WPC } J[36ͣpú0^g)jDQ}l! fl[xWߊ?uG.kMIe)Z#lҏl-I@ϧۉba82ϒ(2.JW3fGݘ 9>Wr/D"xdv^vdl7+\J=#°\zUm*~Rdy>:钩ިV^F~:ePob\;oڮ #9feOK49oڄ dN|u9?+|u]3 CN(Nn_b?R%F &2jQL͎2(y^֗zjf'T2 19u1<ĉYaygѥ?q;NKx3*ce݂ɨΏWPtZk w#!UN % 0( 1m 1 w/ 4   m b f a  0e f6 a8 fL aN fb ad 0x 0b` 0] 0hb  B 0 0c` 0! 0N 0k 0 0HP LaserJet 4000 Series PS0x9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($# e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Sqrstuv _Eqw}Short exam2 column exam versionI.A.1.(a)(1)a)i)            D        D a(E3|x U- -TABLE A1, 2, 3,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#(.2Quick 1.  .0 t TABLE BTABLE ChTABLE D(:"7$0   X)X X)X (2$0  0` (#(#  ("T"q$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (# (@$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `  d(":"e$X6X 2   .3  0  X6X (t%1$0  2  A  .3  0` (#(#(0$0  0` (#(#2   .3  0 ` (#` (#ܔXXܔXX($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2(  0  )3  0 (# (#ܔXXܔXX(:?$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2(  a  )3  0h(#(#ܔXXܔXX(%`$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2(   )3  0h(#h(#ܔXXܔXX(4$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2  0  )3  0(#(# !  ݛHXXX   8)XXdd8ѢCrimProIIExamOutline  H  XXiXTC Sqrstuv _ #C   Se X)XXX   XX)(XX%X%(Se[2_  I  .3  0    X)XDefenseCounsel NSe[݌  ЌX)XXX)  XX) q1   q1 0  2_  A  .3  0*   RighttoAppointedCounsel6THAmendment q1 7݌** Ќ  0  0*[Rightattachedwhen accused,i.e.adversarial P processbegins"KirbyvIll(1972)goalisto ^  protecttheunaidedlaymanatcriticalconfrontationswithhisadversary"Gouveia   (1984)]. ** Т r0   r00  0*2_  1  .3  0**    PowellvAla(1932) Ԁ"DUEPROCESS v .  capitalcasewithilliterate/feebleminded.r0 ݌<   Ќ  ݢ r0   r00  0*2_  2  .3  0**    JohnsonvZerbst(1938) zԀ6thamendment   requires federalcourts tosupplycounselin   allfelonycases.r0݌  Ќ  ݢ r0   r0 0  0*2_  3  .  3  0**  BradyvBetts(1942)  ԀJohnsonn/atothe X  statesvia14thamendment,casebycaseto   lookforfundamentalunfairtrial.r0 ݌  Ќ  ݢ r0   r0 0  0*2_  4  .3  0**    GideonvWainwright(1963) u Ԁoverrules b Betts, 14thapplies ,statesmustmakemust p( makecounselavailabletoallfelony.If : deniedassistanceofcounsel, cannotbe  assuredafairtrial.r0 ݌~ Ќ  ݢ r0   r080  0*2_  5  .3  0**    ԢArgersingervHamlin(1972)  ԀGideon D applicabletoallindigent misdemeanor  R  whoaresentencedtoa jailterm .r08c݌ Ќ  ݢ r0   r0L0  0*2_  6  .3  0**    ScottvIll(1979) Ԁ specterofimprisonment   triggersrighttocounsel;ifnosentence,no h violation.Nocounsel,jailtermprecluded.r0Lw݌v. Ќ   r0   r0a0  0*2_  7  .3  0**    ԢBaldasarvIL(1980) 2ԀIfdeniedcounseland < convictedtononprisonpunishment,convictioncannotlaterbeusedfor sentence  enhancement. r0a݌J  Ќ  ݢ q1   q1z0  2_  B  .3  0*   ProceedingProSe 7q1z݌"** Ќ   r0   r00  0*2_  1  .3  0**    JohnsonvZerbst(1938) Ԁ strongpresumption  # 6thamendmentrighthasnotbeenwaived.r0݌f$ Ќ  ݢ r0   r00  0*2_  2  .3  0**    ԢCarnleyvCochran(1962) uԀcanpresume t ,% waiverfromsilentrecord.r0݌  Ќ  ݢ r0   r0S0  0*2_  3  .3  0**    ԢFarettavCal(1975) $Ԁhasanaffirmative "' righttorepresenthimself.r0S~݌  Ќ  ݢ s   s 0  0*0**2_(  a  )3  0  Noinquirynecessary.s 6݌#D ) Ќ   s   sb0  0*0**2_(  b  )3  0  Cfdissent(Rehnquist,Burger),in R$ !* majorityofcases,swillbebetteroff %!+ cantbebalmforfrustrated,subverted %", forpoliticalpurposes.sb݌  Ќ   r0   r0y0  0*2_  4  .3  0**    ԢGodinezvMoran(1993) JԀ competency j'"$. standard forwaivingrighttocounsel, 4($/ pleadingguilty, isnothigher thanstdfor (%0 standingtrial.r0y݌  Ќ  ݢ r0   r0 0  0*2_  5  .3  0**    ԢMcKasklevWiggins(1984) p!Ԁ6thamendment *F'2 rightisnotviolatedwhenjudgeappointsastandbycounsel,overobjections,torelievejudgeofexplainingprotocolIfdeniedself ,)5 represent,mustreverseusuallyhurts, -^*6 thusnotamenabletoharmlesserroranalysis.r0 ݌l.$+7 Ќ  ݢ q1   q1T#0  2_  C  .3  0%%   EffectiveAssistanceofCounsel $q1T##݌ 7%% Ќ   r0   r0$0  0%%2_  1  .3  0S%%    ԢStricklandvWash(1984) %Ԁimperfectdoes 8 not=ineffective.Nonfunctioning=ineffect.6thamendment=fairtrial=proper r*: functioningofadversarialsystem.r0$$݌ S%S% Ќ  ݢ s   s&0  0%%0S%%2_(  a  )3  0S%S%   2PRONGEDTEST 'Ԁforineffective < assistanceofcounsel:s& '݌ %% Ќ   t:?   