Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> THINGS THAT THE CJ DEPARTMENT SAYS, AT
LEAST AS COME THROUGH MY STUDENTS, AND THAT
IS PRIMARILY BECAUSE I AM RIGHT AND THEY ARE
WRONG. SO MOVING ON, I GUESS THAT WASN'T THAT
FUNNY, EITHER. WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT
THESE THINGS TODAY WITH THE FOCUS MORE ON
BUSINESS THAN JUST CRIMINAL LAW IN GENERAL.
WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE ELEMENTS OR THINGS YOU
NEED FOR A CRIME, BROAD CATEGORIES OF CRIME
AND FOCUS IN ON WHITE COLLAR CRIME, NOT
CRIMES COMMITTED BY THE CLERGY,WHITE COLLAR,
GET IT? (LAUGHING) YOU ARE RIGHT IT IS NOT
FUNNY WHEN I RECORD IT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT
IS. MAYBE IT IS A TECHNICAL ISSUE. YOU CAN'T
HEAR IT IN THE RECORDING, BUT THEY ARE ALL
LAUGHING HYSTERICALLY. DEFENSES THAT COULD BE
RAISED. REMEMBER THERE ARE DEFENSES IN TORTS
IN CHAPTER 4. NOW WE WILL TALK ABOUT DEFENSES
TO CRIMES. GO BACK EVEN FURTHER TO THE FIRST
WEEK OF CLASS AND TALK ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL
SAFEGUARDS AND KIND OF WALK YOU THROUGH A
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. THIS IS IMPORTANT, THIS
SLIDE RIGHT HERE. IF YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE A
REPORT IN YOUR BOOK OR WRITE ON ANY OF YOUR
SLIDES OR MAKE A NOTE ON YOUR LAPTOP,
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE LAST CHAPTER TORTS
AND CRIMINAL LAW, A LOT OF THAT IS ON THIS
SLIDE. NOTICE TORTS IS ONE TYPE OF CIVIL LAW
BUT NOT THE ONLY TYPE OF CIVIL LAW. THE FIRST
DISTINCTION IS WHO THE PARTIES ARE. WE TALKED
A LITTLE ABOUT THIS BEFORE. IN CIVIL LAW IT
IS YOU VERSUS ME, PLAINTIFF VERSUS DEFENDANT.
IN A CRIMINAL CASE THE VICTIM IS NOT A
PARTY. IT IS THE STATE, THE PEOPLE, IS THE
PLAINTIFF.THE DEFENDANT IS STILL THE
DEFENDANT. WHAT THEY ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT
IS DIFFERENT UNDER WRONGFUL ACT. CIVIL RIGHT
IS ABOUT PROTECTING PEOPLE FROM HARM TO THEIR
PERSON OR THEIR PROPERTY. CRIMINAL IS PRETTY
MUCH STATUTORY LAW. THIS IS A STATUTE YOU
CAN'T VIOLATE, AND IF YOU DO YOU MAY BE
PROSECUTED FOR IT. BURDEN OF PROOF IS A BIG
ONE. I PROBABLY MENTIONED OJ IN HERE BEFORE,
THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FIRST AND THE
PROSECUTOR HAS TO ESTABLISH BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT HE DID IT, AND THEN LATER
THE TORT ACTION FOR THE WRONG DEATH, AND IN
THAT CASE THE JURY FOUND BY A PREPONDERANCE
OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE DID IT. SO NOTICE THE
DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE THAT IS
NEEDED. CIVIL BURDEN OF PROOF IS A
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, MEANING MORE
LIKELY THAN NOT. SOMETIMES PEOPLE SAY 51
PERCENT. I DON'T LIKE THE PERCENT-O-METER. I
DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WORKS. YOU CAN HOLD IT UP
AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AND GOES 51 AND THEN
THE OTHER SIDE GETS TO WIN. THE NEXT ONE IS A
VERDICT. IN A JURY TRIAL IN A CIVIL TRIAL
USUALLY A MAJORITY, THREE-QUARTER MAJORITY.
ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE ALMOST ALWAYS UNANIMOUS,
WHICH IS GOOD FOR YOU. IF YOU WERE CHARGED
WITH A CRIME AND SOMEONE IS TRYING TO DECIDE
YOUR GUILT OR INNOCENCE, YOU WOULDN'T WANT
THEM TO SAY MOST OF US THINK HE OR SHE IS
GUILTY. YES? >> IF THERE IS A HUNG JURY DO
THEY HAVE TO RETRY THE WHOLE THING? >> IT
DEPENDS. YOU SAID HAVE TO RETRY. OFTEN THERE
IS A DECISION BY THE PEOPLE OR PROSECUTOR AS
TO WHETHER IT IS WORTH THE TIME AND EFFORT
AND EXPENSE TO DO IT. AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF
ACTUALLY NOT DOING IT AGAIN, IF YOU ARE GOING
TO KEEP IN A LOOP AND IT IS A TYPE OF CASE
THEY WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO DECIDE. REMEDY. SO
IN A CIVIL CASE DAMAGES MAY BE EQUITABLE
RELIEF, BUT THE WHOLE IDEA IS TO COMMUNIST
THE INDIVIDUAL FOR HARM VERSUS A CRIMINAL
CASE IS ALL ABOUT PUNISHING. THE EXAMPLE I
WAS USING LAST CLASS IS I SAW A LOT OF CASES
AS A PROSECUTOR WHERE ANGRY BOYFRIEND BUSTS
DOWN APARTMENT DOOR, CHARGED WITH MALICIOUS
DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY. LATER GIRLFRIEND
COMES IN AND SAYS WE ARE BACK IN LOVE, AND I
WANT TO DROP THE CHARGES. YOU REMEMBER THE
WHOLE THING ABOUT IS IT REALLY THE VICTIM WHO
IS BRINGING THE CHARGES? NO. THE OTHER
EXTREME WAS THE GIRLFRIEND WOULD SAY WHEN HE
WAS IN THERE HE TOOK THIS, THIS, AND THIS, AND
THAT IS MINE. THE POLICE SAY IT IS UNCLEAR,
SO WE DIDN'T AUTHORIZE LARCENY. WELL, HE TOOK
IT, I CAN PROVE IT'S MINE, AND I WANT MONEY
FOR IT. WELL, LOOKING UP THERE AND THE
DIFFERENT GOALS OF THE TWO, IT WAS NOT OUR
GOAL TO TRY TO GET HER DAMAGE, OR HIM,
WHICHEVER THE CASE MIGHT BE, FOR WHATEVER WAS
TAKEN OUT OF THE APARTMENT. WE ARE PRIMARILY
FOCUSED ON KEEPING HIM FROM RUNNING AROUND
AND BREAKING DOWN PEOPLE'S DOORS. DOES THAT
MAKE SENSE? THERE ARE DIFFERENT INTERESTS
BEING PROTECTED. CIVIL VERSUS CRIMINAL LAW IN
KIND OF THE SAME ACTION. I MENTIONED OJ AS AN
EXAMPLE. HERE IS A PERSON ATTACKING JOE AS HE
IS WALKING DOWN THE STREET. I DON'T KNOW IF
YOU NOTICED THIS MORNING,BUT ON BLACKBOARD
THERE WAS AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT
SOMEBODY WHO WAS ASSAULTED. I DIDN'T NOTICE.
I JUST LOG IN AND GO PAST THOSE TYPE OF
THINGS, BUT SOMEBODY SAID DID YOU SEE THE
NOTICE SO I LOGGED OUT TO LOOK AT IT. BUT
SOMEBODY WAS APPARENTLY WALKING NEARBY HERE,
AND SOMEONE TRIED TO GRAB THEM, AND THEY
BROKE FREE AND GOT TO THEIR CAR. THAT IS JUST
A REMINDER OF YOUR PERSONAL SAFETY, TO NOT
WALK ALONE. IT WAS FRIDAY NIGHT AROUND NINE P.M.
SO LET'S SAY THAT HAPPENS. THERE COULD BE
A TORT AND THERE COULD BE A CRIME. SO ON THE
RIGHT SIDE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE
ASSAILANT --EVEN THOUGH THEY DIDN'T,
ACCORDING TO THE REPORT, DO SOMETHING HARMFUL
TO THE PERSON, THEY DID ASSAULT, RIGHT, FROM
WHAT WAS DESCRIBED, AT LEAST. IF THE PERSON
WAS CAUGHT AND PROSECUTED, IN THE END THAT
WOULD BE SOME KIND OF ORDER REGARDING FINES
OR IMPRISONMENT OR SOME OTHER KIND OF
PUNISHMENT OR TREATMENT. AND ON THE LEFT IT
WOULD BE THE PERSON WHO IS ASSAILED VERSUS
THE DEFENDANT IN A CIVIL SUIT, AND IT WOULD BE
ABOUT INJURIES THAT RESULTED FROM THAT.
