. You got to show that their
mental illness was so severe they couldn't form the Mens
rear. What about age?
Can kids be held criminally liable?
The law recognizes that kids aren't as developed as adults,
right? Common law had different age
categories under 7. No criminal intent 7 to 14.
There was a presumption of incapacity.
Over 14, they were treated as adults.
But now we have the juvenile justice system.
Right. Most cases with minors go to
juvenile courts, which focus on rehabilitation.
But sometimes minors, especially if they commit serious crimes,
can be tried as adults. It's about balancing
accountability with the fact that their brains are still
developing. Exactly.
OK. Another capacity defense
intoxication. Oh so if I get drunk and do some
stupid I could just blame it on the alcohol?
Not quite voluntary intoxication.
It's not usually a good defense. It might matter if the crime
needs a specific intent, like burglary and you were so drunk
you couldn't form that intent. But if I'm blackout drunk and
punch someone, I'm still in trouble.
Absolutely. That's a general intent crime.
Involuntary intoxication though, that's different.
Like if you were drugged without knowing it, that could be a
complete defense. OK.
So capacity defenses are about mental state?
What about those justification excuse defenses?
Those are about the circumstances of the crime.
Like you did something criminal but it was justified or
excusable in that situation. The classic one is self-defense.
So if somebody attacks me, I fight back.
That's self-defense. It could be, but you have to
reasonably believe you were in danger, and the force you use
has to be proportional to the threat.
You can't use deadly force if someone's just shoving you.
What about stand your ground laws?
Don't they change things? They do in some places.
Traditionally, you might have had a duty to retreat before
using force. Run away first.
Yeah, but stand your ground laws say you can use force, even
deadly force, to defend yourself, especially in your own
home. So no more hiding under the bed
if someone breaks in. Depends on the law where you
are, but those laws are controversial.
They can make things more violent.
Definitely a Gray area. What other justification excuse
defenses are there? Duress.
You're forced to commit a crime because of a threat.
Like someone holds a gun to my head and makes me rob a bank.
Exactly. But the threat has to be
serious, immediate, and you have to have no other choice.
Then there's necessity. You break the law to prevent
something worse from happening. I break into a pharmacy to steal
medicine for someone having a severe allergic reaction.
Yeah, the lesser of two evils. And lastly, entrapment.
That's when law enforcement gets you to commit a crime you
wouldn't have done otherwise. So like an undercover cop
pressures me to buy drugs even though I don't want to.
It could be. The question is, were you
predisposed to commit the crime or did the police create that
criminal intent? OK, so we've got the elements of
a crime, some types of crimes, and all these defenses, but what
about the process itself? How does a case actually work
its way through the system? That's criminal procedure, all
about those rules and safeguards, how the government
investigates and prosecutes while still protecting the
rights of the accused. And the Constitution plays a big
role, especially the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments.
All right, constitutional law. Let's breakdown those
amendments. What's so special about the 4th
Amendment? The 4th Amendment is all about
protecting us from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The government can't just barge into our homes or go through our
things without a good reason. They usually need a warrant.
So if the police think I'm running an illegal poker game in
my basement, they can't just breakdown the door and start
taking my chips. Nope.
They need a warrant, and to get that warrant they have to
convince a judge that they have probable cause.
That's more than a hunch. So a tip from a nosy neighbor
won't cut it. Probably not.
They need solid evidence like witness statements, footage, or
maybe even the sound of illegal activity coming from your
basement window. And the warrant needs to be
specific. It can't just be a free for all
search. Wait.
So what if there's like an emergency?
Do the police always need a warrant?
That's where exceptions come in, like hot pursuit.
If they're chasing someone and they run into a house, they
don't have to stop and get a warrant while the person
escapes. So they can follow them in.
Exactly, or if they hear screams from inside a house suggesting
someone's in danger. That's an exigent circumstance.
God act fast, they can go in without a warrant.
What if I just let the police search my house?
Do they still need a warrant then?
That's the consent exception. If you willingly give
permission, they can search, but it has to be real consent, no
coercion. So if they say we just need a
quick peek inside and I say OK, that's consent.
It might be, but they can't go beyond what you agreed to.
OK So what if I have a roommate and they say it's OK to search
but I say no? That gets tricky.
