Law Enforcement Professionals - Book Report/Review Example

Book review and case briefs The book criminal procedure: Law and practice, is packed with illustrations from real-world scenarios faced by current law enforcement professionals. It gives authoritative and practical look at the most recent guidelines in criminal procedures. The text is comprehensive and accurate and does not bother the reader with unnecessary details. It includes advanced coverage of the law on searches and seizures, arrests, use of force, vehicle stops, line-ups, and interrogations. Del Carmen discusses current subjects of racial profiling, plea bargaining, DNA evidence, and a lot more that any reader should know. Long known for its significance to law enforcement, the book features interesting sample police forms, case briefs, hypothetical cases, and covers the most current Supreme Court rulings (Carmen, 2009). This eighth edition has maintained its standard strengths while also including suggested revisions. The first chapter of the book discusses the court cases, court system, and rights sources (Carmen, 2009). Knowledge of criminal procedure begins when one understands how the federal and state courts are structured and how they operate since the product of police work is developed in these courts. The courts review all the police actions, which establish whether police behavior was illegal or legal. The chapter also informs the reader on the US constitution and other rights sources that set boundaries in the work of the police. Chapter 2 presents a summary of the criminal justice procedure. This overview makes it familiar to the defendants of who have been apprehended by officers who enforce the law. This makes the officers realize the rights guaranteed to those who come in contact with the law enforcements. With little knowledge of constitutional rights in a trial, the police simply see the front end of their tasks rather than how their work is completed by the court and the prosecutor and how suspects’ rights are protected at that phase of the criminal justice procedure. Court cases Court cases, especially those decided by the Supreme Court are vital because they make up the case law and set a guideline for cases decided by low courts in the entire country. Court cases can be published by private publishers or by official government sources. Case briefs help in understanding them. The primary elements of briefing a court case are Case title, Citation, Year decided, Facts, Issue, Court decision, and holding/ruling (Carmen, 2009). County of Riverside v McLaughlin 500 U.S.444 Case Title: County of Riverside V. McLaughlin Citation: 500 U.S. 44 Year Decided: 1991 Facts: It was a Class Act brought under 42 U.S.1983 confronting the way in which Riverside County in California (D) provided possible cause determinations to people arrested without a warrant. D merged cause determinations with its allegation procedures. Accusations must be conducted with no delays, and in any occurrences, within two days of arrest, though the two days should be excluded from computation holidays and weekends. Issue: Must a possible cause determination be timely and not immediate? To satisfy Gerstein’s timelines requirement, must a rule mat choose to merge possible cause determination with other proceedings do so immediately as reasonably practically, but no event beyond 48 hours following the arrest? Rule of Law: A possible cause determination must be timely and not necessarily immediate. The fourth amendment permits a logical postponement of a possible cause determination. Batson v Kentucky 479 U.S.79 Case Title: Batson v Kentucky Citation: 476 U.S. 79 Year Decided: 1986 Facts: The petitioner was a black American male who was found guilty of burglary. His adjudicators at trial were totally white, and he petitioned basing on jury selection. The evidence showed that the judge discharged various jurors for legal purposes. In selecting a jury, an opposing attorney may use a dictatorial challenge, which was used in this prosecution (Carmen, 2009). It could dismiss any juror for basing on any reason-for six times and dismiss the rest of the remaining black jurors. The petitioner asserted that this violated the equal protection article of the constitution Issue: Did the dismissal of black jurors a violation of the equal protection clause of the US constitution? Holding: Yes, appellate verdict overruled. The court decided that in order to determine a prima facie case of jury prejudice, intentional discrimination ought not to be shown. North Carolina v Alford 400. U.S. 25 Case Title: North Carolina v Alford Citation: 400 U.S.25 Year decided: 1970 Facts: Appellee faced the death sentence for first-degree murder, admitted a guilty-plea for murder, as he maintained his innocence. Court of appeal established that the plea was unwillingly based on his fear of the death (Carmen, 2009). Issue: Should a guilty plea based on the fear of the death sentence be accepted when it is followed by protestations of innocence? Ruling: A person accused of crime may willingly and knowingly sanction to the imposition of a prison verdict even if he is unable or unwilling to confess his participation in actions constituting the crime. Brady v Maryland 373 U.S.83 Case Tile: Brady v Maryland Citation: 373 U.S.83 Year Decided: 1963 Fact: Brady, who was the defendant and Boblit were suspected of killing. Brady was the first to be tried. Prior to trial, Brady’s attorney requested to review Boblit’s statement. However, the prosecutor withheld the testimonial in which Bolbit admitted to the actual murder. During trial, Brady admitted his involvement in the action but asserted to have no role in murdering the victim. Brady had no idea of the prosecutor’s suppression of Bolbit’s testimonial until after sentencing. Issue: Was the containment of the evidence a violation of the Due Process? Court Decision: Brady was found guilty of killing the victim and he was sentenced to death. Ruling: The court of appeal ruled that the prosecutor’s suppression defied the Due Process Clause. Stogner v California 000 U.S. 01-1757 Case Title: Stogner v California Citation: 000 U.S.01-1757 Year Decided: 2003 Fact: A California grant jury accused Marion Stogner in 1998 with sex-related child abuse actions that were committed between 1955 and 1973. In 1993, California enacted a new criminal law of limitations regulating sex-linked child abuse crime. Stogner filed an appeal to dismiss the abuse accusation basing on the Ex post Facto article of the US constitution (Carmen, 2009). Issue: Does the Ex Post Facto Clause prevent the application of California’s retroactive expansion of the laws of limitations for sexual offences placed against minors? Decision: Five votes for Stogner, with four against Ruling: Yes. With the 5-4 opinion, the court held that a law passed after expiration of a previously appropriate limitations period defies the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is allowed to renew an earlier time-barred prosecution. Ewing v California 000 U.S. 01-6978 Case Title: Ewing v California Citation: 000 U.S. 01-6978 Year Decided: 2003 Fact: Gary Ewing, the defendant, was on parole from a prison term of nine years. He stole three golf clubs and was thus apprehended and charged with grand theft. He had a long criminal history with serious convictions. After convicted with the charge, the jury rejected Ewing’s appeal to reduce the grand theft conviction to a crime and to dismiss most of his other earlier convictions in order to avoid being judged under California law. Under the “three strikes and you are out” law, if the defendant has more than two serious felony convictions, he must serve 25 years in life imprisonment (Carmen, 2009). Consequently, Ewing was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Issue: Did the sentence violate the Eighth amendment? Decision: Ewing appealed and the court confirmed the sentence and the conviction Duncan v Louisiana 391 US 145 Case Title: Duncan v Louisiana Citation: 391 US 145 Year: 1968 Fact: The appellant, Gary Duncan was accused of a misdemeanor; a simple battery, in a Louisiana court. In its law, Louisiana Jury trials are not allowed in misdemeanor cases. Gary claimed the state’s rejection of trial by the judge violated US constitution. Issue: Does a law of state grant a jury trial particularly in cases where the sentence is capital punishment or imprisonment with hard labor defy the constitution? Ruling: The Fourteenth Amendment of the US constitution certifies a right of trial by jury in all illegal cases. Reference Carmen, R. (2009). Criminal procedure: Law practice, 8th Ed. New York, NY: Wardsworth Publishing. Read More