YEAH. >> FOR PROSTITUTION, THEY SAY IT IS A
CRIME, BUT A DRUNK DRIVER HIT SOMEONE AND THE
PERSON HAS TO PAY, WHO MAKES THAT
DECISION? >> THERE IS A LITTLE OF AN
OVERLAP. I AM SAYING PROSECUTOR'S PRIMARY
ROLE ISN'T TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE
VICTIM, BUT THERE ARE SOME CASES WHERE THE
COURT ORDERS RESTITUTION AS PART OF SOMEONE'S
SENTENCE. THAT IS STATUTORY AUTHORITY,
WHOEVER IS RESPONSIBLE UNDER THE STATUTE TO
ENFORCE THAT. THAT IS THE TOUGH ONE BECAUSE
USUALLY SOMEONE IS IMPRISONED DOES NOT HAVE A
LOT OF MONEY OR A JOB, USUALLY, TO PAY IT,
AND SOMEONE COMES LOOKING FOR THE
RESTITUTION, LIKE WHERE IS IT. WELL, MAYBE
YOU WILL HAVE TO GO CIVILLY AFTER THE PERSON
TO RECOVER IT. IT IS STATUTORY, BUT IT IS NOT
ALWAYS THE CASE SOMEONE PAYS THAT
RESTITUTION. THAT CAN ALSO RESULT IN
ADDITIONAL THINGS HAPPENING AS A RESULT OF
NOT PAYING RESTITUTION. CRIMINAL LIABILITY
REQUIRES TWO THINGS. CRIMINAL ACT AND A
CRIMINAL MIND. YOUR INTENT HAS TO BE WRONGFUL
AND, IN SOME CASES, SPECIFIC. IT IS NOT ENOUGH
JUST TO INTEND. YOU HAVE TO ACT. REMEMBER
THE "MINORITY REPORT" MOVIE WHERE THE PEOPLE
ARREST PEOPLE FOR NOT DOING THINGS YET BUT
THINKING ABOUT THEM.THAT IS NOT HOW IT
WORKS, AT LEAST NOT YET. SOON BUT NOT YET.
UNTIL THEN YOU CAN GET AWAY. IN FACT, I AM
THINKING OF DOING SOMETHING TO YOU RIGHT
NOW. ARE YOU FEELING UNCOMFORTABLE? IT IS
REALLY BAD. BUT UNLESS I DO SOMETHING IT IS
NOT A CRIME. THE STATUTE DOES NOT PROTECT
PEOPLE FROM MY BAD THOUGHTS. IF WE COULD GET
ARRESTED FOR OUR BAD THOUGHTS, THINK ABOUT
HOW MANY TIMES WE COULD GET ARRESTED,TODAY
EVEN. MAYBE IT'S JUST ME. WE NEED SOME
FURTHERANCE OF THAT. NOW, IT DOESN'T
NECESSARILY MEAN WE NEED TO COMPLETE THE ACT
IN SOME CASES. THERE IS INTENT, LIKE WE
INTENDED TO DO THE ACT BUT IT DOES NOT GET
FINISHED. BUT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. IT IS
NOT ENOUGH JUST TO THINK ABOUT IT. SOMETIMES
THE LAW SAYS THE INTENT HAS TO BE SPECIFIC,
LIKE PREMEDITATED ***. THAT INVOLVES
PROVING SOMEBODY PLANNED OUT IT VERSUS OTHER
TYPES OF MANSLAUGHTER THAT MAY JUST REQUIRE
NEGLIGENCE OR SOMETHING ELSE. AND THEN THE
ACT -- WE COULD DO AN ACT WITHOUT THE
INTENT. THAT WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH EITHER. WE
TALKS A LITTLE ABOUT THAT IN THE TORT AREA,
TOO, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN INTENTIONAL TORTS AND NEGLIGENCE. IF
I AM OUT FRONT HERE SWINGING A TWO-BY-FOUR
AROUND AND I MANAGE TO HIT SOMEBODY AND THEY
START BLEEDING, IF I DIDN'T INTEND THAT, IF
IT WAS AN ACCIDENT, MAYBE I ACTED
NEGLIGENTLY, BUT I DIDN'T INTEND TO CAUSE ANY
HARM. SO WITH BATTERY IN THE CRIMINAL SETTING
I HAVE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF INTENT TO DO THE
ACT THAT CAUSES THE HARM. IF SOMEBODY CAN'T
PROVE THAT MAYBE THEY CAN SHOW SOME TYPE OF
NEGLIGENCE. SO YOU NEED BOTH THOSE THINGS.
WITHOUT INTENT THERE CAN'T BE A CONVICTION. I
WOULD GO FURTHER TO SAY UNLESS THERE IS A
STATUTE ON IT MOST OF THE TIME YOU CAN'T BE
CONVICTED OF A CRIME. THAT CHANGES OVER
TIME. THERE WAS A TIME WHERE THERE WAS A
QUESTION ON WHETHER YOU COULD ASSIST SOMEONE
IN COMMITTING SUICIDE. THERE USED TO BE THERE
WAS NO STATUTE IN MICHIGAN PROHIBITING YOU
FROM SELLING YOUR CHILDREN. THERE WAS A GUY
WHO PUT UP HIS BEAUTIFUL KIDS FOR SALE, AND
THE PROSECUTOR CHARGES HIM, AND THEY LOOK AT
THE LAW, AND THERE IS NO LAW THAT SAYS YOU
CAN'T SELL YOUR KIDS. NOW THERE IS, BUT A
LITTLE TOO LATE FOR ME. BUT I LOVE MY KIDS.
SO, CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY. YOU CAN'T
HAUL A BUILDING OFF TO JAIL IN HANDCUFFS, SO
WHAT LIABILITY DO THOSE WITHIN THE
CORPORATION, EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYERS, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS HAVE, IS THE QUESTION. USUALLY FOR
CORPORATION LIABILITY YOU NEED THE CRIME TO
HAVE OCCURRED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT.
WHAT EMPLOYEES DO IN TERMS OF CRIMES OFF THE
JOB IS USUALLY NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. THERE
IS SOME OVERLAP. I SUPPOSE IF YOU GAVE THEM
THE INSTRUMENT AND TOLD THEM TO GO DO IT,
JUST DO IT ON YOUR OFF HOURS, THAT PROBABLY
WOULD LEAD TO LIABILITY. OR EVEN AS A SECOND
CHECK MARK SAYS THERE FAILING TO DO SOME
STATUTORY DUTY CAN NOW BE A CRIME. YOU ARE
SUPPOSED TO REVIEW FINANCIAL RECORDS AND SIGN
OFF ON THEM AND SWEAR YOU DID AND LATER THERE
IS A PROBLEM, YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME LIABILITY
FOR THAT. IF YOU ARE AN OFFICER OR DIRECTOR
UNDER THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICER DOCTRINE YOU
MIGHT HAVE SOME LIABILITY. IF YOUR EMPLOYEE
WAS UNDER YOUR CONTROL SUPERVISION, YOU KNEW
ABOUT IT, YOU PARTICIPATED IN IT OR YOU
DIDN'T STOP IT, IN SOME CASES MAYBE EVEN YOU
SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT. SO WHAT ARE THE
DIFFERENT TYPES OF CRIME?ONE WAY THE BOOK
LOOKS AT IT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VIOLENT
AND NON-VIOLENT CRIMES OR VIOLENT AND
OPERATING CRIMES. I THINK MOST PEOPLE ARE
FAMILIAR WITH THE VIOLENT ONES. THAT IS WHAT
THE TV SHOWS ARE ABOUT, ***, ***,
ROBBERY. THE NON-VIOLENT CRIMES. START REAL
SIMPLE. EACH CRIME HAS ELEMENTS, THINGS YOU
HAVE TO PROVE, IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE A
CRIME. SO ONE OF THE MOST BASIC ONES UP THERE
IS LARCENY. WHAT DOES YOUR BOOK SAY YOU NEED
FOR LARCENY? >>TAKE POSSESSION OF IT AND
CARRY IT AWAY. >> YEAH. SO YOU NEED TO
INTENTIONALLY OR WRONGFULLY TAKE PERSONAL
PROPERTY.A LOT OF STATUTES TALK ABOUT
PERMANENTLY DEPRIVING. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU
DON'T HAVE TO SAY SOMEBODY SNUCK UP
SPECIFICALLY SAYING I AM GOING TO STEAL THAT
TEXTBOOK. IT IS ENOUGH TO COME UP AND TAKE IT
AND NOT BRING IT BACK. SO IF YOU TAKE THE
BOOK INTENTIONALLY, DON'T INTEND TO BRING IT
BACK, IT IS PERSONAL PROPERTY, IT BELONGS TO
SOMEONE ELSE -- IN OTHER WORDS, YOU DON'T
STEAL YOUR OWN STUFF, STEAL SOMEONE ELSE'S.
THESE ARE THE BASIC ELEMENTS OF LARCENY. YOU
CAN BUILD ON THESE AND MAKE OTHER CRIMES. FOR
EXAMPLE, HOW DO I GET TO HERE FROM ROBBERY?
