Criminal Law Consulting
​For Writers & Filmmakers
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
  • Resources
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Free eBook

Death Penalty Phases of Trial

8/21/2017

2 Comments

 
In states that permit the death penalty, there are often two separate phases of the trial—the guilt phase and the penalty phase.  Murder is the only crime for which someone may be sentenced to death.  A murder that is eligible for the death penalty is called a capital murder. Often, there must be certain “special circumstances” that make a particular murder eligible for the death penalty.

Guilt Phase Trial

Picture
The first part of a capital trial is the guilt phase.  In the guilt phase, the jury (or judge) determines whether the defendant is guilty of the charged crimes.  The only question the jury may consider is whether the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the charged crimes.  The jury is not permitted to consider the possible sentence in the guilt phase.

If the defendant is found guilty of a crime that leaves him eligible for the death penalty, then there is a penalty phase of trial. 

Penalty Phase Trial

During the penalty phase, the jury often hears additional evidence to help it make a decision about whether the death penalty should be imposed. 

Different, more relaxed, rules of evidence apply during the penalty phase.  The prosecution typically presents aggravating evidence.  Aggravating evidence is that which suggests that death is the appropriate penalty. 

The defense attorney typically presents mitigating evidence.  Mitigating evidence is that which suggests the defendant does not deserve to be sentenced to death.
Factors that a jury might consider in deciding whether to impose the death penalty include:
  • The circumstances of the crime
  • The defendant’s mental and emotional state at the time of the crime
  • Whether the defendant was legally insane or intoxicated at the time of the crime
  • Whether the defendant believed the crime to be morally justified
  • The defendant’s age and level of participation in the crime
  • Prior felony convictions
  • Other violent crimes committed by the defendant, whether he was convicted or not
  • The victim’s role or participation in the murder
  • Victim impact evidence (the impact of the murder on the victim’s family and friends)
  • Any other extenuating circumstances
Picture
In California, the only two sentencing options available at the penalty phase are death or life without the possibility of parole.  Life without the possibility of parole is often called LWOP (pronounce el-wop).  A defendant sentenced to LWOP will spend the rest of his life in prison (unless his conviction is overturned).  It is considered a true life sentence.

2 Comments

Self-Defense vs Imperfect Self-Defense:  What's the Difference?

2/27/2015

6 Comments

 
Picture
Most people understand the basic concept of self-defense.  If someone is attacking you, you get to defend yourself.  You generally cannot be charged or convicted of a crime for protecting yourself. 

If someone attacks you with deadly force, you can use deadly force in response.  If someone attacks you with non-deadly force, you can only use non-deadly force to defend yourself.  If you go beyond the amount of force necessary to defend yourself, you can be charged with a crime.  Also, if you start a fight with the intent to later use deadly force, you cannot then claim self-defense.

This is called reasonable self-defense or complete self-defense or perfect self-defense, and it is a complete defense to a crime.  If you kill in self-defense, that is a justifiable homicide - the killing was justified by the victim's deadly attack of you.

So, what is imperfect self-defense?  Imperfect self-defense is when you kill in what you honestly believe is the need to protect yourself with deadly force, but your belief is unreasonable.  In that case, you can be convicted of voluntary manslaughter, not murder.  But because your belief in the need for self-defense was unreasonable, this is not a complete defense, like reasonable self-defense. 

An example of imperfect self-defense would be if someone pointed a bright blue water gun at you, and you honestly believed it was a real gun and that the person was about to shoot you.  If you killed that person in response, your belief in the need for self-defense would have been honest but unreasonable.  Because your belief was unreasonable, you would be guilty of voluntary manslaughter under a theory of imperfect self-defense.

If, however, the person's toy gun was a realistic-looking toy, your belief would probably be considered reasonable, and your action in killing that person would be justified as self-defense. 

Of course, there could be other circumstances - such as who the other person was, how they were acting, or how dark it was - that might make your belief in either of these scenarios more or less reasonable.

