POSC 130g 1st Edition Lecture 5Current LectureLaw firms are organized through hierarchy, students learn to accept an inferior positionLarge law firms don’t have the same degree of influential as the years before. Often times, lawyers will take cases pro-bono. Lawyers will take on cases for the greatness of the people, do it for the good of the people, do not get paid and have the resources to take on aclass action. A lot of lawyers want to become judges. Police: crime control versus due processHerbert Packer’s modelDepartment policies, rulebooks, reportsTechnology ensures the police are in contact with supervisorsPolice forces report to different supervisors, city police: controlled by mayor, state police: controlled by governor, etcNo common policy, each force can set its own policiesDifferent cities target different thingsWhen there is an election, showing crime is under control is importantNo special educationHistorically in the US, there is a family tradition; male operation perhaps on aggression and physical forcePolice are more fearful if they don’t know the community that they are enforcing, causing tension in some communitiesPolicing tends to be reactivePolice may decide to go after some particular prime, set up a sting operation to catch peopleEntrapment: the issue that the police go a little too far; refers to a situation where the police leads someone to commit a crime that the person wouldn’t otherwise commit.The act of officers enduing someone to commit a crime, but the mere act of an officer enfurnishing accused an opportunity to commit a crime in which the criminal intent was alreadypresent in the accused mind is not ordinarily entrapment. Issue: lots of cases where people are influenced by the police to do stuff; question is whether the police manipulated themHas our legal system and the way the Supreme Court analyzes different issues moved in a direction that we award the police more power and reduce the limits on their conduct? Is there a good balance of due process and individual rights vs. policies? To what extent do Supreme Court decisions reflect due process? – Procedural due process; due process clause requires no person should be denied life and liberty without due process of lawRequirements of due process get changed regularly, but the basic notion is more or less fixed.The core idea is that a person should have fair notice, a chance to present his/her in court, and due process also means that there shouldn’t be any procedure that is unfair or arbitrarySome of the specific aspects include: counsel, trial by jury, transcript of court proceedings, the right to question adverse witnesses, etc. Interrogations1. What interrogation techniques are acceptable? a. Under US Constitutional Law- can be subjected to body searches, even brutality by the police called the third degree, the conditions may be surprising for jail mates. b. Under International human rights law2. Have public policies evolved to promote efficiency or fairness?The rights that people have under the constitution only apply to governmental institutions- can’t be applied towards private settingCan a coerced confession be used? Landmark Cases1. Brown v. Mississippi (1936) – allowed a coerced confession to not be used; first time, based on the 15th amendment, due process clause= “third degree”2. Malloy v. Hogan (1964)- due process applies to the states, 15th amendment applied to state3. Escobedo v. Illinois- Confession obtained in violation of 6th amendment can’t be usedMiranda v. Arizona1. Famous police warnings2. 2 requirements: a. suspect must be interrogatedb. the subject must be in custody3. Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare- meaning of privilege against self incriminationsMust warn suspects before interrogating them about their rightsThe person has to be in custody and in interrogationMiranda was a 23 year old Mexican who was living in Arizona and completed education in the 8th grade. He had several problems and the police asked him to go to the police station. He participated in a lineup, the lady said that was the man who attacked him but she wasn’t sure. The detectives misinformed him and said that the lady successfully identified him but only through his voice. Miranda was asked if that was the girl in 1953 and Miranda identified the girl and he complied with the request to say what happened in writing. He went through a two hour interrogation and he wasn’t told he had the right to have an attorney present or anything. The evidence he said was used to put him behind bars- 60 years total for kidnapping and rape. Supreme Court took the case, after 6 years of Miranda being in jail. The case raised questions about juris prudence- it should be consistent with the Constitution. He was subjected to police manipulation. The person should not be required to engage in self-incrimination. If the person is allowed to remain silent, the court said that it is an absolute requisite for interrogationMiranda warnings had to be given to the person being interrogated and if the person was in custody. Erosion of Miranda1. What counts as interrogation?Rhode Island v. Innis (1980)- officers were driving near a place with students and tricked the person in the car that was being arrested to show where the gun was. He said it was in violation of the Miranda rights. Supreme Court didn’t agree because the officers didn’t know that the conversation was likely to illicit an incriminating response. The officers didn’t know he was religious or care about children. If the question is: if the prisoner isn’t in direct conversation with the police and the police are talking, is that in violation of the Miranda case? Brewer v. Willians (1977)/ Nix v Williams (1984) Girl disappeared and thought Williams was involved. Williams was in Iowa which was 160 miles away and talked to the lawyer. The lawyer said not to talk, Williams goes to the police station and there was a local lawyer that asked to be in the car. The police and Williams are going in thecar and gave the “Christian burial speech”. They knew he was religious, told him to observe the weather conditions and he knew where the little girl’s body was. He told Williams that he should think about it but not tell them. Then as they get close, he tells them to stop and tells them where the body was. The court did this that the evidence had been violated. Some thought Williams had the right to counsel but waived it. The US Supreme Court