Policy and procedure directives are meant to ensure that all actions taken in every institution of the criminal justice system abides not only to the federal constitution, but also to ethics and human rights. Therefore, when policies and procedures are being drafted, their main foundation is the constitution. However, as history has shown, things are not always direct in the criminal justice system. An action taken in criminal justice system such a jail and that seemingly abides by the constitution may later be interpreted as an infringement on the constitutional right of the defendant. Such is the case of Carter vs. State where after being convicted by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for first-degree murder, the appellate court overturned the decision and called for a new trial. Carter had been accused of murder and was being transferred from the Baltimore City Central Booking facility to a jail cell in Maryland Supermax (Carter v. State of Maryland, 2003). It was in the course of this process that a Central Booking officer discovered incriminating evidence during a search of his cell. The materials were forwarded to the detective in charge of the case and they would later prove to be key in the conviction of the client as a motion to suppress them filed by the defendant was denied by the circuit court (Carter v. State of Maryland, 2003).
The case of Jack Jones appears to follow the same trajectory. Perhaps, it would first be wise to assess whether the policy and procedure were fully and properly applied in the situation. Jack Jones was confined at the Adelphi County Jail in Maryland while awaiting trial for the murder of an elderly couple. Jones was suspected to have murdered them and disposed their remains at a nearby industrial park although the remains had not been found. Incriminating evidence against him was found during a random search by the jail personnel who were looking for evidence to incriminate his cell mate, Joe Johnson, who was suspected of selling contraband cigarettes. The evidence found against Jones was a crude drawing that seemed to indicate the industrial park and indeed the particular section of the part where Jones had buried the remains of his victim.
The Adelphi County Jail has a very clear Policy and Procedure Directive when it comes to inmate cell searches. In this case, the procedure and policy seem to have been followed to the wire. First, a random search has to be approved by the shift commander and in this case, this approval was given. Secondly, the search could only be conducted when an inmate was suspected of harboring contraband and as mentioned earlier, this was what prompted the search in the first place where Johnson was suspected of selling contraband (cigarettes). In addition, other stipulations such as the removal of the inmate from the cell, the inspection of the beddings, appliances, clothing, footwear, and even commissary products to ensure that they were not being used to harbor contraband were all done. The contraband that was being searched for (cigarettes) was found. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Policy and Procedure Directive on inmate searches were contravened.
In fact, the small piece of paper that seemed to contain the incriminating evidence against Jones was only found accidently as the person conducting the search was looking through a box containing books and papers and it was only the stand out letter “X” that made the made the individual think about the paper twice.
In nutshell, it is accurate to postulate the search conducted on Jack Jones and Joe Johnson cell fully abided by the Adelphi County Jail Policy and Procedure directive.
As explained in the case description, the incriminating evidence against Jack Jones was used in court during his trial, and this led to his conviction on the charges of first-degree murder.
Comparing the appellate decision made in the case of Deon Christopher Carter v. State of Maryland, it emerges that this decision pertains to this situation by a huge margin. As mentioned earlier, the appellate court overturned the conviction of the accused whose part of the evidence used against him included personal material collected from his jail cell. This is the same in Jones’ case.
In making its decision, the appellate court derived a lot from the United States constitution, particularly the Sixth Amendment. The Sixth amendment lays out clear guidelines when it comes to criminal defense. This includes rights on things such as attorney, speedy trial, an impartial jury, knowledge of accusers as well as adequate information on the charges and evidence against a person (Green, 1992). It is the latter aspect that the appellate decision was based on. In making the judgment, the court argued that there was no persuasion beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence collected on the jail search did not influence the guilty verdict advanced against the defendant. The sixth amendment prohibits the use or admissibility of evidence derived from attorney-client privilege (Green, 1992). However, it should be understood that this does not mean that incriminating evidence found against an individual accidentally or during a particular search process not focused on finding the specific evidence should be ignored.
In Carter v. State of Maryland (2003), the court acknowledged that no violation of the Fourth amendment occurs when a government agent discovers and subsequently examines a document prepared by a person who has been incarcerated at the request of his attorney. However, a violation of the Sixth Amendment occurs when this document is utilized for beneficial purposes (Carter v. State of Maryland, 2003). Therefore, when the exhibits were admitted to the court, there was a violation of the Sixth Amendment. However, as the appellate court ruled, in spite of the fact that the trial judge might have erred in overruling the objection by the appetent about the use of the exhibits under question, the ruling was nevertheless harmless (Carter v. State of Maryland, 2003). It was however, the influence of the material over the guilty verdict that prompted the court to rule in favor of the defendant.
In the case of Jones, the situation is similar. It appears that prior to the discovery of the evidence in the random search in his cell, the prosecution did not have any substantial evidence that might have convicted him. However, as it stated in the case description, the material found in Jones’ room was used in his court trial led to his conviction.
If Jones were to make an appeal, the appellate court would most likely rule using the same precedence used in the Carter case. Once again, no law was broken because the Procedure and Policy directive was followed to the wire. In addition, the Sixth Amendment is not infringed when individuals conducting a search accidentally come across material belonging to the suspect and scrutinize it (Green, 1992). However, there could be an argument that the Sixth Amendment was broken when the material was forwarded to the Attorney’s office.
As soon as the search party came cross the evidence scrutinized and realized that it was not related to the cause of the search, he should have not taken further action at the moment. The legal process would have been to ask for another search authorization so that the material could then be legally acquired and consequently be admissible.
The Fourth Amendment holds that material obtained from a suspect’s residence without such warrant illegally is inadmissible in court. This includes information or evidence that is unrelated to the search exercise (Sklansky, 2000). If a search party comes across such evidence, acting on it would entails infringement of the constitution unless another search warrant or approval is gotten (Sklansky, 2000). All these facts would act in favor of Jones in a court of appeal. In addition, just like in Carter’s case, the evidence obtained under these unclear circumstances led to his conviction, and this could be a major decider in the case. If the material was found to have positively influenced the guilty verdict just like in Carter’s case, the court could order a retrial.
Finally, given the appellate court decision, the Adelphi County Jail should maybe review its policy and procedure directive on inmate searches. The particular aspects that should be reviewed regards the definition of the search process. Usually, the purpose of a search is to look for a particular contraband. Given the decision of the appellate court, the policy and procedure directive should be changed to state that any other contraband different than what was initially listed in the search application should not be seized during that time. The officers should seek approval for a second search after which the found contraband can be taken and forwarded to the relevant authorities.
In conclusion, it is clear that the administration of criminal justice is a very tricky process. Although there are various laws and policies that guide the actions of the agents in this field, there are still some actions that need to be interpreted and clarified by the court. In the case of Carter and Jack Jones, their circumstances are nearly the same that is, evidence acquired accidentally and subsequently admitted in court led to their convictions. Since Carter’s conviction was overturned, the same should be done in Jones’ case.
References
Deon Christopher Carter v. State of Maryland, No. 2396. (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland 2003).
Green, B. A. (1992). Lethal Fiction: The Meaning of" Counsel" in the Sixth Amendment. Iowa L. Rev., 78, 433.
Sklansky, D. A. (2000). The fourth amendment and common law. Columbia Law Review, 1739-1814.