For more on this topic, check out my article on the difference between murder and manslaughter.

Also, make sure to sign up for your FREE Writer's Guide revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama. 

6 Comments

What Is an Alibi Defense?

9/10/2012

1 Comment

 
A common question that is asked is what is an alibi defense?  An alibi defense is a classic example of a type of defense called failure of proof defenses.

The easy explanation of an alibi defense is that the defendant claims he was somewhere else when the crime occurred.  To assert this defense in court, the defendant must generally bring forward some proof - a receipt, time-stamped photos, credit card charges, or a witness who saw the defendant.  The stronger the evidence that supports the alibi, the more likely such a defense will be successful.

Once the defendant has asserted an alibi defense and put on some evidence of it, the burden shifts back to the prosecution to prove the defendant was the person who committed the crime and was in the place where the crime was committed. 

Of course, it is the prosecution's burden of proof to begin with to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the person who committed the crime.  However, if the defendant puts on some alibi evidence and the prosecution is unable to rebut it, the defendant may be entitled to an acquittal (a finding of not guilty).

There is of course a big difference between the defendant's mom or wife testifying that he was with her the entire night (the most common alibi evidence), and a security camera capturing the defendant's image miles from the crime scene at the time the crime took place.

I once had a case where the defendant's wife had a long explanation about how she knew the defendant was with her the night of the robbery because they had signed loan documents that night, which were dated.  However, it later turned out the robbery occurred the night after the loan documents were signed.  The wife still testified her husband was with her that night, but after the passage of over a year, she was unable to bring forward any more specific proof.  He was convicted of the robbery.

Get a free eBook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama. 

Also, get a free printable and portable Miranda Card, detailing the Miranda rights as read by the police.
1 Comment

When Is a Defendant Considered Legally Insane?

5/17/2012

1 Comment

 
What is required to prove a criminal defendant is legally insane?  Each state has its own laws and rules about its legal definition of insanity, but there are some general concepts that can be used to understand what it means to be legally insane.  It is important to note that the insanity defense is rarely used and has even been abolished in some states.

Insanity is generally considered an "excuse" to committing a crime.  An excuse defense is where, even though the defendant engaged in criminal conduct, he is excused from legal responsibility because of some condition in the defendant.  

Insanity is also considered to be an "affirmative defense."  An affirmative defense is one in which the defendant must affirmatively assert the defense and produce some evidence supporting it.  For some affirmative defenses in some states, the defendant also has the burden of proving the defense is true.  

Defendants are generally presumed to be sane, so a prosecutor does not need to prove the defendant was sane unless the defendant puts his sanity into question.  Once it is put into question, either the prosecution must prove the defendant was sane beyond a reasonable doubt or the defendant must prove he was insane by a preponderance of the evidence.

In some states the defendant must enter a special plea, such as not guilty by reason of insanity. Some states have a separate sanity phase where the jury determines the defendant's sanity after it has decided he committed the charged crime.

The focus of determining a defendant's sanity is his mental condition at the time of the crime.  (This is one way the test for insanity is different than the test for competence to stand trial.  For a discussion of the differences between sanity and competency, check out this prior post.)

To be found insane, the defendant must show that he suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time he committed the crime.  Generally, the mental disease or defect may be permanent or temporary.

The M'Naghten Test

The defendant's mental condition must satisfy the legal standard for insanity.  The M'Naghten test is traditionally the most commonly used  test to determine insanity.  Under the M'Naghten test, a person is considered legally insane if: 

1.  at the time of the crime
2.  he suffered from a defect of reason that resulted in him either
     a.  not knowing the nature and quality of the act he performed, or
     b.  not knowing his act was wrong.

A defendant knows the nature of his act if he knows what act he is performing.  He knows the quality of his act if he understands the consequences that flow from his act.

