Derivative use bars prosecution from using evidence derived from testimony against declarant. To meet constitutional requirements, a death penalty statute must not preclude consideration of relevant mitigating factors.
At federal level, person has a 6th Amendment right to an attorney in all criminal felony cases, Due process right to appointed counsel at state expense incorporated to states only when failure would be "offensive to the common and fundamental ideas of fairness.". Then the burden is on the defendant to show prosecutor is full of ... bologna. The holding in this case enhanced the court's 1963 ruling in Gideon v. https://ballotpedia.org/Argersinger_v._Hamlin. Whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial has been violated requires applying a balancing test in which the conduct of the prosecution and the conduct of the defendant are weighed and the court considers (1) the length of the delay, (2) the government's reason for the delay, (3) whether and how the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial, and (4) whether the defendant was prejudiced by the delay. The admission of a defendant's confession incriminating a co-defendant violates the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. Severance is required where defenses are mutually antagonistic. Gideon v. Wainwright made the right to counsel provided in the Sixth Amendment applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argersinger_v._Hamlin. An indigent defendant by the name of Jon Argersinger, was tried for violating the law. In an 8-1 ruling, the Court held that a criminal defendant's initial appearance before a judge marks the beginning of the proceedings against him and triggers the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel whether or not a prosecutor is aware of or involved in that appearance.
A criminal defendant who testifies at trial may be impeached by his pre-arrest, pre-Miranda warning silence without violating the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Prejudice occurs when cases are joined (1) where a defendant becomes embarrassed or confounded in presenting separate defenses (latent hostility), (2) where the jury may use evidence of one of the crimes charged to infer a criminal disposition on the part of the defendant from which it is then assumed that he must be guilty of the other crime, or (3) the jury may cumulate the evidence of the various crimes charged and find guilt when, if the cases had been considered separately, it would not have so found. It violates a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights when a co-defendant's confession is admitted at their joint trial, even if the jury receives a limiting instruction that the confession cannot be used against the defendant. It is a violation of the Fifth Amendment for the prosecution to comment on the defendant's silence or for the trial judge to instruct the jury that the defendant's silence can be evidence of guilt.
No right to appointed counsel at parole and probation hearings. Usually "high degree of necessity" when prosecution has a defect in its case, justifying higher scrutiny.
State grants of immunity also include federal grant of same level of immunity. If you add charges in pre-verdict phase, we presume the prosecution is not vindictive. The Sixth Amendment does not entitle a criminal defendant to a jury trial on petty offenses, even when conviction on multiple petty offenses could result in a sentence greater than six months in prison. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right to a jury trial in all state criminal cases—were they to be tried in federal court—would be eligible for trial by jury under the Sixth Amendment. The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments demand that venires, panels and lists from which petit juries are drawn represent a fair cross section of the community. No right to assistance of counsel in grand jury trial or administrative investigatory proceeding. A private litigant in a civil case may not use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on account of their race because the exercise of peremptory challenges invokes state action.
Massey does not mean that acquittal was the only proper verdict.
An eight and one-half years delay between indictment and arrest due to the government's negligence violates the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. Under the Due Process Clause, the prosecution must turn over evidence favorable to the defense upon request if the evidence is material to either culpability or punishment. The Confrontation Clause generally requires the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing testimonial certification through the in-court testimony of the scientist who certified the report or observed the test. A defendant is entitled to a new trial under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1964), if the prosecution withheld multiple pieces of favorable evidence that, taken together, undermine confidence in the verdict. If not, the conviction must be reversed. Use and derivative use immunity overcome claim to Fifth Amendment privilege.
2d 24 (2000) Lineups Preliminary Examination Bail Prosecution Indictment The Right to a Speedy Trial Plea-Bargaining Sentence Collateral Attack Ethics Evidence Family Law Because mandatory minimum sentences increase the penalty for a crime, any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an "element" of the crime that must be submitted to the jury. Lab reports that are not formal are nontestimonial.
Prosecution must offer a race-neutral explanation. Under Brady, the prosecution's failure to turn over favorable evidence only requires a new trial if a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different if the evidence was turned over.
The Sixth Amendment's requirement of effective assistance of counsel requires an attorney to provide accurate advice concerning the potential deportation consequences of a noncitizen defendant's guilty plea to a crime. https://legaldictionary.net/argersinger-v-hamlin/. and course by Todd Berger. A state law that causes a group of people in the community to be underrepresented in the jury-selection process by allowing automatic exemption from service for that group violates a defendant's right to a trial by a jury that is a fair cross-section of the community. Supreme.justia.comArgersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) Argersinger v. Hamlin. There are certain instances where it will not be presumed: (1) trial before a second jury, (2) a different trial judge, or (3) if it's the result of different trial. "The moving finger writes, and having written, moves on.".
"Manifest necessity" for granting a mistrial means that different standards are appropriate for mistrials granted for different reasons. Only the three factors specified in the statute can be considered in mitigation of the defendant's sentence, and once it is determined that none of those factors is present, the statute mandates the death sentence. The Double Jeopardy Clause only prohibits retrying a defendant after the defendant requested a mistrial if the prosecutor intended to pressure the defendant into seeking the mistrial.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to a trial by jury for all "serious" offenses that require imprisonment for more than six months. A defendant charged with violating a statute that prohibits certain conduct from occurring during and in relation to a crime of violence may be prosecuted in any district where the underlying crime of violence occurred. Cannot systematically exclude women. Baldwin v. New York/Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas. Jury of twelve is not required. "[A] capital defendant accused of an interracial crime is entitled to have prospective jurors informed of the race of the victim and questioned on the issue of racial bias.". Quimbee.comGet Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Legaldictionary.netArgersinger v. Hamlin Case Brief. If it could have been grounded on some other claim, though, the judgment is too ambiguous to invoke collateral estoppel. If two offenses require proof of an additional fact which the other does not, they do not comprise the same offense. Acceleration doctrine (defense disclosure of alibi witnesses) is constitutional, but it's a two-way street. Where the legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishment under two statutes, regardless of whether those two statutes proscribe the "same" conduct under Blockburger, the Double Jeopardy Clause is not violated if the defendant is charged and convicted of both crimes in a single trial.