criminal
- Chapter 1- Two Special Aspects of Constitutional Law
- What is Punishment: 1-I Smith v. Doe , Kansas v. Hendricks, Allen v. Illinois , ex post and double jeopardy issues
-
- Incorporation 1-IIA Duncan V. Louisiana, McDonald v. City of Chicago
- Retroactivity 1-IIB , ramos edwards Harlan Approach, Teague v. Lane, , The Teague Rule and Habeas, Lockhart v. Fretwell ,collateral review
- Chapter 2. Searches and Seizures of Persons and Things
- intro 2-I border, citizenship limits: U.S. V. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), Hernandez v. Mesa (2020)
- Threshold Requirements for Fourth Amendment Protections: What 2-II what is a search, Katz V. U.S.; Trespass Analysis Jones V. U.S.; privacy exceptions
- TheTension Between the Reasonableness and the Warrant Clauses 2-III, IV the warrant requirement, Johnson V. U.S., Spinelli V. U.S.
- Obtaining a Search Warrant: Constitutional Prerequisites
- Demonstrating Probable Cause
- Probable Cause, Specificity and Reasonableness 2-III, IV probable cause= Maryland v. Pringle, Florida v. Harris, , Andresen v. Maryland, United States v. Strand, Shadwick v. Tampa
- To Apply or Not Apply the Warrant Clause 193
- Arrests in Public and in the Home 2-V-1 United States v. Watson , Graham v. ConnorGerstein v. Pugh , Payton v. New York , Steagald v. United States , Minnesota v. Carter Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd
- Stop and Frisk
- terry v. ohio , 2-V when seizure? , leaving the car, PA V. MInns; passengers MD V. Wilson, home MI V. Summers, Mendenhall ‘free to leave’ test, bus sweeps, ‘ state of mind: Brower road block; not submitted: Hodari D.
- reasonable suspicion , Tips: Alabama v. White, Adams v. Williams, Florida v. JL; Quantum : United States v. Cortez; probabilities: United States v. Arvizu ; profiles: United States v. Berry, US V. Beck.
- limited searches and detnentions , Terry protective search: Adams V. Williams, not evidence Minnesota v. Dickerson 5, places Michigan v. Long ; limited dentionss Florida v. Royer, time limits United States v. Sharpe
…
- Search Incident to Arrest: The Arrest Power Rule
- Pretextual Stops and Arrests
- Plain View and Plain Touch Seizures
- Automobiles and Other Movable Objects
- Exigent Circumstances
- Administrative Searches and Other Searches and Seizures
- Consent Searches(and Credibility)
- Electronic Surveillance, Undercover Activity, and the Outer Reaches
- Remedies for Fourth Amendment Violations exclusion remedies , Wolf v. Colorado , Mapp v. Ohio ; civil Hudson v. Michigan; exceptions: United States v. Leon, Messerschmidt v. Millender , Rakas v. Illinois, Brown v. Illinois, New York v. Harris, tone v. Powell; materality: US v. Campbell; suppression : Simmons v. United States, habeas: Stone v. Powell.
- Chapter 3. Self-Incrimination and Confessions ……………………………… 64 7
-
- The Privilege Against Compelled Self-Incrimination ………………………. 647
- Confessions and Due Process ………………………………………………………… 712
- Fifth Amendment Limitations on Confessions ………………………………… 732
3-III-Miranda and exceptions habeas: Withrow v. Williams,, overruling Congress: Dickerson v. United States, , impeachment:L Harris v. New York,, 2 step Missouri v. Seibert, physical fruits: United States v. Patane,, public safety: New York v. Quarles,; defining custody, interrogations; ineffective assistane of counsel: Berghuis v. Thompkins , Knowles v. Mirzayance, requesting a lawyer: Edwards v. Arizona, Maryland v. Shatzer.
- Confessions and the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel .. ………………. 850
-
- Chapter 4. Identifying Suspects ………………………………………………………. 883 Perry v. New Hampshire
- Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………. 883
- The Judicial Response …………………………………………………………………… 886
- Chapter 5. The Right to Counsel. …………………………………………………….. 925 wex
================
adjudication: outline and notes
- Chapter 13- post conviction appeals and habeas
- sufficiency Ch. 13-1United States v. Lincoln, ,U.S. v. Ramirez, judgement of acquittal: United States v. Mariani,, Rule 29, Carlisle v. United States ; Rational Trier of Fact Test: Jackson v. Virginia; 2 layers: Habeas Review: Coleman v. Johnson and Parker v. Matthews; general verdicts: Griffin v. United States.
- rules and errors reversible?Abuse of Discretion, Reversible Error, Harmless Error, Plain Error, Structural Error, Rule 48. Dismissal, Rule 47. Motions and Supporting Affidavits, Rule 29. Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal, Rule 26.3 Mistrial, Rule 12. Pleadings and Pretrial Motions, Rule 16. Discovery and Inspection, Beyond Brady, suppression motions, civil failure to state a claim.
- standards for appellate review error?new trial, US V.Martinez, cited in US v. ama, Dist. Court; procedural abuuse of discretion, substantial evidence rule, mixed law fact, clearly erroneous findings of fact, law de novo, levels of scrutiny,; District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, constiutional error Chapman v. California, and harmless? Sullivan v. Louisiana, and preservation United States v. Lane,, plain and harmless; United States v. Olano, United States v. Flores, and Apprendi; Preservation Rules,
- colletaral attack-fed habeas error?retroactivity US v. Reese , due process Harlan dissent Poe v. Ullman, , precluding coram nobis, Lowery v. US; 28 U.S. Code § 2241 – Power to grant writ, Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Certificate of Appealability, waiver on appeal Reed v. Farley,, fundamental defect; late ripening claims, Panetti v. Quarterman, Schuster v. Espinoza, successive writs, Benchoff v. Colleran, quitable Gateways: Toward Expanded Federal Habeas Corpus Review of (2019); Martinez v. Ryan, IATC-IAC,Trevino v. Thaler,
- tx mandamus prison inmates error?TWO-PRONG STANDARD FOR MANDAMUS, Walker v. Packer, In re Prudential Ins. Co. of America, No Interlocutory criminal Ex parte Smith, fails eg In re Flanigan,ec.
- ex parte nailor- IATC and habeas error?defining ineffective assistance and maeraility