Types of crimes and offenders. The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office prosecutes all adult felony cases and all juvenile offenses. A felony is the most serious type of crime. It carries the potential sentence of at least one year and one day in state prison. Different teams of prosecutors, victim advocates and legal support staff handle ...
Criminal court is where you go when the state believes you have committed a crime and it files charges against you. Generally, the District Attorney’s Office represents the state. Each county has its own District Attorney’s Office. In some cities certain offenses are prosecuted by the city attorney instead of the district attorney.
1) arraignment. 2)posting bail. 3)grand jury indictment. 4) trial sentencing. To convict a defendant of a crime, jurors must believe that the defendant's guilt is ___, and their verdict must be__. 1) beyond a reasonable doubt. 2)unanimous. Some Texas counties have separate offices for county and district attorneys.
Which of the following is the most likely outcome of this situation? ... The prosecution of felony cases is handled by the county attorney in the county where the crime occurred. ... Upon reviewing the case, the assistant district attorney decides to file formal charges of attempted burglary instead of burglary. Ultimately, the actual charge ...
READ FIRST: In any criminal case other than most infractions, where the potential for jail or prison time exists, a defendant has the right to be represented by an attorney, even if the defendant cannot afford one. In criminal infraction cases, a defendant also has the right to a lawyer if he or she is arrested ...
For example, a conviction can result in deportation for noncitizens or prevent a legal resident alien from becoming a citizen.
Types of Criminal Cases. An infraction is a minor violation. Many traffic violations are infractions. The punishment for infractions is usually a fine, and if the defendant pays the fine, there is no jail time.
Felonies. A felony is the most serious kind of crime. If found guilty, the defendant can be sent to jail or prison for a year or more , or even receive the death penalty for very serious crimes. Defendants convicted of felonies are usually sent to state prison for sentences of 16 months or more.
If someone loses a civil case, they may be ordered to pay the other side money or to give up property, but they will not go to jail just for losing the case. In a criminal case, the government must prove the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”.
Misdemeanors. A misdemeanor is a crime with a maximum punishment of: o Either 6 months or 1 year in a county jail, and/or. o A $1,000 fine (for most misdemeanors). Examples of misdemeanors are: o Petty theft. o Vandalism.
In a criminal case, the government must prove the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In a civil case, the plaintiff must prove his or her case by a “preponderance of the evidence” (more than 50 percent). This means that a party to a civil case can win if he or she is able to convince the judge or jury that his or her side of the case is slightly more convincing than the other side’s.
The fact that a particular prosecution is part of a larger federal law enforcement initiative that serves a substantial federal interest is an appropriate and relevant consideration in determining whether that individual prosecution also serves such a federal interest. Nature and Seriousness of Offense.
When a plea of nolo contendere is offered over the government's objection, the prosecutor should take full advantage of Rule 11 (a) (3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to state for the record why acceptance of the plea would not be in the public interest.
And the government's position during the sentencing process will help ensure that the court imposes a sentence consistent with 18 U .S.C. § 3553 (a). These principles of federal prosecution have been designed to assist in structuring the decision-making process of attorneys for the government.
These principles of federal prosecution provide federal prosecutors a statement of prosecutorial policies and practices. As such, they should promote the reasoned exercise of prosecutorial authority and contribute to the fair, evenhanded administration of the federal criminal laws.
It is important that limited federal resources not be wasted in prosecuting inconsequential cases or cases in which the violation is only technical. Thus, in determining whether a substantial federal interest exists that requires prosecution, the attorney for the government should consider the nature and seriousness of the offense involved. A number of factors may be relevant to this consideration. One factor that is obviously of primary importance is the actual or potential impact of the offense on the community and on the victim (s). The nature and seriousness of the offense may also include a consideration of national security interests.
The impact of an offense on the community in which it is committed can be measured in several ways: in terms of economic harm done to community interests; in terms of physical danger to the citizens or damage to public property; and in terms of erosion of the inhabitants' peace of mind and sense of security. In assessing the seriousness of the offense in these terms, the prosecutor may properly weigh such questions as whether the violation is technical or relatively inconsequential in nature and what the public attitude may be toward prosecution under the circumstances of the case. The public may be indifferent, or even opposed, to enforcement of the controlling statute whether on substantive grounds, or because of a history of non-enforcement, or because the offense involves essentially a minor matter of private concern and the victim is not interested in having it pursued. On the other hand, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the identity of the offender or the victim, or the attendant publicity, may be such as to create strong public sentiment in favor of prosecution. While public interest, or lack thereof, deserves the prosecutor's careful attention, it should not be used to justify a decision to prosecute, or to take other action, that is not supported on other grounds. Public and professional responsibility sometimes will require the choosing of a particularly unpopular course.