For example, a woman is charged with murdering her baby by drowning.  To prove she was legally insane, she must prove that because of a defect of reason, she either did not know she was holding her baby's head underwater, or did not know that holding the baby's head underwater would result in him drowning.

Alternately, the defendant can show she did not know that her act was wrong.  The term "wrong" in this context may mean either legally wrong or morally wrong, depending on the state.

In the above example, if the woman knew she was holding her baby's head underwater and understood this would cause the baby to drown, but she believed she must do so to rid him of the devil, she would assert that she did not know her act was wrong.  This would be an example of a moral wrong.

Insane Delusions

If someone suffers from delusions because of a defect of reason, they may be able to assert the insanity defense, depending on the nature of the delusion.  If the delusion was to a fact that, if true, would have justified the defendant's acts, he could assert the insanity defense.  If, however, the delusion was to a fact that, if true, would not have justified the defendant's acts, he may not be considered insane.

For example, the defendant was delusional and believed the victim was holding a gun when in fact e was holding a pen.  The victim pointed the pen at the defendant, who believed he was about to be shot.  The defendant pulled out a gun and shot the victim.  The defendant could assert the insanity defense because, had the victim really pointed a gun at him, he would have been justified in shooting the victim in self-defense.

However, if the defendant's delusion was that the victim tricked him out of his money, and he shot the victim in revenge, he would not be considered legally insane because, even if his belief was true, tricking someone out of their money does not justify shooting them.

Irresistible Impulse Test

The irresistible impulse test is sometimes used in conjunction with the M'Naghten test.  Under this test, the defendant must have a defect of the mind that makes it impossible for him to control his actions.

It is not sufficient to meet this test if someone is overcome by anger, jealousy, or other strong emotions.  (Such passion may be sufficient to reduce a killing from murder to voluntary manslaughter, but it cannot be a complete defense.)

Model Penal Code Test

Another test for insanity is set out by the Model Penal Code.  Under this test a person is considered insane if, because of a mental disease or defect, the person did not have the capacity to:
1.  understand the criminality or wrongfulness of his conduct, or 
2.  to conform his conduct to the law.

This is sometimes called the "policeman at the elbow test."  In other words, if the person would have committed the act even if there had been a police officer at her elbow watching her, she is considered unable to have understood the wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the law.

A defendant's sanity may be proven by either medical professionals or by lay (non-expert) witnesses.  Lay witnesses may testify about the defendant's behavior around the time of the crime to help the jury determine whether the defendant was sane or insane at the time of the crime.

To understand the differences between insanity and competency to stand trial, click here.

Claim your free E-book on The Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.
1 Comment

Understanding the Criminal Justice System: 6 Stages to Guide You

3/14/2012

9 Comments

 
When you are in the criminal justice system or you are writing about the criminal justice system, it is helpful to know what stage of the process you are in.  Different things happen at different stages, and you should know where you are at any given time.

I have broken down the criminal justice system into 6 basic stages.  I will give a brief synopsis of each stage here.  I will go into each stage in greater detail in future posts.

1.  Crime Stage - This is where the crime occurs.  Crimes may be instantaneous, like a shooting, or may be ongoing, like a sophisticated ponzi scheme.

2.  Investigation Stage - This can occur simultaneously with an ongoing crime.  In most cases, the investigation phase happens after the crime has been committed.  An arrest usually happens during either the investigation phase or charging stage.

3.  Charging Stage - After an investigation is complete, a prosecutor must decide whether to bring charges, who to charge, and what crimes to charge.  This is an important step because it turns a suspect into a formally charged defendant and triggers certain constitutional rights.

4.  Pre-Trial Stage - Once a defendant is charged, the pre-trial stage begins.  The defense attorney will review the prosecution's evidence and may bring motions, such as a motion to dismiss or a motion to suppress evidence.  Witnesses are interviewed and prepared for trial.