WHAT ELSE DO I NEED TO ADD? >> ROBBERY IS
FORCE. >> RIGHT. FORCE OR THREAT OF FORCE. IT
IS IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT IT THAT WAY, BECAUSE
A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK OF WHAT WHEN THE THINK
ROBBERY? GUNS, BANKS. THAT IS ROBBERY,BUT
WHAT OTHER TYPES OF THINGS BASED ON THIS
DEFINITION CAN THERE BE? >> (INDISTINCT
SPEAKING) >> RIGHT. GIVE ME YOUR MONEY OR I
WILL PUNCH YOU. OR EVEN COMBINATIONS LIKE
WHAT IF I COME TO PICK POCKET YOU? IS THAT
ROBBERY? >> LOOKS LIKE IT IS LARCENY.
>> YEAH, THERE IS NO THREAT. BUT WHAT IF AS I
TRY TO TAKE IT WE GET INTO A SCUFFLE AND I
BEAT YOU UP AND TAKE IT? IT IS REALLY BATTERY
COMBINED WITH LARCENY WHICH MAKES ROBBERY.
THAT COULD BE ENOUGH. IT GETS TRICKY
SOMETIMES. DID I TELL YOU ABOUT PEOPLE WHO
STEAL MEAT FROM STORES? ONE TIME SECURITY
TRIED TO STOP THE PERSON FROM LEAVING THE
STORE, AND THEY GOT INTO A FIGHT. THEN THE
QUESTION WAS COULD THE PROSECUTOR CHARGE
ROBBERY BECAUSE THE PERSON TOOK THE MEAT FROM
THE STORE BY FORCE? BASICALLY YOU NEED BOTH
THOSE THINGS TOGETHER. WE DON'T THINK OF THAT
TYPE OF SITUATION. WE THINK OF ROBBING A
BANK. IT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE TO BE YOU SEE THE
GUN. SOMEONE COULD THINK YOU HAVE ONE OR YOU
HAVE THE ABILITY. SOMETIMES PEOPLE DO IT WITH
A NOTE, WHATEVER. I STILL REMEMBER IN CHICAGO
WHEN I GOT HELD UP BY KNIFE POINT AT ONE
POINT, AND I TWIRLED AND KICKED THE KNIFE OUT
OF THE GUYS HAND. (LAUGHING) CHUCK NORRIS
STEPPED IN AND TOOK CARE OF THINGS. I JUST
STARTED MAKING A BIG SCENE AND RAISING MY
VOICE AND THE GUY FREAKED OUT AND TOOK OFF.
LATER I THOUGHT THAT WAS STUPID. THAT IS ALL
YOU NEED FOR ROBBERY. THEN SOME OF THE OTHER
ONES ARE VARIATIONS, LIKE BURGLARY. WHAT DOES
YOUR BOOK SAY BURGLARY IS? >> (INDISTINCT
SPEAKING) >> THAT'S RIGHT. SO IT'S -- IT
COULD BE LARCENY, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE.
IT COULD BE BREAKING AND ENTERING WITH INTENT
TO COMMIT SOME CRIME, USUALLY A FELONY, BUT
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO MEAN YOU ARE STEALING
SOMETHING. IN FACT, THE ORIGINAL COMMON LAW IN
THE BOOK SAID IT HAD TO BE DURING THE NIGHT.
SO IF YOU DID IT DURING THE DAY YOU WERE
COOL, BUT NIGHT WAS A PROBLEM. SO NOW A LOT OF
THE STATUTES SAY BREAK OR ENTER ANYTHING,
MOTOR VEHICLE, HOME, BUILDING, WHATEVER. THOSE
ARE ALL CONSIDERED BURGLARY OR HOME
INVASION. DEPENDING ON WHO IS THERE OR WHAT
YOU DO COULD BE AN INCREASED PENALTY OF SOME
KIND. SO BURGLARY INVOLVES BREAKING AND
ENTERING SOMEWHERE. OBTAINING GOODS BY FALSE
PRETENSES, SO KIND OF TAKING THOSE IDEAS OF
FRAUD OR THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE LAST
CHAPTER AND USING THEM TO OBTAIN GOODS.
BASICALLY WE ARE SAYING WE DIDN'T STEAL IT
FROM SOME, WE DIDN'T TAKE IT BY FORCING THEM,
BUT WE TRICKED THEM INTO GIVING IT TO US. THE
NEXT ONE GETS PEOPLE, RECEIVING STOLEN
GOODS, BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE WILL SAY WHAT IF
YOU DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS STOLEN? WELL, EVERYONE
WHO GETS CAUGHT WITH STOLEN GOODS SAYS THAT.
YOU NEED A STATUTE THAT SAYS IT DOES NOT
MATTER IF YOU KNEW OR NOT BECAUSE EVERYONE
WOULD SAY I DIDN'T KNOW. >> WHAT IF YOU
PURCHASED IT IN GOOD FAITH? >>RIGHT. SO A LOT
OF TIMES IN THOSE WHAT IF SCENARIOS THERE IS
A DECISION AS TO WHETHER A PROSECUTOR DOES IT
OR NOT. USUALLY THE CASES THEY GO FORWARD ON
ARE CASES LIKE YOU ARE BUYING IT FROM
SOMEONE'S TRENCH COAT AT SEVERELY DISCOUNTED
PRICES AND THE PERSON IS LOOKING LEFT AND
RIGHT AS YOU DO IT. THERE IS CERTAIN ARGUMENT
THAT I BOUGHT IT OFF OF EBAY. I PAID A DECENT
AMOUNT FOR IT, AND IT WASN'T LIKE IT WAS A
FRACTION OF THE PRICE FOR IT AND APPEARED TO
BE STOLEN. I AM TRYING TO REMEMBER A CASE
ABOUT THAT. ARSON. ARSON NOW THESE DAYS THE
STATUTES SAYS BURN SOMETHING. COULD BE YOUR
HOME, SOMEONE ELSE'S HOME, BURNING
STRUCTURES. IT HAS BEEN EXPANDED. FORGERY IS
EXPANDED A LOT. A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK OF
FORGERY AS SIGNING SOMEONE ELSE'S NAME TO A
CHECK. WHAT DOES YOUR BOOK SAY ABOUT
FORGERY? >> ALTERING ANY PROPERTY-- >> SO IF
YOU FORGE, ALTER, CHANGE A LEGAL DOCUMENT IN
A WAY THAT ALTERS IT, THE DUTIES AND
LIABILITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE
DOCUMENT THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A FORGERY.
IT COULD BE MUCH BROADER THAN THAT. ANOTHER
WAY OF LOOKING AT CRIMES IS PUBLIC CRIMES,
WHITE COLLAR CRIMES. THIS DOESN'T MEAN ONLY
PEOPLE WHO ARE ADMINISTRATORS IN COMPANIES
COMMIT THESE THINGS. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE YOU
FIND A HIGHER PERCENTAGE AMONG THEM BECAUSE
THEY HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITIES SOMETIMES TO DO
THESE THINGS. A LOT OF THEM HAVE TO DO WITH
BEING ENTRUSTED OR HAVING SOME TYPE OF
POWER. SO EMBEZZLEMENT. EMBEZZLEMENT ISN'T
JUST BREAKING IN AND GRABBING SOMETHING. IT
IS BEING ENTRUSTED WITH SOMETHING. IT IS KIND
OF LIKE THE CRIMINAL SIDE OF CONVERSION,
RIGHT? LIKE YOU ARE GIVEN THE NIGHT DEPOSIT
BUT THEN YOU TAKE IT AND DO SOMETHING ELSE
WITH IT. SOMETIMES THIS HAPPENS
ELECTRONICALLY. IT COULD BE THROUGH THE MAIL.
IT COULD BE FRAUD COMMITTED OVER THE WIRE.
BRIBERY. BRIBERY A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK YOU
HAVE TO ESTABLISH SOMEONE DID SOMETHING FOR
YOU. YOUR BOOK TALKS ABOUT JUST THE OFFERING
OF THE BRIBE IS ENOUGH. ACCEPTING A BRIBE IS
ANOTHER CRIME.IT IS NOT A DEFENSE TO SAY I
OFFERED THEM MONEY, SOME PUBLIC OFFICIAL,
CORPORATE OFFICIAL, AND THEY SAID NO. THAT
JUST MEANS THE ACTION YOU GAVE THEM -- IF YOU
PAY SOMEONE OFF AND THEY DON'T DO WHAT THEY
PROMISED TO DO YOU HAVE STILL COMMITTED A
CRIME. OR IT COULD BE MAYBE YOU ARE NOT
STEALING PERSONAL PROPERTY BUT YOU COULD BE
STEALING TRADE SECRETS OR MAYBE USING SECRETS
TO YOUR OWN ADVANTAGE, THINGS THAT AREN'T
PUBLIC YET AND USING THAT TO TRADE, INSIDER
TRADING.USUALLY WHEN I SAY INSIDER TRADING
PEOPLE THINK OF WHO? >>MARTHA STEWART. >> BUT
SHE WASN'T CONVICTED OF INSIDER TRADING.