Generally, if someone who has authority over the space
consents, the police can search. But if two people have equal
authority, like roommates, and one says yes and the other says
no, they can't search. So my roommate can't give the
police permission to search my locked bedroom if I'm standing
right there saying no. Exactly, and it gets even more
complicated if the person objecting isn't there.
There are tons of cases on this and the rules vary from place to
place. Wow.
This is complicated. OK, What about cars?
Are they different? Yes, cars are mobile so they
have the automobile exception. If the police have probable
cause to think a car has evidence of a crime, they can
search it without a warrant. So like if they pull me over for
speeding and smell weed they can search my car?
That could give them probable cause, yes, and the search
includes any part of the car where evidence might be, even
the trunked. That seems like a pretty big
exception, more for just walking down the street and a cop stops
me and starts asking questions. Do I have any protection?
You do. Even quick encounters like a
stop and frisk are covered by the 4th amendment, but they
don't need probable cause, just reasonable suspicion.
Basically a reasonable belief that you're involved in criminal
activity. So if I'm walking late at night
and fit the description of a burglar, they can stop and
question me. They could, but they can't stop
you just because of your race or where you are.
And what about frisking? Can they just pat me down
because they stopped me? Only if they think you might be
armed and dangerous. They need specific reasons and
stop and frisk. It's been controversial because
it's been used disproportionately against
people of color. Sounds like the 4th amendment is
all about balancing safety with our rights.
Exactly. It's a tough balance and courts
are always trying to figure out how to apply it in our changing
world. OK, let's move on to the Fifth
Amendment. It's known for protection
against self incrimination. What does that actually mean?
The 5th Amendment says you can't be forced to testify against
yourself. You don't have to help the
government prove their case. So if I'm arrested, I can refuse
to answer any questions. Absolutely.
You have the right to remain silent.
Remember, anything you say can be used against you in court.
And that's not just ATV thing. That's part of the Miranda
warnings. Right.
You have the right to remain silent.
So if the police forget to read me my Miranda rights and I
confess, can they use it against me?
Maybe not. Confessions gotten without
Miranda are usually not allowed in court.
It's like food of the poisonous tree, tainted by the
constitutional violation. So my confession is useless if
they messed up the Miranda warnings.
It might be. There are exceptions, like if it
was truly voluntary or if there's a public safety issue,
like if you say you know where a bomb is.
But Miranda is really important in protecting against coerced
confessions. OK.
And the right to an attorney? What about that?
That's another big part of Miranda.
You have the right to have a lawyer with you during
questioning, and if you can't afford one, they'll appoint more
for you. So if I say I want a lawyer, the
questions have to stop. Yes, we can't try to get you to
change your mind either. No deals, no promises to get you
to talk without your lawyer. It's all about making sure
confessions are real, not forced, and that the police
follow the rules. Right.
OK. Anything else about the 5th
Amendment we should know for the exam?
Well, there's the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Oh right, that means you can't be tried twice for the same
crime after you've been acquitted or convicted.
No second chances for the government.
Not usually. It prevents harassment and
ensures finality in cases. But there are some exceptions,
like if the first trial ended in a mistrial because the jury
couldn't agree, or if the same act violates both state and
federal laws, you could be tried in both courts.
So you could be acquitted of murder in state court, but then
face federal charges for a civil rights violation based on the
same killing. Yes, because it's a different
sovereign. Wow, the 5th Amendment is
serious business. OK, let's talk about the 6th
Amendment. It's about a fair trial.
It is. It outlines a bunch of rights to
guarantee a fair trial. Things like the right to
counsel, the right to a speedy in public trial, the right to
confront witnesses, and the right to an impartial jury.
So it's like a blueprint for how a trial should go.
You could say that it sets the rules make sure the accused has
a real chance to defend themselves.
OK. So the right to counsel, what
does that mean practically? It means you can have a lawyer
at every step from arrest to trial, even appeal, and if you
can't afford, 11 will be appointed for you.
So no one has to go it alone. Right.
The Supreme Court says it's a fundamental right.
And what about the quality of the lawyer?
Does the 6th Amendment guarantee a good one?
It doesn't guarantee the best, but you have the right to
effective assistance of counsel. If your lawyer was so bad that
it messed up your case, you might be able to appeal.
So if they show up drunk or forget to call a key witness,
that's not good. No, that's not good.