t:?(0  0%%0S%%0S%S%2_(  1  )3  0%%%  counselsperformance=deficientt:?((݌ B>%%%% Ќ   t:?   t:?)0  0%%0S%%0S%S%2_(  2  )3  0%%%  deficiencyprejudicedthecase.t:?)$*݌P ?%%%% Ќ  0  0%%0S%%[ Benchmark = whethercounselsconduct  @ sounderminedtheproperfunctioningoftheadversarialprocessthatthetrialcannotbereliedonashavingproducedajustresult l$ C lessthan50%certaintyofdifferentresult,lookattotalityofcircumstancesthus,  E  innocentpeople havestrongestcase].v FS%S%  s   sI-0  0%%0S%%2_(  b  )3  0S%S%    Marshall,Dissent ,.:Moreemphasison @G processifineffective,then6thamd NH hasbeenabridgedveryhardto I identifyprejudicewhen incompetence J likelyleadtoanincompleterecord . \K PROBLEM=leadstolotsofsecondguessing,administrationcosts.sI-t-݌4M%% Ќ  ݢ s   s)00  0%%0S%%2_(  c  )3  0S%S%   Cf.PowellandGideon  1purposeof N counselistoensureproperfunctionofjudicial,adversarialprocess.s)0T0݌ %% Ќ   r0   r020  0%%2_  2  .3  0S%%    USvCronic(1984) 2ԀREALESTATE LQ LAWYER cannotinferprejudice by R surroundingcircumstances,e.g.ԀDUEPROCESS T' $c wasincompetent,latercompetentifsedated; ($d lackedresourcestocontendinsanity,esp.atsentencing dueprocessrequiredaccessto )^&f psychiatricassistance .r0==݌p*('gS%S% Ќ  ݢ s   s@0  0%%0S%%2_(  a  )3  0S%S%  entitledto rawmaterialsintegralto :+'h thebuildingofaneffectivedefense ,(i lowercourtsinterpretasvirtualnecessitys@/@݌ %% Ќ   s   sA0  0%%0S%%2_(  b  )3  0S%S%  EPcollapsedonlyintoDPnottrying -D*k tolevelplayingfieldanymore.sAB݌ R. +l%% Ќ   r0   r0C0  0*2_  4  .3  0**    AndersvCal(1967) ^DԀmustsubmitletting H sayingappealiswhollyfrivolousandrequestingwithdrawal,alsoraisingbestargument.Ct.reviews,ifpossiblemerit,thennewcounselappointed.r0CC݌  Ќ   s   sٴE0  0*0**2_(  a  )3  0    McCoyvCtofAppofWI(1988) FԀState & canrequirethatcounselsAndersbrief  alsoincludereasonswhyappealhasno j merit.sٴEE݌x 0 Ќ  ݢ s   sG0  0*0**2_(  b  )3  0  Highstd.ofAndersmeanslessresources >   forotherindigentsw/bettercase.sG%H݌  Ќ   s   s٠I0  0*0**2_(  c  )3  0    JonesvBarnes(1983) JԀCounselneed    notargueallnonfrivolouspointsaturgingofcantabandonnon V   frivolousappeal,butcanabandonanonfrivolousissue.s٠II݌  Ќ    Se X)X   SeK2_  II  .3  0    PretrialReleaseandDetention KSeK:L݌n&  ЌXX)   q1   q1)M0  2_  A  .3  0*   BailSystemFACTSandEVOLUTION Mq1)MTM݌ ** Ќ   r0   r0N0  0*2_  1  .3  0**  Statutoryscheme forbail(ratherthan   constitutional )necessaryifwewantto h augmentfunding.r0NN݌  Ќ   s   sJP0  0*0**2_(  a  )3  0  Considercontingencyfeesandfree @ choiceofPDbyindigentclients.sJPuP݌  Ќ  ݢ s   sQ0  0*0**2_(  b  )3  0  Threesystems toconsider:sQ R݌ Ќ   t:?   t:?DS0  0*0**02_(  1  )3  0e   PublicDefenderPrograms N publicornonprofitprevalentin \ urbanareas.t:?DSoS݌ e e  Ќ   t:?   t:?U0  0*0**02_(  2  )3  0e   AssignedCounseluseby60%  ofjurisdiction,reimbursedbystatuteorfeeschedulet:?U", @Coststo '%"-"@ @'CoststoSociety %"."@ 1.Preparationofowndefense;investigation.2.losejobs,disruptfamilylife3.Morelikelytogetconvicted4.Greaterstigmawhich10ormoreyrsunder !>g ControlledSubstancesAct.t:?Uyy݌ %%%% Ќ   t:?   t:?z0  0%%0S%%0S%S%2_(  4  )3  0%%%  Mightfleet:?z{݌#i%%%% Ќ   t:?   t:?O|0  0%%0S%%0S%S%2_(  5  )3  0%%%  Mightobstructjustice(e.g.witness # j tamper).t:?O|z|݌ %%%% Ќ   s   s}0  0%%0S%%2_(  d  )3  0S%S%  Factorstobeweighed:s} ~݌d%"l%% Ќ   t:?   t:?<0  0%%0S%%0S%S%2_(  1  )3  0%%%  natureandcircumstancesof *&"m offenset:?<g݌ %%%% Ќ   t:?   t:?0  0%%0S%%0S%S%2_(  2  )3  0%%%  weightofevidencet:?݌'n$o%%%% Ќ   t:?   t:?)0  0%%0S%%0S%S%2_(  3  )3  0%%%  history/characterof:family, |(4%p employment,$$,communityties,pastconduct,hxrelatedtodrugsoralcohol,crimrecord.t:?)T݌ %%%% Ќ  ݢ t:?   t:?0  0%%0S%%0S%S%2_(  4  )3  0%%%  Ifonprobation,othercharges +L(t pending.t:?=݌ %%%% Ќ   s   sٛ0  0%%0S%%2_(  e  )3  0S%S%  STATUTORY TM:Moneybailis  -)v confinementw/oaffordingprocess.BailReformActisabettersystem.Stackv .h+x%% Boyleisanimpossibletesttoapply. H  Info+condition =prevailingtrend.sٛƅ݌ Ќ   r0   r00  0*2_  2  .3  0**    USvSalerno(1984) ʈԀ"PREVENTATIVE  DETENTIONMobbossdeniedbailbasedonpotentialdangerousactivitiesfacial d attackonBailActr0$݌  Ќ   s   s0  0*0**2_(  a  )3  0   BailActof1984isconstitutional ފs)݌ Ќ   t:?   