>> (INDISTINCT SPEAKING) >> WELL, MORE
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, MORE THEY WERE
INVESTIGATING HER AND SHE DID THINGS TO HIDE
THAT. SO SHE WENT TO PRISON, IF YOU CALL IT
THAT. EVEN IF WE ARE NOT ABLE TO PROVE
SOMEONE ACTED ON INSIDER INFORMATION TO THEIR
BENEFIT, IF THEY DID SOMETHING TO OBSTRUCT AN
INVESTIGATION, THAT HAS A PRETTY SERIOUS
PENALTY, TOO. THEN ORGANIZED CRIME, AS
OPPOSED TO DISORGANIZED CRIME. WHEN I SAY
ORGANIZED CRIME YOU THINK OF THE MOB,
CHICAGO. NO OFFENSE TO CHICAGO. SURE, RICO IS
FAIRLY A STATUTE THAT APPLIES TO THE MOB BUT
ALSO APPLIES TO OTHER LARGE SCALE ACTIVITIES
WHERE PEOPLE COLLABORATE TO COMMIT ILLEGAL
ACTS. RICO HAS BEEN APPLIED TO PEOPLE WHO
CONSPIRE TO BOMB ABORTION CLINICS. WHEN YOU
THINK OF THE MOB YOU PROBABLY THINK OF THINGS
MORE LIKE MONEY LAUNDERING,WHICH I AM ALWAYS
GUILTY OF. I ALWAYS LEAVE MY MONEY IN MY
JEANS. TAKING THINGS YOU OBTAINED ILLEGALLY
AND PUTTING THEM THROUGH SOME TYPE OF
LEGITIMATE FRONT TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO
TRACE. RICO IS A FEDERAL STATUTE THAT HAS
BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES. YOU DON'T
HAVE TO KNOW THE AMOUNT OR ANYTHING. JUST
KNOW THERE IS PROTECTION ON BOTH SIDES. CIVIL
PENALTIES CAN INCLUDE GRABBING THE ASSETS OF
WHOEVER DID IT,FORFEITURE, TREBLE DAMAGES
WHERE THEY ACTUALLY COME IN AND REMOVE THE
BUTTON FROM YOUR STEREO, TREBLE. TREBLE MEANS
TRIPLE. AND THEN POTENTIALLY IMPRISONMENT.
ANOTHER WAY OF LOOKING AT CRIMES IS
CLASSIFYING THEM BY MORE SEVERE, LESS
SEVERE, FELONIES VERSUS MISDEMEANORS. I HAVE
NEVER MET MISS DEMEANOR. (LAUGHING) I AM
TRYING. IT IS A SLOW DAY. ALL RIGHT. SO
FELONIES ARE MORE SEVERE. THERE IS KIND OF IN
BETWEENERS. SOMETIMES PEOPLE CALL THAT A HIGH
COURT MISDEMEANOR, BUT FOR YOUR PURPOSES
THINK OF FELONIES AS OVER A YEAR, PRISON.
VERSUS MISDEMEANORS A YEAR OR LESS LOCAL JAIL
TIME. A LOT OF TIMES YOU HEAR THAT IN THE
NEWS LIKE PEOPLE GET THEM CONFUSED LIKE THEY
ARE CONVICTED OF A FELONY AND THEY WENT TO
JAIL FOR FIVE YEARS. YOU DON'T GO TO JAIL FOR
FIVE YEARS. IT MIGHT FEEL LIKE IT. IT IS
POSSIBLE THAT SOMEONE IS CONVICTED OF A
FELONY BUT DOES DO LOCAL JAIL TIME EITHER
BECAUSE THEY PLEAD DOWN THE OFFENSE OR GET
SOME KIND OF ARRANGED SENTENCE THAT INVOLVES
LOCAL JAIL TIME. THAT IS A PRETTY STRONG
INCENTIVE TO PLEAD TO SOMETHING IS TO GO TO
LOCAL JAIL TIME INSTEAD OF PRISON. MOST
PEOPLE DON'T LIKE PRISON, FROM ALL THE PEOPLE
I HAVE TALKED TO. DOWN WITH PRISON, THEY
SAY. >> (INDISTINCT SPEAKING) >> YOU KNOW
WHAT,INITIALLY PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO GO
THERE. I THINK EVENTUALLY PEOPLE STILL DON'T
WANT TO GO THERE, BUT THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE
WHO CAN'T STAY AWAY. THEY LIKE TO DO THINGS
TO END UP BACK THERE. WITHOUT PASSING ON ANY
BIG PHILOSOPHY ISSUES AROUND WHETHER PRISON
IS REALLY THAT HELPFUL OR NOT. SO YOU HAVE
FELONIES THAT CARRY PUNISHMENT MORE THAN A
YEAR. YOU HAVE MISDEMEANORS. AND THEN THERE
IS KIND OF A SITUATION WHERE SOMETHING STARTS
OUT AS A MISDEMEANOR MIGHT GET ELEVATED TO A
FELONY, LIKE DEPENDING ON HOW MANY TIMES YOU
DO IT. >> DUI? >> YES. YOUR FIRST OFFENSE
WITHOUT ANY EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES MIGHT
BE MISDEMEANOR. KEEP DOING IT ENOUGH TIMES IT
IS CONSIDERED A FELONY. OR LIKE IN THE RETAIL
FRAUD CASE, IT MIGHT BE HOW MUCH YOU STEAL,
HOW OFTEN YOU STEAL, WHETHER IT'S YOUR FIRST
OFFENSE OR NOT. HERE ARE SOME DEFENSES TO
CRIMINAL LIABILITY. SOME OF THEM SOUND
FAMILIAR. WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THEM
WITH TORTS. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE. REMEMBER
SELF DEFENSE, DEFENSE OF OTHERS, DEFENSE OF
PROPERTY, ARGUING MAYBE, YES, I DID THE
CRIME, BUT I HAD TO BECAUSE I HAD TO USE THIS
FORCE TO DEFEND MYSELF, MY FAMILY, WHATEVER
IT IS. CLOSELY RELATED IS THE IDEA OF
NECESSITY, THE ACTION WAS UNAVOIDABLE, I HAD
TO DO IT. ALSO CLOSELY RELATED TO THAT IS
DURESS. SOMEBODY FORCED ME TO DO IT. THEN YOU
LOOK IN YOUR BOOK AND WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT
DURESS? WHAT KIND OF FORCE ARE WE TALKING
ABOUT HERE? LIKE GO STEAL THAT TEXTBOOK OR I
WILL SHOOT YOU. WHATEVER YOU ARE BEING
THREATENED HAS TO BE MORE SEVERE THAN THE
CRIME YOU WENT OUT AND DID. IF I SAID I WILL
TICKLE YOU UNLESS YOU GO KILL SOMEONE,
THAT -- (LAUGHING) THAT IS NOT FUNNY. THAT IS
HORRIBLE. THAT DOESN'T -- I GUESS IF YOU ARE
DEATHLY AFRAID OF TICKLING. I DON'T KNOW.
INSANITY. YOU HEAR THAT ON TV ALL THE TIME. A
LOT OF TIMES IT IS A WARPED IDEA THAT
WHATEVER WAS DONE WAS SO CRAZY ONLY A CRAZY
PERSON COULD DO IT. LIKE I HAD A CASE
WHERE -- ACTUALLY, I WILL BACK UP A LITTLE.
THE FIRST TIME I WAS A PROSECUTOR THEY HAD
MENTAL INSTITUTIONS IN MICHIGAN. I DON'T KNOW
IF YOU KNEW THAT. MAYBE SOME OF YOU WEREN'T
AROUND THEN. BUT I WENT TO WESTERN, AND IN
KALAMAZOO UP ON THE HILL WAS THE KALAMAZOO
FACILITY. >> WE TOTALLY TRIED TO BREAK IN
THERE ONCE. >> YOU DID? WHAT WAS THE DATE?
WHO ELSE WAS WITH YOU? SO, ANYWAY,OUR JOB AS
A PROSECUTOR WAS SOMEBODY WOULD PETITION TO
GET OUT, AND WE WOULD REPRESENT THE PUBLIC
AND TRY TO DETERMINE IF THEY -- WORK WITH THE
COURT TO DETERMINE IF THEY COULD BE OUT OR
NOT. MY STRATEGY WAS LET THEM TALK, BECAUSE
THAT USUALLY BRINGS OUT WHATEVER THE ISSUE
WAS. I HAD THIS ONE GUY WHO WAS GOING ON AND
ON, BUT WITH WEIRD THING THE WHOLE TIME --
KIND OF LIKE THIS WAS THE COURTROOM AND YOU
SEE THE WINDOW BESIDE THE DOOR. THERE WAS A
GUY OUTSIDE THE DOOR WHO APPARENTLY WAS HIS
BUDDY WHO KEPT FLIPPING ME OFF. HE WAS REALLY
UPSET I WAS DOING THIS TO HIS FRIEND. HE WAS
FREE AND RUNNING AROUND. FOR MONTHS AFTER
THAT EVER SO OFTEN I WOULD SEE THIS GUY ON
THE ROAD ON MY WAY TO WORK, AND HE'D FLIP ME
OFF. (LAUGHING) I DIDN'T THINK MUCH OF IT.