But it's hard to prove ineffective assistance of
counsel. Got it.
OK, let's talk about speedy trials.
How speedy is Speedy? There's no magic number.
Courts have to balance things like the complexity of the case,
witnesses and any delay is caused by the defense.
So if I keep asking for more time to prepare, that could
backfire. It could, and you have to
actually object to delays or the court might not see it as a
violation. OK.
So speedy is relative. What about the public trial
guarantee? Does that mean my trial has to
be on TV? No, not necessarily.
It means it's open to the public and the press.
No secret trials. Transparency is key.
OK, what about confronting witnesses?
That's a big one the defendant can cross examine witnesses
against. Them so I get to face my
accusers. You do.
You can challenge their statements, bring up
inconsistencies, even try to discredit them.
It's all about making sure the prosecution's case is solid.
Exactly. Now the right to an impartial
jury, that's another fundamental principle.
You should be judged by a group of your peers, ordinary people
from the community. Makes sense, but how do they
know the jury is actually impartial?
Jury selection. Both sides get to question
potential jurors and challenge anyone they think might be
biased. So what are the types of
challenges? You've got challenges for cause
and peremptory challenges. Break it down for me.
Challenge for cause is when you ask the judge to remove a juror
because they're clearly biased or connected to the case, like
they're related to the victim or they've said they think you're
guilty. They can't be impartial.
Right peremptory challenges are different.
Each side gets to remove a certain number of jurors without
giving a reason. So it's strategic.
Exactly, but you can't discriminate based on race or
gender when using those. OK, so I can't just strike all
the men from the jury? Nope.
The jury's got to be fair. Jury selection is a whole game
in itself. Yeah, OK, so we've got those
constitutional basics down. What about the actual process?
What happens between arrest and trial?
Well, there's a bunch of pretrial stuff that happens.
It usually starts with an initial appearance right after
you're arrested. So first time in court.
Yep, they tell you the charges, your rights and usually set
bail. And you mentioned a grand jury
earlier. When does that happen?
It depends on the state. Some use grand juries to decide
if there's enough evidence to charge you.
Others use preliminary hearings. What's the difference?
A grand jury is a group of citizens.
They meet in secret, hear the prosecution's side, and decide
if there's enough evidence to indict you.
You're not even there. Sounds a little 1 sided.
It is. It's a lower standard of proof
than at trial. So what about a preliminary
hearing? Is that more balanced?
A preliminary hearing is like a mini trial.
The prosecution presents their case, but you can challenge them
and a judge decides if there's enough to go forward.
So I get to fight back a little at this stage.
You. Do OK, So if there's enough
evidence after the grand jury or preliminary hearing, what's
next? We go to trial.
Not yet. You have the arraignment first
where they formally read the charges and you enter your plea.
Guilty or not guilty, right? And if you plead not guilty,
there's still a lot to do before trial.
Discovery is a big part of it. What's Discovery?
That's where both sides exchange information about the case.
No surprises at trial. So I know who's going to testify
against me, what evidence they have.
Exactly. The prosecution has to hand over
all their evidence like police reports, witness statements, lab
results. And what about the defense?
Do we have to give the prosecution our evidence?
You might have to tell them certain things, like if you have
an alibi, but you can't be forced to reveal information
that incriminates you thanks to the Fifth Amendment.
Interesting. OK, so after discovery, are we
finally ready for trial? Almost.
But there's one more thing Plea bargaining.
Plea bargains, they seem a bit, I don't know, secretive, like
justice is being traded. They can be.
It's an agreement between the prosecution and the defense
where the defendant pleads guilty, often to a lesser charge
in exchange for a lighter sentence.
So you avoid the risk of a trial.
Exactly. It can be good for both sides,
but it's controversial because it can pressure people to plead
guilty even if they're innocent. Tough choice.
It is, but plea bargains are super common.
Most cases end with a plea, not a trial.
OK. So initial appearance, grand
jury or preliminary hearing or arraignment, discovery, plea
bargaining, now we're ready for trial.
We are the trials where it all happens, the prosecution
presents their case, the defense challenges it, and we hopefully
find out the truth. That's like a real legal battle.
It can be, and we'll dive into all the details of a trial next
time. Welcome back.
When we left off, we were talking about that speedy trial
guarantee from the 6th Amendment.