t:?0  0*0**02_(  1  )3  0e   Regulatoryinnatureratherthan n punitivedoneinresponseto | 4 crimewhileonbailcf.war B   exceptions,mentallyunstable.t:?݌ e e  Ќ   t:?   t:?0  0*0**02_(  2  )3  0e   Not substantivedueprocess     violation,donew/otoomuchincursiononindividualliberties.t:?Í݌ e e  Ќ   t:?   t:?[0  0*0**02_(  3  )3  0e   Proceduraldueprocessclear& $  convincing+writtenjustification.t:?[݌ e e  Ќ   s   s0  0*0**2_(  b  )3  0  [Preventativedetentionsokayno h  absoluterighttobails/݌  Ќ   t:?   t:?0  0*0**02_(  1  )3  0e   PughvGerstein48hour <  detentionokayw/ohearingonPCt:?݌ e e  Ќ   t:?   t:?=0  0*0**02_(  2  )3  0e   KSvHendricksPost  conviction/sentenceokay.t:?=h݌ e e  Ќ   t:?   t:?0  0*0**02_(  3  )3  0e   SchallvMartincandetain T  juvenilespretrial.]t:? ݌ e e  Ќ   s   sم0  0*0**2_(  c  )3  0    Marshall,Dissent: hԀThisispunishment  for perceivedfuturecrimes ; ^ incarceration=punishment.sم݌  Ќ   s   so0  0*0**2_(  d  )3  0    Steven,Dissent R:Wontclosedooron 6 preventativeincarceration,butthiscasedoesntpassconstitutionalmusterduetofuturecriminalityrationalityso݌  Ќ   r0   r0~0  0*2_  3  .3  0**  TM:Separate Policy&Constitutionality  N   McMartin! r0~݌  Ќ    Se X)X   Se52_  III  .3  0    ProsecutorialScreening (Se5݌\" ЌXX)  0  [TM:SectionisNOTCONSTITUTIONALLAW V$ STATUTORYandpolicyorientedscreening  % positivelyornegativelyPOLICEareahugepartof  & thisprocess].   q1   q1j0  2_  A  .3  0*   OverviewofProsecutorsDiscretion; 'q1j݌4#)** Ќ   r0   r0Ԡ0  0*2_  1  .3  0**   ThreetypesofDeclinationpolicies :r0Ԡ݌# * Ќ   s   sC0  0*0**2_(  a  )3  0  General=Standardsbasedontotality $x!+ ofcircumstancessCn݌  Ќ   t:?   t:?ң0  0*0**02_(  1  )3  0e   Levelofoffenset:?ң݌L&#-e e  Ќ   t:?   t:?80  0*0**02_(  2  )3  0e   priorchargest:?8c݌'#.e e  Ќ   t:?   t:?0  0*0**02_(  3  )3  0e   restitutiont:?Ʀ݌'$/e e  Ќ   t:?   t:?0  0*0**02_(  4  )3  0e   abilitytopayt:?'݌(V%0e e  Ќ   t:?   t:?`0  0*0**02_(  5  )3  0e   priorconvictionst:?`݌d)&1e e  Ќ   t:?   t:?Ǫ0  0*0**02_(  6  )3  0e   personal/familysituationt:?Ǫ݌**&2e e  Ќ   s   s80  0*0**2_(  b  )3  0  Specific=Rulestriestoanticipates *'3 circumstancesinordertobleedoutinvidiousaspectsofdiscrimination |,4)5 evisceratesmercypotentialinprocess.(e.g.nothief<$50willbeprosecuted).s8c݌.*7 Ќ   s   sq0  0%%0S%%2_(  c  )3  0S%S%  ProceduralSetforthuniformlistof H7 factorstobeconsidered,requireawrittenrecordtoexplaincharginganddeclinationdecisions.sq݌ %% Ќ   r0   r0P0  0%%2_  2  . 3  0S%%   MandatoryProsecution  domestic `; violencer0P{݌ S%S% Ќ   s   sٱ0  0%%0S%%2_(  a  )3  0S%S%  Counteractsinstitutionalbiassٱ݌=%% Ќ   s   s90  0%%0S%%2_(  b  )3  0S%S%  NoEPproblemssinceeverythingisin n> theopenbutPOLICEdiscretion | 4? MN=mandatoryarrests,holisticpolicy.s9d݌ %% Ќ   s   s0  0%%0S%%2_(  c  )3  0S%S%  Butconflictswithresourcerestraintss=݌ A%% Ќ   s   sz0  0%%0S%%2_(  d  )3  0S%S%  Alsoignoresvictimpreferencemight  B begood,takesitoutofherhands  L C Stateisthebadguy.sz݌ %% Ќ   r0   r0C0  0%%2_  3  .3  0S%%   Diversionterminated  ,properstd=parole   E MorrisseyvBrewer(1972)NDAAprosstds.r0Cn݌ FS%S% Ќ   s   s0  0%%0S%%2_(  a  )3  0S%S%  writtennoticeofviolations=݌h G%% Ќ   s   so0  0%%0S%%2_(  b  )3  0S%S%  disclosureofevidenceagainstso݌v. H%% Ќ   s   sԼ0  0%%0S%%2_(  c  )3  0S%S%  opportunitytobeheardandpresent < I opposingevidencesԼ݌ %% Ќ   s   sW0  0%%0S%%2_(  d  )3  0S%S%  righttoconfrontandcrossexaminesW݌K%% Ќ   s   sټ0  0%%0S%%2_(  e  )3  0S%S%  neutralanddetachedhearingbody.sټ݌FL%% Ќ   s   s 0  0%%0S%%2_(  f  )3  0S%S%  writtenstatementbyfactfinderasto T M reasonsofrevocation.s K݌ %% Ќ   r0   r00  0%%2_  4  .3  0S%%   StatisticalDisparities y amongvariousparties O beingcharged.r0݌ S%S% Ќ   s   sD0  0%%0S%%2_(  a  )3  0S%S%  LEVELUPMcCleskysuggestthat p(Q executingmorewouldsolveproblem.sDo݌ %% Ќ   s   s0  0%%0S%%2_(  b  )3  0S%S%  Politicalfailures ingettingprosecutors S toutilizebetterguidelines.s݌ %% Ќ   q1   q10  2_  B  .3  0%%   ԢBLACKLETTERonChargeSelection @q1݌R V%% Ќ   r0   r00  0%%2_  1  .3  