Question One: Criminal Process
The American criminal justice system is wrought with legalese intended to ensure that due process is followed. Indeed, the criminal justice is informed by Constitutional provisions whose underpinnings are that an accused may only be convicted if and when proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. An accused begins to interact with the criminal justice system at the point of arrest . An arrest due process ensues by virtue of the celebrated Miranda rules. By the Miranda rules, an accused on arrest must be informed of the reason why he or she is being arrested, his or her right to remain silent, his or her right to a defense counsel, among other mandatory rights. The accused is then led to record a statement at the sheriff whereupon he or she is either remanded or let out on bail pending trial. Again the spirit of bail is in securing due process to the extent that an accused may not be unnecessarily remanded unless reasonable reasons suffice for his or her custody.
An accused should then be arraigned in court where criminal proceedings are pressed against him or her by the prosecutor or district attorney. In the court, the accused is given a right to defend oneself, defense which he or she alludes through witnessed and exhibits available. Usually, the common thread in the American law is that an accused need not prove his or her innocence. In fact, an accused is innocent until proven guilty. Instead, it is the prosecution that proves the guilt of the accused. This guilt is proved in two limbs, the mental guilt and the actus reas. The latter is to the extent that the accused committed the offence through his or her act or omission and the former is that the accused had the mental intention to commit the said offence . The burden lies on the prosecutor and the standard of proof is that of beyond reasonable doubts. However, it is noteworthy to note that due process equally affords the accused the right to silence and enjoyment of this right may not be construed in anyway as an admission to the offence.
The trier of fact in the criminal justice system could be a judge, a panel of judges or the jury. Often, the trier of fact makes final submission as to the criminal culpability of the accused and their decision is final and conclusive only subject to appeals at a superior court. Due process allows for appeals on matters of law and not matters of fact . Therefore, an accused can press an appeal on the basis that the trier of fact erred in the interpretation of the law in relation to facts.
It is essential to appreciate the character of the trial process which is deliberately tilted in favor of an accused. First, the accused is entitled to a defense attorney of which if he or she cannot afford, would be provided by the state. Secondly, the accused is afforded a chance to plea and may change one`s plea midway as long as trial as not come to an end. Thirdly, the burden of proof lies on the prosecutor and the accused may as well employ a strategy of non-cooperation and remain silent. However, where evidence overwhelmingly points to criminal culpability of an accused, the accused would be put to his evidence and the evidential burden shifted to him to discharge, failure to discharge this evidential burden occasions a conviction of guilty upon which the accused is sentenced. This marks the transition from the judicial department to the corrections department.
Question Two
- Weeks v United States
The Weeks case entails the exclusionary rules of admissibility of evidence that is illegally acquired. In 1914, Fremont Weeks was arrested in the state of Missouri. Officers without a search warrant entered his premises and confiscated implicating articles which were handed over to the United States Marshall . The Supreme Court in its ruling held that a warrantless search in private premises was a violation of the Fourth Amendment Constitutional rights and categorized the evidence as illegally acquired and hence inadmissible. The case shaped the terrain of the criminal justice system in that it secured the privacy rights requiring for officers to conduct searches only under warrants.
- Mapp v Ohio
The Mapp case occurred in 1957 in Cleveland, Ohio. Mapp initially denied police officers access to her house without a warrant for purposes of searching for a suspected bombing fugitive and some betting equipment. However, the police officers returned later and forced themselves in conducting the search without a warrant. The police did not find the suspect nor any bombing equipment but found pornographic material which they confiscated and founded a successful prosecution of Mapp.In the Supreme Court, the question was whether the jurisprudence brought out in Weeks v United States was limited to federal courts only. The court in its 1961 decision expounded the application of the Fourth Amendment rights to state courts and thus held that Weeks case was good law which was binding on the state courts as well.
The two cases are illustrative for purposes of understanding stare decisis concept in that courts would rely on the decisions arrived at previously for cases with similar or related facts.
Reference
Herring, J. (2011). Criminal Law. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