Right, to prevent those crazy delays, but how speedy is
speedy? Is there like an actual
deadline? Well, no hard and fast rule.
You know, courts got to balance things.
The complexity of the case witnesses any delays the defense
might cause. So if I keep asking for more
time, those delays could work against me.
They could. You really have to stay on top
of it. You got to object to those
delays, otherwise the court might not see it as a problem.
Speedy is a relative term, I guess.
OK, what about that public trial guarantee?
Does that mean cameras in the courtroom?
Not quite. It means the proceedings are
open to the public and the press.
You know, no secret trials. Got to keep things transparent.
So like those Star Chamber trials, those are out.
Gone. Transparency is key.
Of course there are some limited exceptions, like if a witness
needs protection or there's some super secret information.
Gotcha. OK What about the right to
confront witnesses? What does that actually look
like in practice? Well, it means you get to cross
examine the witnesses who are testifying against you.
You can challenge what they say, point out any inconsistencies,
even try to discredit them. That's how you test the
prosecution's case. So it's not just A1 sided story.
Not at all. You get to see and hear them.
Your lawyer can question them, bring up other evidence to
contradict. Them.
OK, that makes sense. Now.
Last one for the 6th Amendment, the right to an impartial jury.
That one seems pretty clear. Right.
But it's really important. The idea is you're judged by a
group of everyday people from your community.
OK, but how do they make sure the jury is really impartial?
That's where jury selection comes in.
Both sides get to question potential jurors, you know, Ask
them about their backgrounds, experiences, opinions, and then
they can challenge anyone they think might be biased.
Okay, so how does that challenging work?
Well, there are two types of challenges.
Challenges for cause and peremptory challenges.
What's the difference? A challenge for cause is when
you ask the judge to excuse a juror because they're clearly
biased or they're connected to the case somehow.
So like they know the victim or the defendant?
Yeah, or maybe they've publicly said something about the case,
something that shows they can't be fair.
So it's pretty straightforward, you just got to show they can't
be impartial. What about peremptory
challenges? Those are more strategic.
Each side gets a limited number and you don't have to give a
reason. Oh, interesting.
So you could use those to get rid of jurors you think might
not favor your side you. Could, but there are limits.
You can't discriminate based on race or gender.
OK, so no striking all men from the jury just because I think
they'll be tougher. Nope, can't do that.
Jury selection is all about making sure the jury is fair and
representative, a real balancing act.
So we've talked about the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, but
what happens between getting arrested and actually going to
trial? That's where pretrial procedures
come in. It usually starts with an
initial appearance, happens soon after the arrest.
First time in court, right? Exactly.
The judge tells you the charges, explains your rights, might set
bail. OK.
And you mentioned grand juries. Where do those fit in?
Depends on the state. Some use them to decide if
there's enough evidence to officially charge you, while
others use preliminary hearings. OK, so what's difference?
The grand jury is a group of citizens.
They meet privately, only hear the prosecution side, and they
decide whether to issue an indictment.
So no defense, just the prosecution laying out their
case. Right.
And the standard of proof is lower than at a trial.
What about preliminary hearings? Are those different?
Those are more like a mini trial open to the public.
The prosecution presents evidence, but the defendant can
challenge them, cross examine witnesses.
The judge decides whether there's enough evidence to move
forward. So the defense gets a chance to
push back a bit. Exactly.
They can challenge evidence, try to show the prosecution doesn't
have a strong case. So after the grand jury or
preliminary hearing, if there's enough evidence, what then?
Then you have the arraignment, they officially read the charges
and you enter your plea. Guilty or not guilty?
And if you plead not guilty, that's when we go to trial.
Not so fast. We're not there yet.
There's still discovery. Discovery.
What's that all about? That's where both sides share
information about the case. You know all the evidence.
So no one surprised at trial. Ideally not.
It's all about fairness, making sure everyone can prepare.
No trial by ambush. So the prosecution has to turn
over everything they have. Yeah, police reports, witness
statements, lab results, everything.
What about the defense? Do we have to give the
prosecution all our evidence to? Maybe some things, like if
you're planning to use an alibi, but you have more limited
obligations than the prosecution thanks to that Fifth Amendment
protection against self incrimination.
Right. Can't be forced to give them
evidence that helps them convict me.
Makes sense. So discovery's done.