THEN IT WAS HALLOWEEN, WHICH IS WEIRD,
BECAUSE THAT IS COMING UP. I GET A PAGE. I AM
THE ONLY PROSECUTOR ON CALL. I GO DOWN TO
THIS HOUSE, AND THIS BIG ROOMMATE GOT IN A
FIGHT WITH A LITTLE ROOMMATE OVER WHAT TV
SHOW THEY WERE GOING TO WATCH, AND THE BIG
ROOMMATE BLUDGEONED THE LITTLE ROOMMATE TO
DEATH WITH THE TV, JUST BASICALLY SAID I
DON'T THINK SO, PICKED IT UP AND KILLED HIM
WITH A TV. NOW, YOU WOULD SAY THAT IS CRAZY,
BUT LOTS OF ANGRY, MESSED UP PEOPLE DO THINGS
LIKE THAT. IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY SPHERE FROM A
MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT THAT CAUSES THEM
EITHER NOT TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING OR
KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND THEY JUST CAN'T
STOP. THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE FOR
INSANITY. SO HE GOT THE IDEA,PROBABLY FROM
THE TV SET HE BLUDGEONED HIS ROOMMATE WITH,
THAT YOU COULD CUT UP THE BODY AND FLUSH THEM
OR PUT THEM IN THE TUB, SO HE GOT A SAW
OUT -- AND I GUESS THIS IS HOW HE GOT
CAUGHT. HE STARTED SAWING HIS ROOMMATE UP.
ANYBODY JUST HAVE LUNCH? AND AS HE WAS
CUTTING THROUGH THE RIBS HE BROKE OFF THE SAW
BLADE. SO HE BASICALLY SHOVED HIS ROOMMATE
INTO A CLOSET, AND THE DOOR WAS OPEN, AND YOU
COULD LOOK IN THERE AND SEE HIM WITH THE
BLADE STICKING OUT OF HIM. IT WAS THE GUY WHO
KEPT FLIPPING ME OFF. >> THE ONE THAT IS DEAD
OR THE ONE -- >> THE GUY WHO IS DEAD WITH A
HACKSAW IN HIM IS THE GUY WHO HAD BEEN
FLIPPING ME OFF. >> IS THIS A STORY OR
REAL? (LAUGHING) >> AT THE POINT I DON'T EVEN
KNOW. THERE MIGHT BE HINTS OF REALITY IN THAT
STORY AND MAYBE NOT. SO, AGAIN, THAT COULD --
THAT PERSON, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR THE BIG
ROOMMATE DID ARGUE HIS CLIENT WAS INSANE.
THAT IS A DEFENSE. THAT IS SAYING I DID IT
BUT THE REASON I DID IT IS BECAUSE I SUFFER
TO THIS LEVEL OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR DEFECT TO
THE LEVEL THE LAW WOULD EXCUSE. REMEMBER THE
LADY WHO DROWNED HER KIDS IN HER BATHTUB,
ARGUING POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION CAUSED HER TO
DO IT AND FIGURING THEY WERE ALL GOING TO
HELL IF SHE DIDN'T? AT HER TRIAL THAT WAS THE
DEFENSE. PEOPLE SAY I DON'T SEE A LOT OF
PEOPLE DROWNING THEIR KIDS IN THE TUB BECAUSE
OF THAT, SHE MUST BE CRAZY.THEN AN EXPERT AT
TRIAL TESTIFIED SHE SAW THAT ON AN EPISODE OF
LAW AND ORDER OR SOMETHING. >> (INDISTINCT
SPEAKING) >>THEN SHE WENT TO PRISON AND THEN
APPEALED IT, AND THEN IT TURNED OUT THE
EXPERT LIED, AND THAT EPISODE HAD NEVER
ERRED. IS HE TELLING THE TRUTH OR NOT? WE
DON'T KNOW. IT DID HAPPEN. EVERYTHING I TELL
YOU IS TRUE. BUT THEN STILL WHETHER --
WHATEVER THE MOTIVATION IS, IF THERE IS
PEOPLE THAT DO THAT, THERE IS STILL SOME
INTEREST IN SOCIETY IN NOT LETTING THOSE
PEOPLE RUN AROUND. MISTAKE. MISTAKE ISN'T
LIKE OOPS, I KILLED SOMEBODY, I DIDN'T MEAN
TO DO IT. MISTAKE IS MORE LIKE I THOUGHT THAT
LUGGAGE WAS MINE, AND I TOOK IT,AND IT TURNS
OUT IT WASN'T MINE, IT LOOKS JUST LIKE MINE.
SO IT'S POSSIBLE TO TAKE SOMETHING AND
MISTAKENLY THINK IT'S YOURS. ENTRAPMENT WAS A
MOVIE, REMEMBER THAT? A LOT OF MOVIES ARE BAD
LAW. ENTRAPMENT IS MORE LIKE A POLICE AGENCY
OR GOVERNMENT ENTICING YOU TO DO SOMETHING
YOU ARE NOT ALREADY INCLINED TO DO OR DOING.
NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE? NOT TALKING ABOUT
SOMEONE ELSE ENTICING YOU TO DO SOMETHING. I
MEAN, SOMEONE ASKED ME IN CLASS ONE TIME, DO
YOU HAVE TO IDENTIFY YOU AS A POLICE OFFICER
IF SOMEONE ASKS, BECAUSE OF ENTRAPMENT? CAN
YOU IMAGINE THAT? YOU GO UP TO A DRUG HOUSE
AND KNOCK ON THE DOOR, HEY, I WANT SOME
DRUGS. THEY ARE LIKE ARE YOU A POLICE
OFFICER? OH, YOU GOT ME, YEAH. (LAUGHING) I'LL
BE BACK AGAIN LATER. BUT THE WHOLE IDEA IS
YOU GO TO A DRUG HOUSE, YOU KNOCK ON THE
DOOR. YOU ARE UNDER COVER, AND YOU SAY I WANT
TO BUY SOME DRUGS, AND YOU GIVE THEM MONEY.
THAT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT. YOU ARE AT A DRUG
HOUSE. THAT IS WHAT THEY DO. OF COURSE, THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER IT IS A DRUG HOUSE. IF
THEY ARE INCLINED TO DO IT OR ALREADY DO IT,
THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE GOVERNMENT GETTING
SOMEBODY TO DO SOMETHING THEY NEVER WERE
GOING TO DO BY INTRODUCING ENOUGH MONEY TO
GET THEM TO DO IT. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
SOME CRIMINAL STATUTES HAVE A PERIOD OF TIME
YOU HAVE TO BRING THE ACTION. IF YOU WAIT TOO
LONG, EVIDENCE DISAPPEARS,WITNESSES
DISAPPEAR, AND IT IS JUST IMPOSSIBLE TO
DEFEND YOURSELF. BUT MORE SERIOUS CRIMES,
LIKE WE MENTIONED THE VIOLENT CRIMES, ***,
***, THOSE DON'T HAVE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS. IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY BURIED IN
YOUR BACK YARD, NO, IT IS USUALLY NOT A
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. IMMUNITY. IMMUNITY IS
LIKE TWO PARTS. ON TV IT IS ALWAYS THE GUY IN
WASHINGTON D.C. THAT RUNS A BUNCH OF PEOPLE
OVER AND THEN SAYS I HAVE IMMUNITY. THEN THEY
HAVE TO LET HIM GO, OH, DARN, YOU ARE FROM
SOME OTHER COUNTRY, KEEP GOING ON KILLING
PEOPLE. THAT IS NOT REALLY THE WAY IT WORKS.
SO MAYBE ANOTHER COUNTRY HAS TO PROSECUTE OR
THERE HAS TO BE SOME TYPE OF PROCEDURE THAT
HAPPENS. THE MORE COMMON TYPE OF IMMUNITY IS
ARRANGED IMMUNITY, LIKE YOU TESTIFY IN THIS
CASE AND WE WON'T PROSECUTE YOU FOR SOMETHING
YOU ADMIT YOU DID. YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL
ABOUT THAT ONE. I HAVE SEEN PROSECUTORS CUT
DEALS AND THEN LATER THE PERSON ADMITS TO
THINGS, AND THEY ARE LIKE IF I HAD KNOWN YOU
WERE GOING TO SAY THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE
GRANTED YOU IMMUNITY. YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL
ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THE IMMUNITY. YOU CAN'T
SAY WE WON'T PROSECUTE YOU FOR ANYTHING YOU
ADMIT TO. LET'S MOVE TO THE CONSTITUTION.
