), and even circumstances surrounding the purported crime. These individual differences allow the Judge to exercise some level of interpretation regarding the case (Samaha, 2008
The idea is that any issue, statement or evidence illegally obtained is "fruit of the poisoned" tree and denies Constitutional protections. The Defense of Entrapment rule allows the Court to dismiss a case against defendants who commit crimes because they were encouraged or enticed to commit them by law enforcement officers (Samaha, 2008, pp
Consequently, distinguishing the legitimately mental ill from those who are feigning represents a vital element in the initial adjudication of these cases, but the amount of time that should be allowed to make this determination remains unclear. The need for an informed and evidence-based approach to diagnosing mental illness as part of the criminal justice process is also well documented because the adverse economic and social consequences of incarcerating these individuals transcends their effects on the mentally ill alone, but rather extend to the entire larger population in which prisons are funded and administered (Larrabee, 2005)
From the perspective of Justice Brennan, the fairness of a trial may be threatened in pro-se cases as a result of defendants' mental state, an issue recently addressed in Indiana v Edwards USSC No 7-208 (19 June 2008). In this case, the "defendant's uncertain mental state [and] a defendant's lack of capacity threatens an improper conviction or sentence [and] undercuts the most basic of the Constitution's criminal law objectives, providing a fair trial" (Mathias, 2008, para
' Thus, the protections in the Sixth Amendment are designed to ensure not only a fair trial, but also the appearance of a fair trial. Further, ensuring that a defendant is competent to stand trial serves the purpose of having a fair trial" (Willis, 2010, p
¶ … Criminal Procedure In the United States, criminal justice is governed by the Constitution which provides fundamental principles and civil rights that must be protected in any criminal prosecution of individuals by the state. American criminal procedure outlines very specific requirements that police must satisfy in initiating criminal investigations, conducting those investigations, detaining subjects of investigations, securing authorization to conduct searches, executing arrests for past crimes, and for interrogating arrestees in police custody (Dershowitz, 2002; Schmalleger, 2008)
Police may enter private property to pursue criminals in flight, to investigate crimes they observe, or to protect life and limb in emergency situations. However, where police investigations involve crimes already committed, they are limited in their investigative and arrest authority to the Fourth Amendment constitutional requirement to obtain a search warrant by first presenting evidence sufficient to establish probable cause to a judge or magistrate authorizing their search for specific evidence of particular crimes or an arrest warrant granting them the lawful authority to execute arrests for crimes not observed by police first hand (Schmalleger, 2008)
Constitutional Rights and Civil Procedure in Modern American Policing: In modern American policing, it is essential to understand criminal procedure because of the fundamental distinction between police authority to investigate past crimes. Whereas police have the authority to initiate criminal investigations of any crimes they observe first hand and to take action to apprehend violators in the process of committing crimes, that authority is substantially different with respect to past crimes not witnessed by police first hand (Zalman, 2008)
This however becomes different when the use of informants in the current systems comes up since these informants are not always in the court for cross examination. On the matter of physical evidence, the current systems of justice always need the accuser to produce evidence and often protect the accused from self-incrimination (Cornell University law School, 2015)
Board of Education case. This case, among others of the same nature, had unanimous decisions (Acker & Brody, 2013)
Arizona. He used principles that were viewed by many as intuitive, political, and not legal in a conventional and technical sense (Hensley, 2006)
He had a pragmatic view of the law, something he used in influencing the Supreme Court. He made the court accept the idea of using the law as a weapon of accessing fairness and equity (Wilson, 2012)