Are we ready for trial? Almost one more crucial step
Plea bargaining. Plea bargains, they always seem
a little, I don't know, underhanded, like backroom
deals. Not real justice.
They can be controversial. It's basically an agreement
where the defendant pleads guilty, sometimes to a less
serious charge, and in exchange they get a lighter sentence.
So it's a way to avoid a trial and maybe get a better outcome.
It can be, but you know, they can also be problematic.
Some people feel pressured to plead guilty even if they didn't
do it, because they're afraid of what might happen at trial.
So it's a risk calculation. Kind of, yeah.
But they're really common, in most cases actually, to get
resolved through plea bargains, not trials.
Wow, that's a lot to think about.
So we've got the initial appearance, the grand jury or
the preliminary hearing, then the arraignment, discovery, plea
bargaining. Now we're finally ready for
trial. Now we're talking.
Trial is where it all comes together.
The prosecution makes their case, the defense challenges it.
It's. Like a legal showdown.
Exactly, and it all starts with opening statements.
So each side gets to preview their case, tell the jury what
to expect. Right, The prosecution goes
first. They lay out their theory, how
they're going to prove their case.
Remember, they have the burden of proof.
They have to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Hi, Barr. So what about the defense?
What do we do during our opening?
Well, you try to poke holes in the prosecution's case,
highlight anything that's weak or inconsistent.
Maybe you point out that some witnesses aren't reliable, or
there's another explanation for the evidence.
So it's like setting the stage for our side of the story.
Exactly. Open statements are your chance
to make a good first impression on the jury.
You know, frame the narrative in a way that helps your case.
OK, openings are done. What happens next?
Now it's Showtime. The prosecution starts
presenting their case in chief. They call witnesses, bring in
evidence. So they might have eyewitnesses,
fingerprints, weapons, maybe even some experts to explain the
technical stuff. Yep, they use everything they've
got to try and prove their case. And what's the defense doing
during all this? Just taking notes.
Not at all. You get to cross examine each
witness they call, challenge their statements, point out
contradictions, maybe even try to make them look unreliable.
So it gets pretty heated. It can.
Cross examination is your chance to really test their case,
create some doubt in the minds of the jurors.
Makes sense. So the prosecution's done
presenting their case. What happens then?
Then it's the defense's turn. You present your case, call your
witnesses, present your evidence, anything that helps
your client. So we might call alibi
witnesses, character witnesses, maybe our own experts to
challenge their evidence. Exactly your strategy really
depends on the case and what holes you've poked in the
prosecution's story. Do we have to present anything
at all? Can't we just say the
prosecution didn't true their case so we're done?
You can absolutely do that. Remember, the defendant is
always presumed innocent and the burden of proof is on the
prosecution. They have to prove it.
You don't. You can present evidence, but
you don't have to. OK, so both sides have presented
their case. What's next?
We're getting close to the finish line, closing arguments.
This is each side's chance to sum everything up, make their
final pitch to the jury. The prosecution goes first.
They remind the jury of all their evidence, argue that it
proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
And then the defense gets a chance to try to counter that.
Right. You point out the weaknesses in
their case. Raise those doubts.
Remind the jury that your client is innocent until proven guilty.
It's the last chance to sway the jury.
Exactly after that, the jury goes into deliberations.
So they get sent off to decide the defendant's fate behind
closed doors, Yeah. The judge gives them
instructions, explains the law, the charges, the burden of
proof, all that, and then they're sequestered.
They can't talk to anyone outside the jury, no outside
influences. What are they doing in there all
day? Just arguing.
Well, they should be carefully going over all the evidence,
talking about the testimony, the arguments.
They have to come to a unanimous decision.
Unanimous, so every single juror has to agree.
In most criminal cases, yes. If even one disagrees, that's a
hung jury and you have a mistrial.
And what happens then? Do they just let the defendant
go? No, the prosecution gets to
decide if they want to try again with a new jury or just drop the
charges. So a hung jury doesn't guarantee
a win for the defendant. Not necessarily.
It just means Round 2 is a possibility.
Jury deliberations. They can be unpredictable,
that's for sure. It all comes down to those 12
people. A lot of pressure.
Well, we're about out of time for this part of the deep dive.
Looks like we'll have to continue this discussion next
time, pick up with what happens after the verdict all.
Right. Welcome back.