THIS USUALLY GENERATES LOTS OF CLASSROOM
DISCUSSION. EVERYONE WANTS TO KNOW ABOUT THAT
TIME THEY GOT STOPPED IN THEIR CAR OR
SOMETHING. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE RIGHT TO
PRIVACY AND THE CONSTITUTION, HOW IT IS NOT
ACTUALLY IN THE CONSTITUTION BUT COMES FROM
THE CONSTITUTION? HERE IS THE CRIMINAL SIDE
OF THAT. IF WE NEED TO SEARCH AREAS WHERE
SOMEBODY HAS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF
PRIVACY WE SHOULD GET A WARRANT. A LOT OF
PEOPLE SAY IF A POLICE OFFICER HAD PROBABLE
CAUSE THEN THEY CAN SEARCH. NO. THE PROBABLE
CAUSE IS TO SUPPORT THE WARRANT -- TO GET THE
WARRANT TO SEARCH. THERE ARE MANY EXCEPTIONS
TO THE SEARCH WARRANT REQUIREMENT. CAN WE
COME IN, SOMETHING BEING IN PLAIN VIEW. THERE
ARE TONS OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE SEARCH WARRANT
REQUIREMENT. I HAD A CASE WHERE A STATE
TROOPER STOPPED SOMEONE DOING ABOUT 90, AND
WHEN HE WALKED UP TO THE CAR THE PERSON HAD
WHAT LOOKED LIKE A HANDGUN STUCK BETWEEN THE
SEATS. HE COULD EASILY SEE IT, SO HE ASKED
THE GUY TO STEP OUT OF THE CAR, AND HE SAID
WHAT HE ALWAYS SAID. HE SAID DO YOU HAVE ANY
HANDGUNS, GRENADES, ROCKET LAUNCHERS YOU WANT
TO DISCLOSE. IT TURNED OUT TO BE A STUN GUN
THAT LOOKED LIKE A WEAPON. THE GUY DOES WHAT
EVERYBODY SAYS. HE SAYS, YEAH, GO AHEAD AND
LOOK THROUGH THE REST OF THE CAR,THINKING BY
SAYING THAT SOMEONE IS NOT GOING TO SEARCH.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THEY ASK, SO THEY CAN
SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT. SO HE UNCOVERED A
METAL CLIPBOARD, MAGNALIGHT FLASHLIGHT, AND A
BADGE. THE COP GETS THIS OUT OF THE CAR. WHAT
DO YOU THINK HE WAS DOING? HE WAS
IMPERSONATING A POLICE OFFICER. WHEN HE
STOPPED HIM GOING 90 HE WASN'T, SO WE REALLY
WANTED TO CHARGE THAT, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE
THAT. WE JUST HAD A SPEEDING TICKET. WHO HAS
A MAG FLASHLIGHT HERE? ALL RIGHT. METAL
CLIPBOARD? MAYBE THE NUMBERS GO DOWN, BUT IT
IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE THOSE LAWFULLY. AND A
BADGE, HE APPARENTLY HAD HIS DAD'S BADGE. HIS
DAD WAS A CORRECTIONS OFFICER OR SOMETHING,
RETIRED. SO WE CHARGED HIM WITH POSSESSION OF
A STUN GUN, WHICH AT THE TIME WAS A FIVE-YEAR
FELONY, AND SPEEDING. YES. >> AREN'T THERE A
LOT OF RULES FOR BEING SEARCHED, THOUGH?
COULDN'T THEY SAY THEY SMELL DRUGS ON
YOU? >> THEY SMELL DRUGS ON YOU? >> YOU CAN'T
PROVE SMELL. >> WELL, I HAVE BEEN IN A
CONTROLLED BURN. >> WHAT? >>A CONTROLLED
BURN. ANYBODY KNOW WHAT A CONTROLLED BURN
IS? IT IS BASICALLY CASUAL USE. IT IS A
CONTROLLED BURN. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO TESTIFY
THAT YOU KNOW WHAT MARIJUANA SMELLS LIKE IT
UNLESS YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO IT, RIGHT?
IMAGINE DURING A TRIAL YOU ARE LIKE I NEVER
SMOKED IT MYSELF SO I DON'T KNOW. YOU HAVE TO
BE TRAINED ON HOW TO SMELL IT, AND IT IS
BETTER TO BE TRAINED UNDER CONTROLLED
CONDITIONS. (LAUGHING) BUT THE WHOLE IDEA
THAT -- YEAH, YOU JUST RUN AROUND SNIFFING
THINGS, AND THAT GIVES YOU PROBABLE CAUSE, I
MEAN, USUALLY THERE IS MORE THAN THAT THAT IS
REQUIRED. LIKE IF HE'S DRIVING DOWN THE
HIGHWAY AND SOMEONE FLIES BY HIM, AND HE IS
LIKE (SNIFFING). (LAUGHING) I SMELL DANGER.
EVEN THE WHOLE REQUEST FOR A COMPLAINT AND
POLICE REPORT HEARING IN OPERATING UNDER THE
INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR, YOU CAN SMELL THE ODOR
OF INTOXICANTS, BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY
MEAN THE PERSON IS DRUNK DRIVING. YOU WANT
MORE THAN THAT TO GO FORWARD. I DON'T KNOW IF
THAT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION OR NOT. >>IT
DID. >> OKAY. PROBABLY DOES NOT GET AT YOUR
ISSUE. OKAY. SO WHERE ARE WE? SO IN BUSINESS,
RIGHT? SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUAL. A
KIND OF INTERESTING THING ABOUT THAT CASE,
THE GUY ENDED UP GETTING CONVICTED AT TRIAL.
I HAD TO ACTUALLY TRY THE GUY BECAUSE HE HAD
A BUNCH OF DEFENSES. HE ARGUED HE THOUGHT IT
WAS A CATTLE PROD. HE ARGUED THAT HE WAS
ACTUALLY RACING BACK TO THE POLICE TO BRING
IT BACK AND THAT WAS WHY HE WAS GOING 90.
THEN HE ALSO ARGUED THAT HE WRESTLED -- WHEN
HE POINTED OUT HE GOT IT FIVE YEARS EARLIER,
AND WE WERE TRYING TO GET HIM TO EXPLAIN WHY
IT TOOK HIM FIVE YEARS TO RUSH BACK TO THE
POLICE, HE EXPLAINED HE HAD BEEN SERVING A
DIVORCE COMPLAINT ON THIS GUY, AND THE GUY
FREAKED OUT AND PRODUCED A STUN GUN, AND HE
WRESTLED IT FROM HIM, AND HE WAS NOW TAKING
IT BACK. IF YOU WRESTLE A STUN GUN FROM A
CRAZY PERSON WHO IS GOING THROUGH A DIVORCE,
IS THE FIRST THING YOU THINK TAKE IT BACK TO
THEM? IT SEEMED KIND OF WEIRD. DUE PROCESS,
DOUBLE JEOPARDY, AND SELF-INCRIMINATION. DUE
PROCESS WE TALKED A LITTLE ABOUT ALREADY IN
CONSTITUTIONAL AREA. IT IS AGAIN THE NOTICE
SOME CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ARE HAPPENING
AGAINST YOU, BEING INFORMED OF YOUR RIGHTS,
INFORMED OF THE CHARGE, HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY
TO OBJECT, HAVING A FAIR TRIAL BY SOMEONE WHO
IS NEUTRAL, UNBIASED. DOUBLE JEOPARDY. THAT
WAS ANOTHER MOVIE.THAT IS BAD LAW, TOO. YOU
DON'T GET TO NOT KILL YOUR HUSBAND AND GO TO
PRISON FOR IT AND THEN GET TO GET OUT AND
FIND HIM AND KILL HIM, IF ANYBODY SAW THAT
MOVIE. YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE RETRIED FOR
THE SAME OFFENSE IN THE SAME COURT. NOTICE
THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM OJ, TRIED CRIMINALLY
AND THEN CIVILLY IN A DIFFERENT COURT FOR A
DIFFERENT THING. BUT IF THE PROSECUTOR TAKES
ONE SHOT AND THERE IS AN ACQUITTAL, THEY DON'T
GET TO SAY LET'S TRY AGAIN. YOU ARE NOT
SUPPOSED TO BE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF THE SAME
CRIME IN THE SAME COURT. >> THEY COULD GO
HIGHER, COULDN'T THEY? >> WHAT DOES HIGHER
MEAN? YOU MEAN LIKE AN APPEAL? >> YOU SAY IN
ONE COURT. >> WHAT I MEAN IS LIKE -- WE
TALKED ABOUT THE OKLAHOMA BOMBING CASE. IN
THAT CASE THERE WAS A TRIAL IN FEDERAL COURT
FOR KILLING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN THE FEDERAL
BUILDING AND THEN LATER THERE WAS A TRIAL IN
A STATE COURT FOR KILLING OTHER STATE
CITIZENS AND SOME CASE MINORS IN A DIFFERENT
COURT. THOSE WERE NOT THE SAME TRIAL FOR THE
SAME CRIME IN THE SAME COURT. THEY DID THAT.
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WEREN'T HAPPY ABOUT IT,
BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THEY OUGHT TO BRING ALL
THE THINGS AT ONE TIME. SELF-INCRIMINATION.
