This document provides an overview of a seminar on procedural rights in white collar criminal prosecutions. It discusses the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution during a white collar criminal investigation and pretrial proceedings, including rights against unreasonable searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment, the right to remain silent under the 5th Amendment, and the right to counsel under the 6th Amendment. It also discusses how violations of these rights can be challenged in court. The role of the paralegal in assisting defense attorneys with white collar cases is discussed.
4 Justice Radio has created the, "I AM FERGUSON Project" (#IAMFERGUSON) to highlight the shocking "anti-civil rights plan" revealed by the death of teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO at the hands of police officer Darren Wilson: that there exists a "hide-in-plain-sight" policy in the city of Ferguson, NO to enslave the black residents and to deprive them of their freedom and property. Using the police force to criminalize black residents with bogus charges the judges then used the courts as a cash register to collect illegal fines levied against them. What is also hiding in plain sight is that federal civil rights agencies like the Department of Justice and others under the Obama Administration have implemented a covert policy that refuses to fairly investigate racial discrimination complaints filed by black and other non-white people. In this report, we profile the work of the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs to protect federal financial recipients in the City of Alexandria, Virginia's local court and presiding Judge Becky Moore, Nolan Dawkins, and Donald Haddock, Jr. as they use their power to target and take black people's property Stay tuned for continuing coverage 4 Justice!
Unclean hands doctrine, Darren-Chaker, provides this legal article with a focus on perjury by plaintiffs. Great resource and provides several appellate cases.
Counseling for alcohol use disorder: Adlerian and Rogerian approachesJeffrey Ahonen
This is a brief presentation on two well-known theoretical orientations in mental health counseling practice, with a focus on the use of these approaches in the treatment of alcohol use disorder. The theoretical approaches of Alfred Adler and Carl Rogers to the psychological conceptualization of the disorder are discussed, together with a sketch of the general shape of the treatment program prescribed by each of these counseling theories.
This presentation might be useful as an specific application of the Adlerian and Rogerian approaches to psychotherapeutic treatment, particularly within an undergraduate or lower-level graduate course in psychology, mental health counseling, or addiction counseling.
4 Justice Radio has created the, "I AM FERGUSON Project" (#IAMFERGUSON) to highlight the shocking "anti-civil rights plan" revealed by the death of teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO at the hands of police officer Darren Wilson: that there exists a "hide-in-plain-sight" policy in the city of Ferguson, NO to enslave the black residents and to deprive them of their freedom and property. Using the police force to criminalize black residents with bogus charges the judges then used the courts as a cash register to collect illegal fines levied against them. What is also hiding in plain sight is that federal civil rights agencies like the Department of Justice and others under the Obama Administration have implemented a covert policy that refuses to fairly investigate racial discrimination complaints filed by black and other non-white people. In this report, we profile the work of the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs to protect federal financial recipients in the City of Alexandria, Virginia's local court and presiding Judge Becky Moore, Nolan Dawkins, and Donald Haddock, Jr. as they use their power to target and take black people's property Stay tuned for continuing coverage 4 Justice!
Unclean hands doctrine, Darren-Chaker, provides this legal article with a focus on perjury by plaintiffs. Great resource and provides several appellate cases.
Counseling for alcohol use disorder: Adlerian and Rogerian approachesJeffrey Ahonen
This is a brief presentation on two well-known theoretical orientations in mental health counseling practice, with a focus on the use of these approaches in the treatment of alcohol use disorder. The theoretical approaches of Alfred Adler and Carl Rogers to the psychological conceptualization of the disorder are discussed, together with a sketch of the general shape of the treatment program prescribed by each of these counseling theories.
This presentation might be useful as an specific application of the Adlerian and Rogerian approaches to psychotherapeutic treatment, particularly within an undergraduate or lower-level graduate course in psychology, mental health counseling, or addiction counseling.
Case Summaries for Criminal Procedure, 6eJohn Scheb and John M. .docxtidwellveronique
Case Summaries for Criminal Procedure, 6e
John Scheb and John M. Scheb IIChapter 1
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968). Here the Supreme Court made the right of trial by jury applicable to defendants in state criminal cases. In a concurring opinion joined by Justice Douglas, Justice Black expressed his satisfaction with what the Court had done under the mantle of selective incorporation: “I believe as strongly as ever that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. I have been willing to support the selective incorporation doctrine, however, as an alternative, although perhaps less historically supportable than complete incorporation. ... [T]he selective incorporation process has the virtue of having already worked to make most of the Bill of Rights protections applicable to the States.”