0S%%  [prosecutorshavewidediscretion,usually W defaulttomorespecificoffenseAUSA= X moreserious]r0݌ S%S% Ќ   r0   r00  0%%2_  2  .3  0S%%    InmatesofAtticaFacilityvRockefeller(2nd j"Z Cir1973) pԀ"DEFERtoEXECBRANCH"Civilrightsviolationsinaftermathofriot.Courtrefusestosubstitutejudgementforprosecutors,lestbecome superprosecutors. r0݌!:^S%S% Ќ   s   s0  0%%0S%%2_(  a  )3  0S%S%  Separationofpowerss݌L"_%% Ќ   s   sG0  0%%0S%%2_(  b  )3  0S%S%  !wouldneedfilesofGJ,prosecut,thus #` incameranotworkable.sGr݌ %% Ќ   r0   r00  0%%2_  3  .3  0S%%    USvCox(5th1965) Ԁ"PREPAREbutnot $V!b SIGN"USAttorneyrefusedtosignindictmentafterGJfoundprobablecause.Rule7mustsignindictmentinsome &#e jurisdictions,canprecedewithoutprosecutorssignature.r0݌ S%S% Ќ   r0   r0<0  0%%2_  4  .3  0S%%    UnnamedPetitionersvConnors(WI1987)  Ԁ B)%h Nocompulsiontoprosecuteifhaveprobablecause,lowprobabilityofgettingconviction *'j SepofPowifcourtsinterferer0<g݌ S%S% Ќ   r0   r0\0  0%%2_  5  .3  0S%%   ԢFRCrimP48 *requiresleaveofcourtto Z,)l dismisscriminalcomplaint  USvWellborn $-)m (5th1988) ԀCanbewithheldonlyif clearly -*n indicatesabetrayalofthepublicinterest.r0\݌ .h+oS%S% Ќ   r0   r00  0*2_  6  .3  0**    JohnsonvPataki(NY1997) ԀGovernorcan H takecontrolofprosecutionifprosecutorpublicallystatesnodeathpenalty,lestlegislativewillbefrustrated.r0݌  Ќ   r0   r00  0*2_  7  .3  0**   PrivateProsecutions  insomejurisdictionsif ` openandnotoriousbutsee  PeoplevMun * Ct(CalApp1972) 3ԀencroachesonSepof  Pow; DueProcess sinceprosecutorservesas n uniformscreeningdeviceforall.r0݌  Ќ   r0   r0{0  0*2_  8  .3  0**    USvBatchelder(1979) LԀTWOCRIMES F   Prosecutorfreetochoosemoresevereoftwocrimesaslongasnottodiscriminateagainstanyclassof.r0{݌ P  Ќ   s   s0  0*0**2_(  a  )3  0  Cf.  ԢHutchersonvUS(DC1965) iԀ ^   prosecutionchargewithfelonywhenmisdemeanoravail.Dissent= thisis   sentencingchoice.s݌  Ќ   r0   r00  0*2_  9  .3  0**    ԢBlackledgevPerry(1974)VINDICT k v.  exercisedrighttonewtrialdenovo,prosecutorcharge. Vindicativeness =DUE  PROCESS.r0݌  Ќ   r0   r00  0*2_  10  .3  0**    USvGoodwin(1982) xԀJURYTRIAL J requestformisdemeanor,transferredtofedcourt,tofelonycharges.Nopresumptionof   vindictiveness in pretrialsetting r0݌ Ќ   r0   r00  0*2_  11  .3  0**    Hawkins(Cal1978)STRICTSCRUTINY  f toproceedbyGJinsteadofprelim.hearing.r0݌  Ќ   s   sْ0  0*0**2_(  a  )3  0  6thamendmentissuessْ݌: Ќ   s    s0  0*0**2_(  b  )3  0  Delayandpublicityarenotgood  reasons.s݌  Ќ   r0    r0e0  0*2_  12  .3  0**    USvArmstrong(1982) 7ԀSELECTIVE D PROSECUTIONr0e݌  Ќ   s   s0  0*0**2_(  a  )3  0  EPof5th Amdifdecisiontopros.based   onunjustifiablestd.likerace,religion,otherarbitraryclass.s$݌  Ќ   s    s0  0*0**2_(  b  )3  0  mustpresent clearandconvincing  n&# evidenceto rebutpresumption ofno 8$ EPviolation.s݌  Ќ   s    sن0  0*0**2_(  c  )3  0  RationalBasis ifnoprotectedclass.sن݌ & Ќ   s    s0  0*0**2_(  d  )3  0  Strictscrutiny onlyiffundamentalright !J' isatstate.CfShapirorighttotravel \"( affectbydifferentialinwelfarepayments݌  Ќ   r0    r00  0*2_  13  .3  0**    ԢSantobellovNewYork(1971) ԀBROKEN # * PROMISEPromiseofsentencing $f!+ recommendationmustbefollowedwhenusedtoinduceguiltyplear0݌  Ќ   s   s0  0*0**2_(  a  )3  0  requiredbyDUEPROCESS.s݌'#. Ќ   s    sM0  0*0**2_(  b  )3  0   CfPeoplevNavarroli(Ill1988) -Ԁnot '~$/ DPviolationifhasnotpleadguiltyin (D%0 relianceonproblem.sMx݌  Ќ   s    sF0  0*0**2_(  c  )3  0    USvBethea(4th1973) , *&2 DIVERSIONcanbreakdiversion *'3 agreementsincenocharges,thusnoplea.sFq݌  Ќ   s    s;0  0*0**2_(  d  )3  0    USvGarcia(9th1973) !