5.  Trial Stage - This is where the fun happens.  Most trials are in front of juries, although a judge can hear trials too.  It's up to the defendant.  The prosecution has the burden of proof and will try to introduce evidence to prove the defendant guilty.  The defense need not introduce any evidence.

6.  Post-Trial Stage - After a defendant has been convicted at trial, there are a slew of things that can happen.  Sentencing happens in every case.  The defendant may also bring a new trial motion.  The defendant can appeal, file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, or petition for clemency or a pardon.

Each of these phases has its own unique challenges, goals, rules, and rights.  I will develop each in more detail in future posts. 

A fictional crime story may take place in one, some, or all of these stages.  Whichever stages your story takes place in, it's critical to understand the rules and purposes of those stages.  I hope you will find this to be a helpful guide on your journey.

In the meantime, make sure to sign up for the FREE eBook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.
9 Comments

What Is an Adoptive Admission (Hearsay Exception)?

3/1/2012

6 Comments

 
Generally, a defendant's or witness's out of court statements are not admissible to prove their truth in court.  This is the hearsay rule.  There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule, however, including an adoptive admission.

An adoptive admission is generally where the defendant, knowing the content of an accusation against him, adopts the truth of the accusation by his words or conduct.

This often comes up when the police plant someone in a jail cell with or next to the suspect.  The cellmate will ask the suspect questions about the crime.  The suspect may simply agree with the cellmate or may boast about his crimes. 

For example, let's say the defendant makes a statement, "Yeah, man, that guy didn't know who he was messing with."  That statement is admissible by itslef as an admission. But it becomes much more powerful as an adoptive admission when it is coupled with the cellmate's question, "You shot the guy because of the way he looked at you?"

Sometimes a defendant can adopt an accusation by his silence.  If someone is accused of a crime under circumstances where he could hear, understand, and reply to the accusation, and he does not respond, both the accusation and his response (or lack thereof) may be admitted in court.  The prosecutor can argue from this that the defendant admitted the crime.

Similarly, if the defendant responds to an accusation in a way that is evasive or equivocal, that can be admitted in court.

The factors to look for to determine if silence can be admitted as an adoptive admission include:
1.   whether the accusation was made in the defendant's presence;
2.  whether the defendant heard and understood the accusation;
3.  whether, in the circumstances, the defendant naturally would have denied the accusation; and
4.  whether the defendant could deny but didn't.

The idea behind an adoptive admission by silence is that most people, if falsely accused of a crime, would immediately deny it.  When someone does not deny it, that is an indication that the person has a guilty conscience.  A person's own words, or under these circumstances, their lack of words, can be powerful evidence against the defendant.

On an important note, if there is an indication that the defendant's silence was based on him invoking his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment, his silence cannot be used against him. 

For interesting criminal law concepts sent to your inbox, join the Criminal Law Community.
6 Comments

Legal Definition: What is the Corpus Delicti of a Crime?

2/7/2012

6 Comments

 
Corpus delicti is a latin phrase, which literally means, "body of crime."  In law, it is the principle that there must be evidence that a crime actually occurred before someone can be convicted of the crime.

The issue of a corpus delicti comes up when there is a confession to a crime.  If someone confesses to a crime, that person cannot simply be arrested and charged for that crime.  The police must first determine whether the crime actually occured.  (You might think this is a strange scenario, but people falsely confess all the time!)

Most states have a rule that a defendant's confession, standing alone, is not enough to prove him or her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  In fact, the defendant's statement may not even be admissible in court until the prosecution has first presented some other evidence that the crime occurred.  This is called corroborating evidence.

As an example, let's say someone walks in to the police station and confesses that he killed a prostitute ten years ago.  Based on the person's description of the crime (exactly when, where and how it occurred), the police would have to check old reports.  They would check if there were any prostitutes killed in the time, place and manner described. 