YOU KNOW YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT,
AND THAT INCLUDES NOT HAVING TO SAY THINGS
WHEN YOU ARE QUESTIONED OR AT TRIAL NOT
TESTIFYING AGAINST YOURSELF. THAT CASE I WAS
TELLING YOU ABOUT WITH THE STUN GUN, WE KNEW
THE GUY WAS GOING -- WE HAD THE INKLING
BECAUSE HE SAID HE WORKED ON A FARM, HE
WASN'T REAL CLEAR WHAT HE HAD, AND WE KNEW HE
WAS GOING TO COME OUT WITH THE WHOLE CATTLE
PROD DEFENSE. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO HAVE A
CATTLE PROD, JUST A STUN GUN. SO I MADE A
MOTION BEFORE TRIAL THAT IF THE DEFENDANT
TOOK THE STAND AND TESTIFIED THAT HE THOUGHT
IT WAS A CATTLE PROD THAT I COULD ASK HIM IF
HE'D BE WILLING TO TAKE A ZAP FROM THE STUN
GUN. I DID THE MOTION WITH THE DEFENSE
ATTORNEY. HE WOULD CLEARLY KNOW WHAT WOULD
HAPPEN IF HE TOOK THE STAND. HE HAD A RIGHT
TO NOT GET UP ON THE STAND AND ARGUE THAT OR
SAY THAT. SURE ENOUGH, HE GOT ON THE STAND
AND SAID I THOUGHT IT WAS FOR COWS. I LIT THE
THING UP, AND AS SOON AS I DID SOME OLDER
LADY ON THE JURY FELL OUT OF HER SEAT. HE
SAID -- I SAID WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE A JOLT
FROM THIS, AND HE SAID NOT FOR A MILLION
BUCKS. THAT IS KIND OF LIKE A TV MOVIE.
USUALLY THAT KIND OF STUFF DOESN'T HAPPEN IN
COURT. >> ARE YOU TRYING TO TELL US THAT WAS
A LIE? >> WHO KNOWS? WHO KNOWS IF THESE CASES
ARE REAL OR NOT. DOES IT MATTER? YOU GET THE
POINT. >> EVEN IF IT WAS A CATTLE PROD YOU
STILL WOULDN'T WANT TO GET HIT WITH IT.
>> THEY ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. >>THEY ARE? I
DIDN'T KNOW. >> YEAH, THE THING IS -- IT'S A
GOOD THOUGHT IF A PROD CAN KNOCK OVER CATTLE
IT'S GOING TO KNOCK YOU OVER. BUT THE
DEBILITATING EFFECT AND AMOUNT OF AMPERAGE
THAT GOES THROUGH A STUN GUN IS DIFFERENT. IT
TOTALLY INCAPACITATES YOUR NERVOUS SYSTEM
AND -- I MEAN, THE JURY DID NOT UNDERSTAND
WHAT A STUN GUN WAS OR ABILITY TO POSSESS ONE
OR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STUN GUNS AND TASERS
AND ALL THAT STUFF. THEY WERE GOING TO
PROBABLY FALL INTO, OH, CATTLE PROD, THAT IS
NOT SO BAD. IT STILL ISN'T THAT GOOD TO GET
HIT BY A CATTLE PROD. THE KEY POINT WAS JUST
IN THE END THE DEFENSE WILL ARGUE, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, WE HAVE BEEN
PROSECUTED FOR POSSESSING A STUN GUN WHICH IS
A FELONY, AND WE ACTUALLY POSSESSED A STUN
GUN WHICH IS NOT A FELONY. IF YOU RUN AROUND
ZAPPING IT ON PEOPLE IT COULD BE SOMETHING
ELSE. AT THE LEAST IT'S A BATTERY. SPEEDY
TRIAL, JURY TRIAL, PUBLIC TRIAL. SO THE
CONSTITUTION PUTS PROTECTIONS ON HOW LONG IT
TAKES TO HAVE YOUR TRIAL, WHETHER IT IS
PUBLIC OR PRIVATE AND WHETHER YOU GET A JURY
OR NOT. SPEEDY DOES NOT MEAN SO FAST THEY MESS
UP. IT JUST MEANS FAST ENOUGH SO YOU DON'T
SIT IN JAIL AND ROT FOREVER. IN SOME
CASES -- THIS ISN'T A FOOTNOTE ON THE
CONSTITUTION, BUT JUST LET ME TELL YOU. THE
JUDGE WILL OFTEN SAY, PROSECUTOR, DO YOU
INTEND TO ASK FOR JAIL TIME. THE PROSECUTOR
COMMITS, AND IF THE JUDGE DOESN'T GIVE JAIL
TIME, THEN THEY DON'T GET A JURY TRIAL. IN
SOME CASES IT WORKS LIKE THAT. PUBLIC TRIAL.
IN SOME RARE CASES, WAR TIME, DEPENDING ON
THE VICTIM, ET CETERA, YOU MAY NOT HAVE A
PUBLIC TRIAL, BUT IT IS VERY HARD TO EXCLUDE
PEOPLE, THE PRESS, FROM BEING AT A TRIAL. YOU
SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONFRONT
WITNESSES,TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY. THERE ARE
PROHIBITIONS AGAINST CRUEL OR UNUSUAL
PUNISHMENT. I JUST NOTICED THERE ARE TWO
PARTS TO THAT. IT COULD ACTUALLY BE ONE OR
THE OTHER, TOO. SOMETHING COULD BE REALLY
CRUEL BUT PRETTY COMMON, LIKE A STATUTE THAT
SAYS YOU TREAT THIS WAY AND IT TURNS OUT THAT
IS JUST UNCONSTITUTIONAL. OR IT COULD BE NOT
ALL THAT BAD BUT REALLY STRANGE. LIKE A LAW
THAT SAYS YOU TIE PEOPLE UP TO HITCHING POSTS
IN THE NOON SUN. IT ACTUALLY DOES NOT CAUSE
DAMAGE,BUT IT IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL. WHEN I
WORKED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WE
WOULD SEE COMMON ONES LIKE YOU CAN'T FORCE ME
TO EAT THIS TYPE OF FOOD BECAUSE IT IS
REALLY, REALLY BAD, OR IT'S AGAINST MY
RELIGION, OR WHATEVER IT WAS. ALL RIGHT. THE
MIRANDA RULE AND EXCLUSIONARY RULE. THE
EXCLUSIONARY RULE SAYS IF EVIDENCE IS
OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION IT
SHOULD NOT BE USED AT TRIAL. SO IF YOU GET
EVIDENCE ILLEGALLY THAT DOES NOT MEAN THERE
CAN'T BE A TRIAL. IT JUST MEANS YOU HAVE TO
PROVE THE CASE WITHOUT THE EVIDENCE IF
SOMEONE SUCCESSFULLY ARGUES THE EVIDENCE IS
SUPPRESSED. YOU BEAT A CONFESSION OUT OF
SOMEBODY. YOU SEARCHED SOME PLACE YOU AREN'T
SUPPOSED TO WITHOUT A WARRANT. THEY ARE OFTEN
CALLED FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE. IF YOU DID
SOMETHING ILLEGAL THEN YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE
TO USE THE FRUITS OF THAT ILLEGAL SEARCH.
SOMETIMES THE ISSUE IS WHAT SOMEBODY
CONFESSES OR SAYS AND WHETHER THEY SHOULD
HAVE A RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT OR IF THEY
UNDERSTAND THEIR RIGHTS BEFORE THEY SAY
SOMETHING. THAT IS ON THE NEXT SLIDE.THE
THIRD BULLET SAYS DETERS POLICE FROM
MISCONDUCT. I POSE A QUESTION SOMETIMES IN MY
ONLINE CLASS, WHAT IF THE POLICE BEAT UP
SOMEBODY AND THEY CONFESS TO A REALLY HEINOUS
CRIME THAT CAN BE SUBSTANTIATED OBJECTIVELY
OUTSIDE OF THEIR OWN CONFUSION? IT TURNS OUT
THAT THEY ACTUALLY DID IT. SHOULD THAT
EVIDENCE OF THE CONFUSION BE ADMITTED? A LOT
OF PEOPLE SAY, HEY, THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE
MEANS. THAT WOULDN'T DETER POLICE MISCONDUCT
BECAUSE THEY WOULD JUST BEAT PEOPLE UNTIL
THEY GOT WHAT THEY NEED AND THEN PROVE IT. SO
IN ORDER TO DETER MISCONDUCT YOU PUT IN THESE
PENALTIES THAT MIGHT SEEM OVERLY SEVERE, NOT
ALLOWING THAT CONFESSION IN. THEN THERE IS
MIRANDA -- OOPS, MIRANDA V ARIZONA. YES.
>> SO, JUST TO VERIFY, IF YOU GET A CONFESSION
THAT YOU LIKE BEAT OUT OF SOMEBODY, THEY GET
A SEARCH WARRANT -- >> THIS IS WHAT I WOULD
DO AS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY. THAT IS THE WHOLE
IDEA OF --THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE IS
IF AN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY IS WHAT YOU BASE THAT
ADDITIONAL SEARCH ON THEN YOU CAN
SUCCESSFULLY ATTACK THAT AND THAT WARRANT
ISN'T PROPERLY SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE,
THEN YOU CAN SUPPRESS THAT. THERE IS NO MAGIC
RULES LIKE THIS EQUALS -- NO. IT IS THE
DEFENSE'S BURDEN TO BRING A MOTION TO
SUPPRESS AND BE SUCCESSFUL WITH THAT. I WENT
THROUGH LOTS OF THOSE. ONE I REMEMBER WAS A
STATE TROOPER WHO WAS A FRIEND OF MINE AND A
REALLY GOOD TROOPER -- THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY
BROUGHT A MOTION TO SUPPRESS BECAUSE HIS
CLIENT WASN'T INFORMED OF HIS RIGHTS. MY
STATE TROOPER SWORE HE READ HIM HIS MIRANDA
RIGHTS. I WAS A YOUNG PROSECUTOR, AND I GOT
THE TROOPER ON THE STAND AND SAID DID YOU
READ HIM HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS, AND HE SAID,
YES, I DID, AND I SAID WHAT ARE THOSE
RIGHTS? THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO
DO. HE WENT, UM, UM. I SAID ARE YOU HAVING
DIFFICULTY RECALLING THEM? HE SAID I ALWAYS
READ THEM FROM MY CARD. SO HE HAS A CARD HE
KEEPS IN HIS POCKET IN HIS UNIFORM AND READS
THEM OFF AND MAKES SURE HE GETS THEM RIGHT.