ԀDelayed 0-)6 prosecutionagreement,0prosifdealerproducein90day.Chargesfiledafter.t+8 150(nodealer)cantsincewaive H8 righttospeedytrial.s;f݌ %% Ќ   r0    r00  0%%2_  14  .3  0S%%    ԢMcCleskyvKemp(1987) vԀEQUAL : PROTECTIONstatisticsnotenoughfor R; discriminationintentunderEPmustshow `< that decisionmakersinhiscaseactedwithdiscriminatorypurpose.r0݌ S%S% Ќ   r0   r00  0%%2_  15  .3  0S%%    USvAguilar(9thCir1989) ԀSIMILARLY j? SITUATEDpoliticalgroupthatsmuggled x 0@ aliensprosecuted,butnotfarmersandranchers.r0"݌ S%S% Ќ   s   s0  0%%0S%%2_(  a  )3  0S%S%  NoEQUALPROTECTIONprob  C becausealldistinctionsextraneousto1st  H D amendmentnotremoved.s+݌ %% Ќ   s   s0  0%%0S%%2_(  b  )3  0S%S%    Cf.USvRobinson(WDMo1969)   F EQUALPROTECTIONviolationwhenprivateinvestigatorschargedbutnotϢgovtofficial.Implicit=no invidious n& I motive .s݌8 J%% Ќ   s   s0  0%%0S%%2_(  c  )3  0S%S%   Rationalbasis  ifnoprotectedclass K involved.s/݌ %% Ќ   s   s٤0  0%%0S%%2_(  d  ) 3  0S%S%   Strictscrutiny  ifprotectedclass JM requiresfactualinquiry.s٤݌ %% Ќ   r0   r0W0  0%%2_  16  .3  0S%%    USvElliott(SDNY1967) )ԀDESUETUDE "O rejectionofdesuetudedoctrinejust P becausenoonehadbeenprosecutedunderlawsinceitsinceptionin1917.r0W݌ S%S% Ќ    Se X)X   Se|2_  IV  .3  0    PreliminaryHearingsandGrandJury oSe|݌T%% ЌXX)   q1   q1 0  2_  A  .3  0%%   Comparison z q1  ݌jV%% Ќ   r0   r0 0  0%%2_  1  .3  0S%%   GrandJury   Investigatorybody,butalso x0W Screensforproprietyofcharges.r0 5 ݌BXS%S% Ќ   s   s 0  0%%0S%%2_(  a  )3  0S%S%  thuspossibleconflictingrole(active Y versusdetached).s  ݌ %% Ќ   s   sO0  0%%0S%%2_(  b  )3  0S%S%  Rule6=supposedtobenonadversarialsOz݌L[%% Ќ   r0   r00  0%%2_  2  .3  0S%%   Preliminaryhearings adversarial,infront Z\ ofaneutralmagistrate,canconfrontwitnesses.Canbe waived ,exp.inpleabarg.r0݌ ^S%S% Ќ   s   sٮ0  0%%0S%%2_(  a  )3  0S%S%  Alsocanservetocheckthatconditions !l_ ofbailarenoexcessivesٮ݌ %% Ќ   s   s<0  0%%0S%%2_(  b  )3  0S%S%  Canrequirereductionofexcessive @#a charges(tocounterprosecutorialovercharging)inpreparationforpleabargaining.s<g݌ %% Ќ   r0   r00  0%%2_  3  .3  0S%%  Problem ifsimilarlysituatedgetdifferent X&#e outcome,veryhardtochallengeGJ "'#f documentsmaynotbediscoverableunlessprimafaciecaser0+݌ S%S% Ќ   r0   r00  0%%2_  4  .3  0S%%  Whykeepit? Historicalcontexthuge. t),&i Importantscreeningfunctionagainstarbitraryexerciseofgovtpower.r0݌ S%S% Ќ   s   sٜ0  0%%0S%%2_(  a  )3  0S%S%  ݢOriginalistthusmightthinkPHare +(l better,thuscanchuck.sٜ݌ %% Ќ   s   s'0  0%%0S%%2_(  b  )3  0S%S%  TM:ButGJstillcanbestructural V-*n mechanismtocheckdiscretion .*o%% screeningfunctionkeepsthemfromgoingwildoninvestigatorypower.Powercanbeakintojurynullification.s'R݌  Ќ  ݢ s   sP0  0*0**2_(  c  )3  0  Possiblereforms:sP{݌R Ќ   t:?   t:?0  0*0**02_(  1  )3  0e   requirect.toinformGJoftheir ` independentauthorityt:?݌ e e  Ќ  ݢ t:?   t:?H0  0*0**02_(  2  )3  0e   givingtargetrighttotestifyt:?Hs݌e e  Ќ   t:?   t:? 0  0*0**02_(  3  )3  0e   Prosecutorrequiredtopresentall j exculpatoryevidencet:?  ݌ e e  Ќ   t:?   t:?U"0  0*0**02_(  4  )3  0e   noinadmissibleevidencet:?U""݌>  e e  Ќ   t:?   t:?#0  0*0**02_(  5  )3  0e   Limiteduseofhearsayt:?##݌  e e  Ќ   t:?   t:?/%0  0*0**02_(  6  )3  0e   postindictmentpretrialhearingto    checkforproceduralerrors.t:?/%Z%݌ e e  Ќ   r0   r0&0  0*2_  5  .3  0**    Investigatorypowers=considerissuesof V   subpoenaducestecumvs.searchwarrant '.r0&&݌  Ќ  *f'dd4dd 4dd 'XXf,4dd ,4dd +   `  @GrandJury '  "@ @'PreliminaryHearing   "@ 1.Juryofyourpeers2.usuallynolawyer3.usuallynotpresent  4.nonadversarial5.secretlessstigma  ~6 1.neutralmagistrate2.lawyer3.present,cantestify  3.crossexam+somedisc.4.publicpossiblestigma ~6   q1   q1+0  2_  B  .3  0*   ԢBLACKLETTER"GJInvestigationand4thamend +q1+2+݌:** Ќ  0  0*[Neednotbeparticularized,unlikesearchwarrant  justplainlyrelevanttoongoinginvestigation, ~ probativeinID,notforharassment,minimallyinvasiveifnoriskofpainblood,saliva,hairand R ! fingerprintsokay.] **  r0   r0-0  0*2_  1  .3  0**    ԢHurtadovCal(1884) .Ԁ"INFOversusGJ # indictmentpasses14thDUEPROCESSclauser0-.݌\$ Ќ  ݢ r0   r0/0  0*2_  2  .3  0**    BoydvUS(1886) u0Ԁ" 4thand5thmergedin j"% ТGJcontext "cannotbecompelledto 4& produceincriminatingdocumentsjustlike ' breakingintohomeandsearchingpapers |( NOLONGERGOODLAW.r0//݌  Ќ  ݢ r0   r0"20  0*2_  3  .3  0**    HalevHenkel(1904) 2Ԁ"OVERBREADTH P * DOCTRINE"Subpoenaducestecumhastocomplywithparticularityrequirementoftenfoundinsearchwarrants.r0"2M2݌  Ќ  ݢ s   s"40  0*0**2_(  a  )3  0   Cf.Horowitz(2nd1973,Friendly,J) 5, h# . HalemightbebettergroundedinDUE .