Although these principles deal with the specific situations indicated, they should be read in the broader context of the basic responsibilities of federal attorneys: making certain that the general purposes of the criminal law—assurance of warranted punishment, deterrence of further criminal conduct, protection of the public from offenders, and rehabilitation of offenders—are adequately met, while making certain also that the rights of individuals are scrupulously protected.
The Dallas County Conviction Integrity Unit investigates claims of innocence made by those convicted of crimes. What was the most common factor that led to the wrong person being convicted of a crime?
1) Bail usually consists of a payment of money.
2) The operating costs of Texas prisons were nearly 20 times higher in 2008 than in 1982.
Article 1, Section 28, of the Texas Constitution states, "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the state; but the Legislature shall have the power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." Which of the following statements and beliefs about guns can be supported by this part of the Texas Constitution?
In 2007 the Dallas County district attorney created the Conviction Integrity Unit. What was its goal?
Criminal justice reforms that have been successful in Texas are often framed as issues of justice, not partisanship .
1) Though the number of people in prison in Texas remains high, it has gone down in recent years.
It is the obligation of federal prosecutors, in preparing for trial, to seek all exculpatory and impeachment information from all members of the prosecution team. Members of the prosecution team include federal, state, and local law enforcement officers and other government officials participating in the investigation and prosecution of the criminal case against the defendant.
Rules of Professional Conduct in most jurisdictions also impose ethical obligations on prosecutors regarding discovery in criminal cases. Prosecutors are also reminded to contact the Professional Responsibility Advisory Office when they have questions about those or any other ethical responsibilities.
Carefully considered efforts to locate discoverable information are more likely to avoid future litigation over Brady and Giglio issues and avoid surprises at trial.
The discovery obligations of federal prosecutors are generally established by Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 16 and 26.2, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (the Jencks Act), Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). In addition, the United States Attorney's Manual describes the Department's policy for disclosure of exculpatory and impeachment information. See JM 9-5.001. In order to meet discovery obligations in a given case, Federal prosecutors must be familiar with these authorities and with the judicial interpretations and local rules that discuss or address the application of these authorities to particular facts. In addition, it is important for prosecutors to consider thoroughly how to meet their discovery obligations in each case. Toward that end, the Department has adopted the guidance for prosecutors regarding criminal discovery set forth below. The guidance is intended to establish a methodical approach to consideration of discovery obligations that prosecutors should follow in every case to avoid lapses that can result in consequences adverse to the Department's pursuit of justice. The guidance is subject to legal precedent, court orders, and local rules. It provides prospective guidance only and is not intended to have the force of law or to create or confer any rights, privileges, or benefits. See United States v. Caceres, 440 US. 741 (1979).
In most cases, "the prosecution team" will include the agents and law enforcement officers within the relevant district working on the case. In multi-district investigations, investigations that include both Assistant United States Attorneys and prosecutors from a Department litigating component or other United States Attorney's Office (USAO), and parallel criminal and civil proceedings, this definition will necessarily be adjusted to fit the circumstances. In addition, in complex cases that involve parallel proceedings with regulatory agencies (SEC, FDIC, EPA, etc.), or other non-criminal investigative or intelligence agencies, the prosecutor should consider whether the relationship with the other agency is close enough to make it part of the prosecution team for discovery purposes.
Prosecutors should begin considering potential discovery obligations early in an investigation that has national security implications and should also carefully evaluate their discovery obligations prior to filing charges.
The guidance was developed at my request by a working group of experienced attorneys with expertise regarding criminal discovery issues that included attorneys from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the United States Attorneys' Offices, the Criminal Division, and the National Security Division. The working group received comment from the Office of the Attorney General, the Attorney General's Advisory Committee, the Criminal Chiefs Working Group, the Appellate Chiefs Working Group, the Professional Responsibility Advisory Office, and the Office of Professional Responsibility. The working group produced this consensus document intended to assist Department prosecutors to understand their obligations and to manage the discovery process.
These include murder, robbery, rape, burglary of a residence, and assault with intent to commit robbery. The sentence an offender convicted of a felony receives depends on the current crime, the offender’s criminal history, and the discretion of the court.
The criminal justice system is based on criminal sentencing law, the body of laws that define crimes and specify the punishments for such crimes.
When including all types of criminal cases—felony, misdemeanor, traffic infractions, and juvenile delinquency—there were over 8 million filings in California trial courts in 2009-10. Only a few hundred thousand of these are for felony cases each year.
While the basic stages of the criminal justice system are set, the criminal laws and policies underlying them evolve over time as new problems, priorities, and solutions develop. We conclude this primer by describing the most significant changes in California criminal justice law over the past two decades, as well as describe a few of the major issues likely to face criminal justice policymakers in coming years.