Boykin v. Alabama (1969). Boykin pled guilty to five counts of common law robbery; however, at this time Alabama law provided for a jury to determine a defendant’s sentence. At the sentencing phase, the trial judge asked Boykin no questions regarding the voluntariness of his plea agreement nor did Boykin address the court. The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony; however, Boykin’s attorney failed to present any mitigating evidence on behalf of Mr. Boykin including the fact that there was no indication the defendant had a prior criminal history. The jury returned a death sentence. The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Douglas, held “several federal constitutional rights are involved in a waiver that takes place when a plea of guilty is entered in a state criminal trial. First, is the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment…. Second, is the right to trial by jury. Third, is the right to confront one’s accusers. We cannot presume a waiver of these important federal rights from a silent record.” The Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s sentence because there was no indication in the court record that his plea was made “voluntary and understandingly.”
Chapter 2
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). Clarence Earl Gideon, a 51 year-old indigent “drifter” who had been in and out of jails all his adult life, was charged with felonious breaking and entering. At trial, he requested that the court appoint an attorney to represent him. The court refused, citing the Florida law that required appointment of counsel for indigent defendants only in capital cases. While serving his sentence in the Florida State Prison, Gideon unsuccessfully challenged his conviction in the Florida Supreme Court on a writ of habeas corpus. He then obtained review by the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari. In a unanimous decision, the Court reversed Gideon’s conviction. Writing for the Court, Hugo Black opined that “[t]he right of one charged with a crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours.” Gideon v. Wainwright over ...
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES384 U.S. 436Miranda v. Arizo.docxmattinsonjanel
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
384 U.S. 436
Miranda v. Arizona
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
No. 759 Argued: February 28-March 1, 1966 --- Decided: June 13, 1966 [*]
In each of these cases, the defendant, while in police custody, was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. None of the defendants was given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all four cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions, and, in three of them, signed statements as well, which were admitted at their trials. All defendants were convicted, and all convictions, except in No. 584, were affirmed on appeal.
Held:
1. The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 444-491.
(a) The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado interrogation as it exists today is inherently intimidating, and works to undermine the privilege against self-incrimination. Unless adequate preventive measures are taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice. Pp. 445-458.
(b) The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a long and expansive historical development, is the essential mainstay of our adversary system, and guarantees to the individual the "right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will," during a period of custodial interrogation [p437] as well as in the courts or during the course of other official investigations. Pp. 458-465.
(c) The decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, stressed the need for protective devices to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege. Pp. 465-466.
(d) In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed: the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Pp. 467-473.
(e) If the individual indicates, prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease; if he states that he wants an attorney, the questioning must cease until an attorney is present. Pp. 473-474.
(f) Where an interrogation is conducted without the presenc ...
BUSW 390Please complete the following table and submTawnaDelatorrejs
BUSW 390
Please complete the following table and submit.
Legal Term Definition
Relevant Case Issues
What Elements Apply
· Standing (Right) to Sue
Allows for a party to bring suit to a court. Within the federal court any legal action cannot be brought to the court on the grounds of an individual or group being dissatisfied. The federal court only possess the authority to resolve authentic disputes according to Article III of the Constitution.
Secondary Source: Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Standing. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing.
Primary Source: Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992)
Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, (72-1188), 418 U.S. 208 (1974),
“Standing alone, would adversely affect only the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance . . . We reaffirm Levitt in holding that standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of this kind…)
Member of the United States Armed Forces Reservist committee opposing their involvement in the Vietnam War pursed a class action against the United States Secretary of Defense. Respondents utilized the fact that they were United States citizen and taxpayers to pursue this class action however the respondents lacked standing to sue as taxpayers and citizens.
Legal Information Institute. (1992, June 12). Lujan v. defenders of wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1424.ZO.html.
1.The plaintiff must has experienced an injury that is considered of a legally protected interest being (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
3.It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury
Secondary Source: Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Standing. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing.