$ / PROCESSCLAUSE.s"4M4݌  Ќ   s   s60  0*0**2_(  b  )3  0    Nowrequires3things: 6s6E6݌%r"1 Ќ   t:?   t:?70  0*0**02_(  1  )3  0e   commandsonlyproductionof &8#2 documentsrelevanttoinvestigationt:?77݌ e e  Ќ   t:?   t:?790  0*0**02_(  2  )3  0e   documentsnamedwith reasonable  ($4 particularity.t:?79b9݌ e e  Ќ   t:?   t:?:0  0*0**02_(  3  )3  0e   whetherdocumentsproducedcover )P&6 onlyareasonableperiodoftime.t:?::݌ e e  Ќ   r0   r0s<0  0*2_  4  .3  0**    CostellovUS(1956) D="HEARSAY" $+'8 indictmentcanoccurevenwhenonlyevidenceishearsay.r0s<<݌  Ќ   s   s5>0  0*0**2_(  a  )3  0  indictmentsshouldntbehamperedby v-.*; procedural/evidentiaryrules.s5>`>݌<.*< Ќ   s   s?0  0%%0S%%2_(  b  )3  0S%S%  Evenifnota5thAmendment,court H< couldcurtailunder supervisorypowers s??݌=%% Ќ   r0   r0}A0  0%%2_  5  .3  0S%%   COOPERATIONwithGJ HBԀ"r0}AA݌>S%S% Ќ  ݢ s   sB0  0%%0S%%2_(  a  )3  0S%S%    ԢSchmerbervCal(1966) CBLOOD V? SAMPLEisnota dueprocess ,4thor5th d@ amendmentviolation.Notunreasonable.sBC݌ %% Ќ  ݢ s   sD0  0%%0S%%2_(  b  )3  0S%S%    DavisvMiss(1969) EPolicemayget B FINGERPRINTSw/otrad.showingofPC(indsusp)DistinguishedbyDionsiosD&E݌ 8D%% Ќ  ݢ s   sG0  0%%0S%%2_(  c  )3  0S%S%    USvDionsio(1973) G"VOICEsG,G݌F E%% Ќ  ݢ t:?   t:?H0  0%%0S%%0S%S%2_(  1  )3  0%%%  Initialcompulsionofapersonto  F appearbeforeagrandjury;andt:?HH݌ %%%% Ќ   t:?   t:?5J0  0%%0S%%0S%S%2_(  2  )3  0%%%  subsequentdirectivetogivevoice  P H exemplarnot 4thamdviolation .t:?5J`J݌^  I%%%% Ќ  ݢ t:?   t:?K0  0%%0S%%0S%S%2_(  3  )3  0%%%  No reasonablenessinquiry  ( J Тnecess.withvoiceexemplarunlessanotherconst.violationatissuet:?KL݌ %%%% Ќ  ݢ t:?   t:?M0  0%%0S%%0S%S%2_(  4  )3  0%%%  Marshalldissent:OPENSDOOR ~6 M TOGETINFOthruGJthatwouldotherwisebeunobtainable.t:?MM݌ %%%% Ќ  ݢ s   sكO0  0%%0S%%2_(  d  )3  0S%S%    USvMara(1973) iPԀ"HANDWRITING P samplestoGJnot4thamdviolation.sكOO݌NQ%% Ќ  ݢ r0   r0WQ0  0%%2_  6  .3  0S%%    USvCalandra(1974) (RԀ"ILLEGALLY \R GAINEDEVIDENCEnotsuppressedincontextofGJ Noexclusionaryrule .r0WQQ݌TS%S% Ќ  ݢ s   s>S0  0%%0S%%2_(  a  )3  0S%S%  Dictasuggeststhatitwouldbeokayto jU  issueanindictment basedon x0V unconstitutionallyobtainedevidence.s>SiS݌BW%% Ќ   r0   r0U0  0%%2_  7  .3  0S%%    USvWilliams(1992) UԀ"FAILURETO X DISCLOSE"nodismissalofotherwisevalidindictmentforfailureofprosecutiontodisclosesubstantiallyexculpatoryevidence.r0UIU݌ S%S% Ќ  *f'dd4dd 4dd '%%f,4dd ,4dd +   ] @PoliceSearches 'J^"@ @'GrandJuryInvestigations J_"@ 1.FingerprintsneedreasonablesuspicionorPC2.Donetotarget3.public4.Conductedbygovt  !td 2.Noshowingforvoice,handwriting,blood.2.Nonecessarilytarget3.Secret4.Conductedbypeers. !ti  ̢ q1   q1fY0  2_  C  .3  0%%   ԢBLACKLETTER"Investigationand5thAmend x#0 j (SelfIncrimination). #Zq1fYY݌ %% Ќ  ݢ r0   r0[0  0%%2_  1  .3  0S%%  [GJcanbea discoverymechanism though %!l usuallyonlyinhighprofilecases.r0[,[݌ S%S% Ќ  ݢ s   sٖ\0  0%%0S%%2_(  a  )3  0S%S%  5thAmd=producedocuments,butgovt &L#n mustfigureoutwhatisincriminating.sٖ\\݌ %% Ќ  ݢ s   sD^0  0%%0S%%2_(  b  )3  0S%S%  Protects informationinyourmind. sD^o^݌ ($p%% Ќ   s   sٮ_0  0%%0S%%2_(  c  )3  0S%S%  Physicalevid=nontestimon=permiss.]sٮ__݌(%q%% Ќ  ݢ r0   r0"a0  0%%2_  2  .3  0S%%   ԢCounselmanvHitchcock(1892) a"5th )h&r amendment appliesinGrandJurysetting .r0"aMa݌v*.'sS%S% Ќ  ݢ r0   r0b0  0%%2_  3  .3  0S%%    HoffmanvUS(1951) c"LINKofEVID" @+'t 5thamendmentappliestoanyanswerwherean ,(u injuriousdisclosuremayoccur.r0bc݌ S%S% Ќ  ݢ r0   r0d0  0%%2_  4  .3  0S%%    RogersvUS(1951) f"WAIVER"disclose -J*w ofincriminatingfactwaivestheprivilegeast X.+xS%S% thedetailsr0de݌  Ќ   r0   r0h0  0*2_  5  .3  0**    MurphyvWaterfrontComm(1964) Ui"   SeparateSovereignLimitation n/awhen  isprosecutedforonecrimeinstate/fed,butcompellingtestimonywouldwhipsawfor d subsequentprosecutioninotherjurisdiction.r0hh݌  Ќ   s   sj0  0*0**2_(  a  )3  0    USvBalsys(1999) klimitationappliedto  foreigncountries(e.gNaziwarcrimes).sjk݌  Ќ  ݢ s   sl0  0*0**2_(  b  )3  0    7Policyvaluesunderlying5thAmend m, | 4 quotedinDoeII:sll݌B   Ќ   t:?   t:?wn0  0*0**02_(  1  )3  0e   Crueltrilemma ofselfaccusation,    perjury,orcontempt.t:?wnn݌ e e  Ќ  ݢ t:?   