The adversarial system or adversary system or accusatorial system or accusatory system is a legal system used in the common law countries where two advocates represent their parties' case or position before an impartial person or group of people,usually a judge or jury,who attempt to determine the truth and pass judgment accordingly. It is in contrast to the inquisitorial system used in some civil law systems where a judge investigates the case.
In the United States,the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody advising them of their right to silence and,in effect,protection from self-incrimination;that is,their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials. Named for the U.S. Supreme Court's 1966 decision Miranda v. Arizona,these rights are often referred to as Miranda rights. The purpose of such notification is to preserve the admissibility of their statements made during custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings. The idea came from law professor Yale Kamisar,who subsequently was dubbed "the father of Miranda."
In the United States,the exclusionary rule is a legal rule,based on constitutional law,that prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights from being used in a court of law. This may be considered an example of a prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to protect a constitutional right. The exclusionary rule may also,in some circumstances at least,be considered to follow directly from the constitutional language,such as the Fifth Amendment's command that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and that no person "shall be deprived of life,liberty or property without due process of law."
Hartman v. Moore,547 U.S. 250 (2006),is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the pleading standard for retaliatory prosecution claims against government officials. After a successful lobbying attempt by the CEO of a manufacturing company against competing devices that the US Postal Service supported,the CEO found himself the target of an investigation by US postal inspectors and a criminal prosecution that was dismissed for lack of evidence. The CEO then filed suit against the inspectors and other government officials for seeking to prosecute him in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights to criticize postal policy. The Court ruled 5-2 that to prove that the prosecution was caused by a retaliatory motive,the plaintiff bringing such a claim must allege and prove that the criminal charges were brought without probable cause.
David Brookman "Brooks" Smith is a senior judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He was previously Chief Judge of both the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania,and is the only judge in the history of the Third Circuit to have served as both a chief district judge and chief of the Court of Appeals.
Robert James "Bob" Conrad Jr. is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. He served as chief judge from 2006 to 2013 and was a former nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to take the place of the retired James Dickson Phillips Jr. He previously served as a member of the executive committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States from 2016 to 2020.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution creates several constitutional rights,limiting governmental powers focusing on criminal procedures. It was ratified,along with nine other amendments,in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
The Peggy Hettrick murder case concerns the unsolved 1987 death of Peggy Hettrick in Fort Collins,Colorado. Timothy Lee "Tim" Masters enlisted in the United States Navy following a high school career plagued by police accusation of murder when he was a sophomore at Fort Collins High School. After eight years in the Navy,he was honorably discharged. Masters worked for Learjet as an aviation mechanic until 1997,when he was arrested for the murder of Peggy Hettrick. He was charged and convicted of the Hettrick murder in 1999 and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. His sentence was vacated in January 2008 when DNA evidence from the original crime scene indicated that he was not the responsible party. Three years after his release from prison,Masters was exonerated by the Colorado Attorney General on June 28,2011. As of 2023,no one else has been charged with Hettrick's murder.
Griffin v. California,380 U.S. 609 (1965),was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled,by a 6–2 vote,that it is a violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights for the prosecutor to comment to the jury on the defendant's declining to testify,or for the judge to instruct the jury that such silence is evidence of guilt.
William Joseph Campbell was a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Paul George Cassell is a former United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Utah,who is currently the Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah. He is best known as an expert in,and proponent of,victims' rights.
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts,557 U.S. 305 (2009),is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation for a prosecutor to submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the person who performed the test. While the court ruled that the then-common practice of submitting these reports without testimony was unconstitutional,it also held that so called "notice-and-demand" statutes are constitutional. A state would not violate the Constitution through a "notice-and-demand" statute by both putting the defendant on notice that the prosecution would submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the scientist and also giving the defendant sufficient time to raise an objection.
Key disclosure laws,also known as mandatory key disclosure,is legislation that requires individuals to surrender cryptographic keys to law enforcement. The purpose is to allow access to material for confiscation or digital forensics purposes and use it either as evidence in a court of law or to enforce national security interests. Similarly,mandatory decryption laws force owners of encrypted data to supply decrypted data to law enforcement.
The Denver District Attorney's Office is responsible for the prosecution of state criminal violations in the Second Judicial District. Colorado has 64 counties within the 22 judicial districts in the State. The office is composed of approximately 75 attorneys and 125 support staff,who as a whole are responsible for more than 6,000 felony and 17,000 misdemeanor prosecutions annually. The elected District Attorney is the chief law enforcement officer in the City and County of Denver,and is responsible for the prosecution of violations of Colorado State Laws. The current Denver District Attorney is Beth McCann.
United States v. Fricosu,841 F.Supp.2d 1232,is a federal criminal case in Colorado that addressed whether a person can be compelled to reveal his or her encryption passphrase or password,despite the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. On January 23,2012,judge Robert E. Blackburn held that under the All Writs Act,Fricosu is required to produce an unencrypted hard drive.
Glasser v. United States,315 U.S. 60 (1942),was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on two issues of constitutional criminal procedure. Glasser was the first Supreme Court decision to hold that the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment required the reversal of a criminal defendant's conviction if his lawyer's representation of him was limited by a conflict of interest.
Washington v. Texas,388 U.S. 14 (1967),is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution is applicable in state courts as well as federal courts. Jackie Washington had attempted to call his co-defendant as a witness,but was blocked by Texas courts because state law prevented co-defendants from testifying for each other,under the theory that they would be likely to lie for each other on the stand.
Taylor v. Illinois,484 U.S. 400 (1988),is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that defense witnesses can be prevented from testifying under certain circumstances,even if that hurts the defense's case. Taylor was the first case to hold that there is no absolute bar to blocking the testimony of a surprise witness,even if that is an essential witness for the defendant,a limitation of the broad right to present a defense recognized in Washington v. Texas (1967).
Ellis v. United States of America,416 F.2d 791,is a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit,in 1969. It addressed the question of a witness's refusal to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds. The court concluded that when a non-indicted witness who has waived their Fifth Amendment privilege by testifying voluntarily before a grand jury and with knowledge of their privilege,their waiver extends to a subsequent trial based on an indictment returned by the grand jury that heard their testimony.
Pointer v. Texas,380 U.S. 400 (1965),was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of to confront accusers in state court proceedings. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that,in criminal prosecutions,the defendant has a right "...to be confronted with the witnesses against him;to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor..." In this case,a person arrested in Texas for robbery was deprived of the ability to cross-examine a witness when the lower court allowed the introduction of a transcript of that witness's earlier testimony at a preliminary proceeding instead of compelling attendance by the witness at trial.