There were almost 1.3 million arrests of adults and juveniles for felonies, misdemeanors, and status offenses in California in 2011.
According to the NCVS—which surveys victims of personal crimes (such as robbery and assault) who are age 12 or older—a majority of the nation’s crime victims are under the age of 35. Older victims make up a comparatively smaller share of the nation’s crime victims than they do of the general population.
Because federal criminal law is focused on the federal government’s role in the regulation of interstate commerce, immigration, and the protection of federal facilities and personnel, federal law enforcement tends to focus on nonviolent crimes (such as drug trafficking, immigration violations, fraud, bribery, and extortion).
The Prosecutor's Decision: Using the Police Report. Typically, prosecutors base their initial charging decisions on the documents sent to them by the arresting police officers (usually called police or arrest reports ).
Arrest and prosecution functions are separated primarily to protect citizens against the arbitrary exercise of police power. Police officers usually make arrests based only on whether they have good reason ( probable cause) to believe a crime has been committed. By contrast, prosecutors can file formal charges only if they believe that they can prove a suspect guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not only do arrest reports often determine what charges prosecutors file, but they also may play a key role in how much bail is required, the outcome of preliminary hearings (where hearsay evidence is often admissible), the willingness of the prosecutor to plea bargain, and trial tactics (for instance, the police report can be used to discredit testimony of the police officer who prepared the report).
Their charging decisions are often, therefore, affected by public opinion or important support groups. For example, a prosecutor may file charges on every shoplifting case, no matter how weak, to curry favor with local store owners who want to get the word out that shoplifters will be prosecuted. For similar reasons, a prosecutor may pursue otherwise weak prostitution charges to avoid alienating powerful civic groups. Deputy or assistant prosecutors may feel that appearing tough will help their careers, either within the prosecutor's office or later if they want to become judges.
Prosecutors can file charges on all crimes for which the police arrested a suspect, can file charges that are more or less severe than the charges leveled by the police, or can decide not to file any charges at all. ( U.S. v. Batchelder, U.S. Sup. Ct. 1979.)
Arrest reports are almost always one-sided. They recite only what the police claim took place and may include only witness statements that support the police theory. While they are generally not admissible as evidence in a trial, arrest reports can have a major impact in criminal cases.
Experienced defense attorneys understand that prosecutors must sometimes be seen as taking a strong stand publicly, even though they may be willing to respond to weaknesses in individual cases at a later stage of the process. This is one of the reasons why practically every criminal defendant will benefit from the help of an experienced, local criminal defense attorney: Only those professionals know where the pressure points are and how to work around them (or with them).
sentences imposed were most pronounced for drugoffenses, where blacks and Latinos received especially punitive outcomes. Asian defendants appeared to have most favorable outcomes across all discretionary points, as they were less likely to be detained, to receive custodial offers, and to be incarcerated relative to white defendants. Asian defendants received particularly favorable outcomes for misdemeanor propertyoffenses. The study concludes with a discussion of implications for DANY and the research community, as well as study limitations.
First, the study represents a rare effort to look into nearly every discretionary point, including case acceptance for prosecution, dismissals, pretrial detention, plea bargaining (reduced charge and custodial sentence offers), and sentencing outcomes, and provides strong evidence for the need to examine multiple discretionary points, given their interdependent nature. Second, the study examines important data on the evidentiary strength of cases involving drugs—including drug description, drug recovery by the police, and other arrest circumstances—and provides a unique descriptive review of these variables as well as multivariate analyses that take into account their combined influence. Third, using data collected from prosecutorial paper files, it looks closely into plea-to-a-lesser charge offers and sentence offers. Fourth, the study relied on a large dataset that permitted various analyses and enabled us to examine outcomes for Asian defendants as well.