t:?p0  0*0**02_(  2  )3  0e   accusatorialsystem ,wheregovt  P  shouldertheload.t:?pHp݌ e e  Ќ  ݢ t:?   t:?q0  0*0**02_(  3  )3  0e   Fearthatmethodsforselfincrim. (  willbe cruel&inhumane t:?qq݌ e e  Ќ  ݢ t:?   t:?ss0  0*0**02_(  4  )3  0e   ݢgovtshouldleaveindividualalone p  untilgoodcauseexitstodisturbhimotherwise, chargefirst D  fishingexpedition .t:?sss݌e e  Ќ  ݢ t:?   t:?zu0  0*0**02_(  5  )3  0e   Protectthe privacyenclave ofthe  mind.t:?zuu݌ e e  Ќ   t:?   t:? w0  0*0**02_(  6  )3  0e   Distrustofselfdeprecatorystate.t:? w5w݌h e e  Ќ   t:?   t:?x0  0*0**02_(  7  )3  0e   Whilesometimesasheltertothe . guilty,may protecttheinnocent .t:?xx݌e e  Ќ   r0   r05z0  0*2_  6  .3  0**    ԢSchmerbervCal(1966) {BLOODSAMPLE v isnota dueprocess ,4thor5thamendment < violation.Nottestimonial,notunreasonable.r05z`z݌  Ќ  ݢ r0   r0E|0  0*2_  7  .3  0**    ԢKastigarvUS(1972) }Ԁ"IMMUNITYby  Тgovtpermitscompulsionofinculpatorytest.r0E|p|݌  Ќ  ݢ r0   r0~0  0*2_  8  .3  0**    USvMandujano(1976) ~Ԁ"MIRANDAs" X (Plurality)NorighttoMirandaswhen f witnessiscalledbeforeGJforacrimehemightbeinvolvedin,arguablydefacto.r0~1~݌! Ќ  ݢ s   sI0  0*0**2_(  a  )3  0  Nodeterrencerationale.sIt݌p" Ќ   s   s٣0  0*0**2_(  b  )3  0  Nocriminalproceedingagainsthim ~6#  no6thamendmentrighttocounsel s٣΁݌D$ Ќ   t:?   t:?T0  0*0**02_(  1  )3  0e   [butAGmanualdoesallow  %  reasonableopportunitytoleaveroomandconsultw/lawyer !R' mightbeaftereveryquestTM: `"( institutionalstructuremaybesufficientsafeguardhereanyway.]t:?T݌ e e  Ќ   t:?   t:?0  0*0**02_(  2  )3  0e   Somestateshavestatutes $j!+ permittingcounselw/iGJroomt:?Ѕ݌ e e  Ќ  ݢ t:?   t:?G0  0*0**02_(  3  )3  0e   PeoplevIanniello(NY1968) >&"- cangoin/outforobviousstrategy.t:?Gr݌ e e  Ќ  ݢ s   s0  0*0**2_(  c  )3  0    Brennan,Concur :Forbidpracticeif '$/ accusedratherthanindependentwitnesss+݌  Ќ   t:?   t:?0  0*0**02_(  1  )3  0e   Closenexusof5thand6th,thus V)&1 counselshouldbeavailablet:?݌ e e  Ќ   t:?   t:?g0  0*0**02_(  2  )3  0e   IfPCbyanobjectivestd,then *'3 mustgetwaiver practicedby +d(4 somestates.t:?g݌ e e  Ќ   r0   r010  0*2_  9  .3  0**    USvWashington(1977) "GJTARGET" <-)6 witnessneednotbewarnedthatheisatarget.r01\݌.*7 Ќ  ݢ s   s0  0%%0S%%2_(  a  )3  0S%S%  oftenGJdoesntknowwhotargetis.s'݌H7%% Ќ  ݢ s    sk0  0%%0S%%2_(  b  )3  0S%S%  [AGmanualadviseattorneytonotify 8 targetsunlesspossiblefearofjurytamp]sk݌ %% Ќ   q1    q1 0  2_  D  .3  0%%   ԢBLACKLETTERSubpoenaDucesTecum Ɠq1 4݌`;%% Ќ  ݢ r0   r0u0  0%%2_  1  .3  0S%%    FishervUS(1976) eWrittendocuments &< mustbeTESTIMONIALgotdocuments = fromaccountantrelatedtotaxoffense,gavetohisattorney.Attorneyrefusedtoproduceon5thamdgrounds.Couch(1973)=Accountantr0u݌> @S%S% Ќ  ݢ s   s 0  0%%0S%%2_(  a  )3  0S%S%  5thonlyapplicableifinvolves  A testimonialselfincrimination. s 5݌ B%% Ќ   s   s٫0  0%%0S%%2_(  b  )3  0S%S%  Nozoneofprivacynowonwrittendoc.s٫֘݌ L C%% Ќ   s   s0  0%%0S%%2_(  c  )3  0S%S%    Brennan,Marshallconcur :natureof Z  D paperssubpoenaediswhatcaseturnson   E  ifprivate,cantdoit. (KATZ)s>݌ F%% Ќ   r0   r0'0  0%%2_  2  .3  0S%%    DoeII(1988) ԀACTofPRODUCTION h G iftheactofproductionisinanywaytestimonial,then5thamendmentrightapplies.r0'R݌< IS%S% Ќ   s   s0  0%%0S%%2_(  a  )3  0S%S%  MustbeattempttoobtainmindscontentsB݌J%% Ќ   s   sل0  0%%0S%%2_(  b  )3  0S%S%  4thamend/dueprocesssafeguardssل݌K%% Ќ   s   s0  0%%0S%%2_(  c  )3  0S%S%  Avoidtrilemmaselfaccuse,perjure, FL contempt.Ifaccountsdontexist,no T M problem!s݌N%% Ќ  ݢ s   s0  0%%0S%%2_(  d  )3  0S%S%    Steven,Dissent :authorizationrequires O todiscloseinfonoobtainableinanyotherway.METAPHOR:s݌ %% Ќ   t:?   t:?0  0%%0S%%0S%S%2_(  1  )3  0%%%  Relinquishkeytostrongboxokayt:?Ť݌2R%%%% Ќ   t:?   t:?0  0%%0S%%0S%S%2_(  2  )3  0%%%  Butnotcombotowallsafe.t:?