Last time we left our jury hard at work trying to reach a
verdict. Lots of pressure.
It is right that verdict, guilty or not guilty, well, that sets
everything in motion. So let's say they've come back,
got their verdict. What happens next?
Walk me through it. OK, so everyone's on edge,
right? Judge reads the verdict and if
it's not guilty, that's it. Case closed.
Defendant goes free, double jeopardy kicks in.
They can't be tried for that crime again.
No matter what. Even if some new evidence pops
up later, they're in the clear. Big win for the defense, but
what about when the verdict is guilty?
What's the next step? Well, things get a bit heavier,
then it's time for sentencing and that can get pretty
complicated. Because not every crime has like
a set punishment. Right sentencing involves a lot
of judgement calls by the judge. They look at the crime itself,
the defendant's history, aggravating or mitigating
factors, how the victim was impacted.
So you could have two people who commit the same crime but they
get totally different sentences. Absolutely.
Think about two people convicted of robbery, a first timer
struggling financially, really sorry for what they did.
The other has a long rap sheet, violent history, no remorse.
Yeah, I can see how those sentences would be different,
but there are some limits on what a judge can do, right?
Definitely. The 8th Amendment protects
against cruel and unusual punishment.
It can't be excessive. You know the punishment should
fit the crime. So no life sentence for stealing
a candy bar. Not going to fly, but judges do
have options. There is prison, of course, but
also probation where the defendant supervised has to
follow certain rules. Like check in with a probation
officer, drug testing, community service, that kind of thing.
Yep, and judges can get creative.
You know, fines, restitution, maybe mandatory counseling,
right? What about those mandatory
minimums we hear about? Doesn't that take away some of
that judicial discretion? It does because mandatory
minimums are set sentences for certain crimes, usually drug
offenses or if a gun was involved.
They're controversial because they tie the judges hands.
So even if the judge thinks a shorter sentence is fair, they
have to impose the minimum. Sometimes, yeah.
It's one of the things that's led to our mass incarceration
problem. And of course, there's the death
penalty. Capital punishment.
That's a whole other level reserved for the worst crimes,
right? Usually murder with some
aggravating circumstances. Yeah, highly controversial and
the process is way more intense. Lots of safeguards, automatic
appeals, high burden of proof. Very serious stuff.
OK, so let's say the sentence is handed down.
Is that the end of the road? Not always.
The American system has ways to challenge a conviction or
sentence, even after trial. It's called post conviction
relief. So you can still fight back.
You can. There are appeals and habeas
corpus petitions. We've talked about those a bit,
but maybe we could go into more detail.
What's the difference between an appeal and habeas corpus?
An appeal is a direct challenge to the conviction or sentence.
Usually focus on something that went wrong during the trial
itself. You're basically saying, hey,
there was a mistake. Like the jury got bad
instructions or some evidence shouldn't have been allowed.
Exactly. The appellate court looks the
whole trial record, the transcript, the evidence, to see
if any errors might have affected the outcome.
So if my lawyer totally messed up or the judge made a bad call,
that could be grounds for an appeal.
It could be, yeah, but they're not retrying the case from
scratch. They're looking for significant
errors that likely change the result.
OK, I get that appeals are about fixing mistakes from the trial.
What about habeas corpus? Habeas corpus is different.
It's more about challenging whether you're being held
legally at all. It's about saying, hey, my
constitutional rights were violated.
Even if you were found guilty, maybe there's near evidence or
some issue wasn't addressed at trial.
So it's like a final check to make sure no one's being locked
up unfairly. You could say that it lets you
go outside the trial court and ask a different court to take a
look, like if you had ineffective assistance of
counsel or the prosecution hit evidence, or there's new DNA
evidence that changes everything.
So it could be a powerful tool for people who feel like they've
been wronged. It can.
It's about making sure justice is truly served, you know, And
that wraps up our deep dive into criminal law and procedure.
We've covered a lot of ground. We have, from the elements of a
crime to defenses, all the way through trial and beyond, lots
to think about. It's a complicated system, but
fascinating, right? Hopefully this gives you a good
foundation for your studies and maybe even inspire some of you
to become criminal lawyers. It's been great having you on
the show, breaking it all down for us.
Thanks for having me, it's been fun.
And to our listeners, thanks for tuning in.
Until next time, stay sharp.