strongest predictor of case dismissals; detention status, offense type, and charge seriousness were better predictors. Note that these findings should be interpreted with an eye to the limitations described below (see Study Limitations). As for reasons for dismissals, the prosecution’s inability to establish the elements of the crime was the chief reason for both felonies(consistent across racial groups), while for misdemeanors, it was the lack of speedy prosecution and violations were most likely to receive ACDs. ACD dismissals, which are statutorily-regulated and entail limited prosecutorial discretion, were more common for whites (2.2% of felonies, and 40.3% of misdemeanors) than for blacks (0.5% and 22.6%) and Latinos (1.1% and 28.4%). Plea bargaining - Charge offers: the study found limited evidence that in the drug sample (combined misdemeanor and felony samples), blacks were less likely to receive a reduced charge offer, even after controlling for many relevant factors, including arrest circumstances, evidence gathered, charge seriousness, and prior record. Overall, the strongest predictors of charge offers were change in plea offer (whether the initial plea offer differed from the final plea), prior prison sentence, the recovery of currency at the time of arrest, prior violent felony conviction and charge seriousness. For a sample of 1,153felony drug cases, no statistically significant differences were found. Plea bargaining - Sentence offers: Blacks and Latinos are more likely to receive custodial sentence offers (including time served in pretrial detention), as opposed to non-custodial sentence offers which includes community service, probation and fine. The sentence offer analyses was conducted for (a) all misdemeanors in the dataset provided by DANY, (b) the random sample of 1,246 misdemeanor marijuana cases, and (c) the random sample of 1,153 felony non-marijuana drug cases. For all misdemeanors, a greater percentage of blacks (47%) received custodial offers compared to Latinos (32%), whites (22%), and Asians (8%). After considering various factors, blacks were 13% more likely (odds ratio = 1.67) and Latinos 5% more likely (odds ratio= 1.21) to
Prosecutors’ discretion to file charges, change or reduce charges, plea bargain, and make sentencing recommendations is nearly unlimited. Despite this authority, prior research has not adequately examined the extent to which prosecutors may contribute to racial and ethnic disparities. Research on criminal case processing typically examines a single outcome from a particular decision-making point, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions about the impact that factors such as defendants’ race or ethnicity exert across successive stages of the justice system. Using a unique dataset from the New York County District Attorney's Office (DANY) that tracks a large sample of diverse criminal cases, this study assesses racial and ethnic disparity at multiple discretionary points of prosecution and sentencing. In addition to a large administrative dataset, randomly selected subsamples of misdemeanor marijuana and felony non- marijuana drug cases were chosen, and information on arrest circumstances and evidence factors was gathered from prosecutors’ paper files to supplement our analyses. The study found that DANY prosecutes nearly all cases brought by the police with no marked racial or ethnic differences at case screening. For subsequent decisions, disparities varied by discretionary point and offense category. For all offenses combined, compared to similarly-situated white defendants, black and Latino defendants were more likely to be detained, to receive a custodial plea offer, and to be incarcerated; but they were also more likely to benefit from case dismissals. In terms of offense categories, blacks and Latinos were particularly likely to be held in pretrial detention for misdemeanor personoffenses, followed by misdemeanor drugoffenses. Blacks and Latinos were also most likely to have their cases dismissed for misdemeanor drugoffenses. Disparities in custodial sentence offers as part of the plea bargaining process and ultimate
Racial disparities in pretrial detention were particularly large for misdemeanor personoffenses where blacks were 20% morelikely than whites to be detained ( odds ratio= 2.31), and in
Criminal justice outcomes are often influenced by defendants’ socio-economic characteristics. For certain discretionary points, and particularly for pretrial detention, defendants’ employment and community ties can play an important role. To consider the effect of these characteristics, we included certain proxies, such as type of counsel, arrest neighborhood for the population dataset, and median household income for the drug samples. Furthermore, the analysis predicting plea offers for the drug felony sample explored the impact of defendants’ marital status, employment, and education. However, the absence of more robust measures of socio-economic characteristics is a clear weakness of this study, which we hope future research will be able to address more successfully. It is our hope that prosecutors’ offices will capture this information more systematically to enable more nuanced analyses. An advantage of this study over others is its inclusion of Asian defendants. Our findings suggest that there are important racial differences in case processing that extends beyond white, black and Latino categories. Nonetheless, we were unable to differentiate among defendants using more refined categories of racial and ethnic identity. For example, important differences may exist within these broad racial and ethnic categories in terms of skin tone, language proficiency, and country of origin, citizenship or other elements of racial and ethnic identity. These types of refinements hold the potential to make important contributions in future work of unwarranted disparity in the justice system. Although the findings of this study should have broad appeal, given DANY’s size and prominence, it is also important to note that New York County is in many ways unique, which may limit the generalizability of our results to smaller and more racially and ethnically homogenous jurisdictions. Furthermore, our analyses included only five types of felonies (see Data and Analyses above), which makes it difficult to gauge how prosecutorial discretion is being exercised for other felony offenses, even within DANY. It is our hope that future studies will apply the conceptual and analytical approach developed here to other jurisdictions and examine a broader range of felony offenses.
19Unlike in other jurisdictions, the Supreme Court in New York is the trial level court, while the state’s highest appeals court is called the Court of Appeals. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department.
Most white collar crimes are prosecuted by government lawyers (prosecutors) that work for a prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor’s office is responsible for seeking justice in its jurisdiction.
Punishments, also called sentences, can be set by trial juries or judges. For sentences imposed by a judge, the sentencing judge can consider several factors in determining the punishment:
If you have been convicted of a white collar crime, you should speak to a criminal defense lawyer to learn more about your rights. A lawyer can also help you with an appeal, if you feel your conviction and/or punishment was the result of a miscarriage of justice.