<݌S%%%% Ќ   s   sق0  0%%0S%%2_(  e  )3  0S%S%  DoeImmunity actofproductioncan vT verifyexistenceandauthenticity.sق݌ %% Ќ   r0   r0 0  0%%2_  3  .3  0S%%   ACTofPRODUCTION Ԁisprotectedunder NV the5thAmendmentifproductionreveals:r0 K݌WS%S% Ќ   s   sҪ0  0%%0S%%2_(  a  )3  0S%S%  DocumentsexistssҪ݌X%% Ќ   s   s$0  0%%0S%%2_(  b  )3  0S%S%  Ortheybelongtothes$O݌XY%% Ќ   s   sـ0  0%%0S%%2_(  c  )3  0S%S%  [Thus,Katzlikereasonableexpectation fZ ofprivacycreepsintoanalysis].sـ݌ %% Ќ    Se X)X   Se12_  V  .3  0    DiscoveryandSpeedyTrial"6thAmend $Se1~݌ p]%% ЌXX)   q1   q1}0  2_  A  .3  0%%   SPEEDYTRIAL :q1}݌j""_%% Ќ  0  0%%[Rightcutsbothways.Policytoadvocateonexam: 0#` Ifpromptlydemanded/assertedright,the # a prejudiceshouldbepresumed;Ifisslowtoassert $t!b right,thecourtshouldpresumptivelyassumenonprejudicelestdefendantplaybothsides].H&#d%%  r0   r0E0  0%%2_  1  .3  0S%%    ԢKlopfervNC(1967) "14thimposesSixth '#e amendmentrighttospeedytrialonstates.r0Ep݌ S%S% Ќ  ݢ r0   r0 0  0%%2_  2  .3  0S%%    SmithvHooey(1969) ۵Ԁ"PRISONINMATE (R%g stillhas6thamendmentright.Otherwise:r0 5݌`)&hS%S% Ќ   s   sͶ0  0%%0S%%2_(  a  )3  0S%S%  loseschanceofconcurrentsentencingsͶ݌&*&i%% Ќ   s   s40  0%%0S%%2_(  b  )3  0S%S%  mayadverselyaffectprisonterm,worse *'j treatment,keepinprisonlongers4_݌ %% Ќ   s   sʹ0  0%%0S%%2_(  c  )3  0S%S%  Abilitytopreparedefensecompromised.sʹ݌x,0)l%% Ќ   r0   r030  0%%2_  3  .3  0S%%    BarkervWingo(1972) Ԁ"SPEEDYTRIAL >-)m BALANCINGunder6thAmendmentr03^݌ .*nS%S% Ќ  ݢ s   s0  0*0**2_(  a  )3  0  Casebycasewith Fourfactors :s݌H Ќ   t:?   t:?X0  0*0**02_(  1  )3  0e   LengthofDelayt:?X݌e e  Ќ   t:?   t:?0  0*0**02_(  2  )3  0e   reasonfordelayt:?݌e e  Ќ   t:?   t:?#0  0*0**02_(  3  )3  0e   sassertionoftherightt:?#N݌Ve e  Ќ   t:?   t:?0  0*0**02_(  4  )3  0e   Prejudicetothe.t:?݌de e  Ќ   s   s0  0*0**2_(  b  )3  0  Speedytrialrightisunique:violation * doesntnecessarilyprejudice,may  help;dismissalisdraconianbutonly n remedy; demandwaiverrule ,waiveris | 4 lessofanissue.s0݌  Ќ   s   sR0  0*0**2_(  c  )3  0  [TM:minimumrequiredtogetdismissal    =demandedtrial,scasewas    prejudiced,andthereasonsgivesomesortofbasisforrebuttal].sR}݌  Ќ   r0   r0G0  0*2_  4  .3  0**    USvLovasco(1977) Ԁ"PREINDICTMENT $  DELAY"NotaDUEPROCESSproblemtoprosecutefollowinginvestigativedelay, h  evenifdefensesomewhatprejudicedbydelayr0Gr݌  Ќ  ݢ s   sn0  0*0**2_(  a  )3  0    Marion(1971) TԀ"preindictmentdelay <  doesnottriggerSpeedyTrialClause.Proofofprejudiceisnecessarybutnotsufficientelementof dueprocessclaim sn݌F Ќ   s   sْ0  0*0**2_(  b  )3  0  Dueprocess=mustnotviolate X  fundamentalsystemoffairplayand  decency .IfhavePC,canstillwaitfor  sufficientevidenceforBRDstd.sْ݌  Ќ  ݢ s   s٨0  0*0**2_(  c  )3  0  TM:Marshallisconcernedaboutboth t, prejudicetoandprejudicetothestate.s٨݌: Ќ   s   sP0  0*0**2_(  d  )3  0  TM:ConsiderVernierproblem(sex  abuse)sP{݌  Ќ   t:?   t:?0  0*0**02_(  1  )3  0e   DueProcessclauseislikea D  flexiblestatuteoflimitations .t:?݌R e e  Ќ   t:?   t:?v0  0*0**02_(  2  )3  0e   Natureandseriousnessalsoaffect   outcomecf.Doggett(drugcrime ! =victimlesscrime).t:?v݌ e e  Ќ  ݢ r0   r0Z0  0*2_  5  .3  0**    USvStrunk(1982) +Ԁ"DISMISSALONLY n&# REMEDY"cantgivecreditfromtime 4$ servedbetweenindictmentandarraignment. TMLIKES original7thCirruling.r0Z݌ x& Ќ  ݢ r0   r00  0*2_  6  .3  0**    ԢDoggettvUS(1992) `Ԁ"GOVT !B' NEGLIGENCE"Failuretopurseforsixyearsafterindictmentviolated6thamendment.r0݌#) Ќ  ݢ s   sف0  0*0**2_(  a  )3  0  dismissalonlyremedy;sف݌# * Ќ   s   s0  0*0**2_(  b  )3  0  majordifferencewithBarkeristime $Z!+  presumptivelycompromisesthereliabilityofatrialinwaysthatneitherpartycanproveor...identifys݌  Ќ   q1   q10  2_  B  .3  0*   DISCOVERYfortheDEFENSE q1݌(8%0** Ќ   r0   r0+0  0*2_  1  .3  0**  Boilerplateargumentsagainst:r0+V݌F)%1 Ќ   s   sv0  0*0**2_(  a  )3  0  Fabricateevid .tocounterprosecutionsv݌ *&2 Ќ  ݢ s   s0  0*0**2_(  b  )3  0  would intimidatewitnesses s݌*'3 Ќ   s   sL0  0*0**2_(  c  )3  0  5thamendmakesdiscovery oneway +X(4 street (butwhataboutGJ)?sLw݌j,")5 Ќ  ݢ r0   r00  0*2_  2  .3  0**    MooneyvHolohan(1935) "perjured 4-)6 testimony=dueprocessviolation,defacto-*7  harmlesserror standard.r0݌H7S%S% Ќ  ݢ r0   r00  0%%2_  3  .3  0S%%    BradyvMD(1963) Ԁ"DUEPROCESS" 8  suppressionbytheprosecutionofevidencefavorableto uponrequest violatesdue V: processwheretheevidenceis material either h ; toguiltorpunishment.r0݌ S%S% Ќ   r0   r0U0  0%%2_  4  .3  0S%%