PROCEDURALLY HE READS THEM AT THE TIME OF
ARREST. I SAID DO WHAT YOU PROCEDURALLY DO,
AND HE SAID ACTUALLY I LEFT THAT UNIFORM BACK
IN MY LOCKER. WE WENT ON AND WERE SUCCESSFUL
IN THAT MOTION, BUT SOMETIMES THE QUESTION IS
WHAT PROCEDURE ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND CAN THE
EVIDENCE BE SUPPRESSED? IN THIS CASE MIRANDA
IS NOT SOMETHING IN THE CONSTITUTION. MIRANDA
WAS A U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE WHERE MIRANDA
WAS NOT PROPERLY INFORMED OF HIS RIGHTS AND
AS A RESULT HIS CONFESSION WAS SUPPRESSED.
IRONICALLY HIS CONVICTION WAS OVERTURNED. HE
WAS LET LOOSE AND GOT IN A BAR FIGHT AND WAS
KILLED, AND THEY READ THE DEFENDANT HIS
MIRANDA RIGHTS. THERE IS THE ULTIMATE IRONY
THERE. BASICALLY IT IS SAYING THAT IF YOU
DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE -- A LOT OF
PEOPLE SAY WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON'T KNOW
WHAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE? BUT, YOU NEED TO BE
INFORMED OF THOSE RIGHTS. ONE OF THE COMMON
ONES IS WHEN,WHEN DO YOU HAVE TO BE INFORMED
OF YOUR RIGHTS? WHAT DO YOU THINK?
>> (INDISTINCT SPEAKING) >> THAT'S WHAT A LOT OF
PEOPLE THINK. IT'S NOT TRUE. >> (INDISTINCT
SPEAKING) >> NO,THAT IS NOT TRUE,
EITHER. >> EVENTUALLY. >>IF YOU FEEL LIKE
IT, THERE YOU GO. IT DEPENDS. CLOSE. WE ARE
GETTING THERE. YOU PUT ALL THOSE THINGS
TOGETHER. THERE ARE TWO PARTS. CUSTODIAL
INTERROGATION. >> (INDISTINCT SPEAKING)
>> WELL,THAT IS NORMAL. CUSTODIAL DOES NOT MEAN
ASKED QUESTIONS BY THE JANITOR. IT MEANS YOU
ARE IN CUSTODY. IT DOESN'T MEAN ARREST
EITHER. DON'T GET ME WRONG. EVERY TIME
YOU -- A POLICE OFFICER ARREST SOMEONE THEY
ARE READING THEM THEIR MIRANDA RIGHTS, SO
PROCEDURALLY THAT DOES HAPPEN.THERE MIGHT BE
SOME CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.
I HAD A CASE WHERE THEY RAIDED A DRUG HOUSE.
THEY HAUL TWO GUYS OUT AND PUT THEM IN THE
POLICE CRUISER, DOOR SHUT. I'M NOT ASKING
ANYONE TO ADMIT IF THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE BACK
OF A POLICE CRUISER, BUT YOU CAN'T GET OUT.
THEY WEREN'T IN HANDCUFFS OR ANYTHING. THEY
ARE IN CUSTODY. THEN THE OTHER PART IS
INTERROGATION. INTERROGATION MEANS MORE THAN
QUESTIONING. INTERROGATION MEANS BEING ASKED
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CRIME. SO IF YOU ARE
DRIVING SOMEONE BACK TO JAIL AND YOU SAY HOW
ABOUT THOSE LIONS OR SOMETHING, THAT IS NOT A
QUESTION ABOUT THE CRIME. SO THESE GUYS GET
THROWN IN A POLICE CRUISER, AND THEY SAY,
GEEZ, THERE IS NO WAY THEY CAN GET US, THE
DRUGS WERE OVER HERE, THE GUNS OVER HERE, OUR
BEDROOMS OVER HERE, AND WHEN THEY RAIDED IT
WE WERE NOWHERE NEAR IT, AND THEY DON'T HAVE
A WAY TO TRACE WE DID THIS DRUG TRANSACTION,
EXCEPT THEY ADMITTED TO IT IN FRONT OF THE
POLICE CRUISER'S CAMERA. (LAUGHING) IT WAS
ALL VIDEOED.LATER THEY BROUGHT A MOTION TO
SUPPRESS THAT EVIDENCE, THAT CONFESSION, AS
BEING SUBJECT CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION WITHOUT
HAVING THEIR MIRANDA RIGHTS READ. THEY
DIDN'T. THAT WAS A SITUATION WHERE THEY ARE
RAIDING, PULLING PEOPLE OUT LEFT AND RIGHT,
PUTTING THEM IN THE PATROL CAR FOR THEIR OWN
SAFETY, AND THEY JUST SPEW FORTH A BUNCH OF
STUFF. WELL,WERE THEY IN CUSTODY? YES. WERE
THEY BEING INTERROGATED? NO.THEY ARE JUST
DUMB. THEY WERE SITTING THERE ADMITTING TO
EVERYTHING IN FRONT OF A CAMERA. THEY DIDN'T
WIN THAT ONE. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS PRETTY MUCH
HOW THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING WORKS, IT ROLLS
OUT HERE. THERE IS AN ARREST, A POLICE
REPORT. THAT IS HEADING OFF TO THE PROSECUTOR
WITH A REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE CHARGES. PERSONS
GET BOOKED. THERE IS SOME KIND OF INITIAL
APPEARANCE. SOMETIMES THAT IS THE SAME TIME
THAT IS AN ARRAIGNMENT. THIS IS USUALLY A
TIME WHEN A PERSON IS REMINDED OF ALL THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, ESPECIALLY THE ONE
AROUND ATTORNEYS, RIGHT TO TRIAL, AND SOME
QUESTION ABOUT HOW THEY PLEAD. NOT A LOT OF
GRAND JURY INDICTMENTS IN MICHIGAN. THERE CAN
SOMETIMES BE A PRELIMINARY HEARING. USUALLY
THOSE PRELIMINARY HEARINGS ARE A LOT ABOUT
WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION
OVER SOMETHING ALLEGED TO BE A FELONY. IF
THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE A CRIME
HAS BEEN COMMITTED AND THIS PERSON IS THE ONE
THAT DID IT, IT MIGHT BE BOUND OVER TO
CIRCUIT COURT. THEN IT SHOWS THE ARROW GOING
OVER TO TRIAL. THERE MIGHT BE SOME THINGS IN
BETWEEN WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. THERE
MIGHT BE A MOTION TO SUPPRESS SOME EVIDENCE
PRIOR TO TRIAL, MIGHT BE A PRE-TRIAL
CONFERENCE, AND EVEN A LITTLE DETOUR HERE TO
PLEA BARGAINING SOMETIMES AT THE PRE-TRIAL
CONFERENCE. PLEA BARGAINING USUALLY IS A
REDUCED SENTENCE OR REDUCED CHARGE. IF THAT
ACTUALLY WORKS OUT THEN THEY ENTER A GUILTY
PLEA. IF NOT, A TRIAL. AND THEN MAYBE THE
PROSECUTOR MEETS THEIR BURDEN, A CONVICTION.
THAT IS PRETTY MUCH THE WAY IT WORKS.THERE
ISN'T A LOT OF DETAIL THAT GOES ON ABOUT
THAT, BUT ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PROCESS?
ALL RIGHT. ONCE SOMEBODY IS CONVICTED EITHER
BECAUSE THEY PLED GUILTY AS PART OF A PLEA
AGREEMENT OR THEY ARE CONVICTED AT TRIAL,
THERE IS THIS WHOLE IDEA OF EQUAL PROTECTION
WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER. WHAT DID EQUAL
PROTECTION SAY? >> (INDISTINCT SPEAKING)
>> NO, EQUAL PROTECTION DOES NOT SAY EVERYONE IS
TO BE TREATED THE SAME. IT WOULD BE COOL IF
IT DID. >> SIMILAR. >> RIGHT, PEOPLE SIMILARLY
SITUATED. WELL, THIS SLIDE TAKES IT A LITTLE
FURTHER THAN, THAT. IF THEY ARE SIMILARLY
SITUATED, EVEN AFTER THAT THERE ARE STILL
GUIDELINES. SO JUST BECAUSE THIS PERSON IS A
FIVE-YEAR FELONY FOR POSSESSING A STUN GUN, IT
DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE GOING TO GET FIVE
YEARS.