Or, if the body was never found, the police would have to look through missing person's reports from that time and place.  The confessing person may need to lead police to where the body was hidden or dumped or otherwise disposed of.  Although it is sometimes possible to convict someone of murder with no dead body, as discussed in a prior post, in a case like this, a body would almost certainly be needed.

For more interesting criminal law facts, news, and information, as well as special giveaways and promotions, delievered to your email, join the Criminal Law Community!
6 Comments

Your Character Is Going to Court - Now What?

2/1/2012

1 Comment

 
Many writers who are not lawyers may be intimidated by courts and the law.  They may stray from writing stories or scenes that take them into the courtroom. 

I wrote an article with some easy tips to help overcome any fears or doubts about writing legal drama.  Check out What to Do When Your Character Goes to Court.

For more great tips, sign up for your free Writer's Guide:  Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.
1 Comment

What Does It Mean to "Plead the Fifth?"

1/30/2012

4 Comments

 
We hear about this all the time.  Someone is accused of a crime or suspected of a crime or charged with a crime.  They are brought into court or before Congress or into a grand jury.  They refuse to answer questions, invoking the Fifth Amendment. 

This can be called, pleading the Fifth, taking the Fifth, or invoking the Fifth.  It may also be called invoking you right to remain silent.  The witness can use any of these phrases, or they can say, "I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me."  If the witness is worried about public perception, they may also insert the phrase, "On the advice of my lawyer..."

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

What this means is that the government has to build a case against you, using evidence that does not come from your mouth.  Of course, you can waive this right and talk to the police, and give them a bunch of evidence to use against you if you want.  And many, many people do exactly that.  But you have a constitutional right not to do so if you don't want to.

Get more information like this sent to your inbox by joining the Criminal Law Community.
4 Comments

Objection Sustained or Objection Overruled! What Does It Mean?

1/20/2012

104 Comments

 
Picture
I remember before law school watching legal television shows or movies.  When an attorney would object at trial, the judge would rule, either "sustained," or "overruled."  I had to really concentrate and think it through to figure out what the ruling meant.  Now, it's second-nature to me.  

Here's a quick guide for those who aren't in court everyday:
Sustained:  When an objection is sustained, the judge has determined that is a valid objection.  That means the question was improper under the rules of evidence.  The witness may not answer the question.  (If the witness answers anyway, that answer may be "stricken.") 

An easy way to remember this is Sustained = Stop, as in the witness must stop and not answer the lawyer's prior question.

Overruled:  When an objection is overruled, the judge has determined the objection is invalid.  The question may stand.  The witness must then answer the question.

A shorthand way to remember this is Overruled = Ongoing, as in the witness may continue as if the objection never occurred.  Hope this helps!

For more information about some of the differences between the way things happen in fictionalized legal proceedings and in real life, get my free Writer's Guide:  Top 7 Mistakes Made By Writers of Mystery, Crime and Legal Drama.
104 Comments
<<Previous
    Get your FREE E-Book revealing The Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama:
    Send My Free E-Book!

    Author

    Blythe Leszkay is a successful and experienced criminal attorney, criminal law professor, and consultant to writers and filmmakers.  See About Me.  This blog is intended to answer common criminal law questions, dispel misconceptions, and explain misunderstood criminal law concepts.  It is also a place to discuss any crime or law related topics of interest.  Contact me for a free initial consultation on your film or writing project.

    Categories

    All
    Appeals
    Burden Of Proof
    Celebrity Crime
    Common Questions
    Constitution
    Consulting Services
    Courtroom
    Crime In The News
    Crime Novels
    Crime Tv
    Death Penalty
    Defenses
    Evidence
    Extortion
    Hate Crimes
    International Crime
    Juvenile Crime
    Legal Comedy
    Legal Definitions
    Legal Drama
    Manslaughter
    Movies
    Murder
    Search And Seizure
    Serial Killers
    Sex Crimes
    Supreme Court
    Trial
    True Crime
    Writing Tips

    RSS Feed

      Get Email Updates

    Join!
    Loading
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.