Relation to Case: Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, (72-1188), 418 U.S. 208 (1974),
Respondents must be able to proof that they will suffer an injury. This claim was found to lack standing due to the fact that the respondents could only tie in abstract injuries rather than concrete injuries.
Primary Source: Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992)
· Diversity of Citizenship
Is when all the parties on one side of a controversy contains a different citizenship then those of the other party. This is a requirement of diversity of jurisdiction because it promotes an unbiased court for the defendants.
Primary Source: Diversity of Citizenship Clause (U.S Const. Art. III § 2, cl. 1)
Secondary Source: Legal Information Institute. (2020, July). Diversity of citizenship. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diversity_of_citizenship. ...
An Overview of Procedural Rights in White Collar Criminal Prosecutions
1. A RIGHT WHITE COLLAR
AN OVERVIEW OF PROCEDURALRIGHTS
IN WHITE COLLAR
CRIMINALPROSECUTIONS
A Continuing Education Seminar
American Alliance for Paralegals, Inc.
February 10, 2011
Presenter
Jeffrey A. Ahonen
2. Today’s Seminar:A Law Day 2011 Preview
“The 2011 Law Day theme provides us
with an opportunity to assess and
celebrate the legacy of John Adams,
explore the historical and contemporary
role of lawyers in defending the rights of
the accused, and renew our
understanding of and appreciation for the
fundamental principle of the rule of law.”
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/law_day.html
3. A RIGHT WHITE COLLAR
AN OVERVIEW OF PROCEDURALRIGHTS
IN WHITE COLLAR
CRIMINALPROSECUTIONS
The United State Constitution and the constitutions of the various states
guarantee particular rights of due process to citizens charged with crimes.
Litigation of criminal cases is focused finely on ensuring that the rights of the
citizens -- the defendant as well as the citizenry at large -- are respected and
protected. In this seminar, an overview is presented of the procedural due
process rights impacted in the prosecution of white collar crime, from the
initial contact with law enforcement through sentencing. Particular emphasis
is given to the perspective from the defense table, and how a paralegal can
assist the defense attorney in the representation of the white collar client.
4. What Is White Collar Crime?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-mamet/annals-of-whitecollar-cri_b_21900.html
5. What Is White Collar Crime?
Sutherland, Edwin Hardin (1949). White Collar Crime. New York: Dryden Press.
Sociologist Edwin H. Sutherland originally defined the
concept of “white collar” crime in the late 1930s. He
distinguished this type of crime from “blue collar” street
crimes such as murder, rape, assault, arson, burglary,
theft, and vandalism. For Sutherland, white collar crime is
“crime committed by a person of respectability and high
social status in the course of his occupation” (Sutherland,
1949).
White-collar criminals often are opportunists, who over
time learn the can take advantage of their circumstances to
accumulate financial gain. They are educated, intelligent,
affluent, confident individuals, who were qualified enough
to get a job which allows them the unmonitored access to
often large sums of money. Many also use intelligence to
con their victims into trust relationships, then exploit those
relationships.
9. A Right White Collar = Ancient Justice
“Those that are not injured try and
punish the unjust as much as those
that are.” – Solon
“You shall do no injustice in judgment.
You shall not be partial to the poor,
nor honor the person of the mighty.
In righteousness you shall judge your
neighbor.” -- Moses, Leviticus 19:35
“Rather let the crime of the guilty go
unpunished than condemn the
innocent.” - Justinian I
13. Constitutional Rights During the Investigation
Amendment IV
“Let’s all play Hide & Seek!”
Amendment V
“You have the right to be quiet,
so shut up!”
Amendment VI
“One word: “L-A-W-Y-E-R”
14. The FourthAmendment
“The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
U.S. Const., amend IV.
The Fourth Amendment applies to the states by
way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
16. Litigating FourthAmendment Violations
Alleged violations of Fourth Amendment rights
concerning evidence are challenged via a Motion
to Suppress Evidence. This motion requests that
the trial court apply the Exclusionary Rule,
adopted in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383
(1914) and made applicable to the states in Mapp
v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), to prohibit the use of
the unlawfully-seized evidence against Defendant.
The arrest – the seizure of the person of
Defendant -- is challenged via a Motion to Dismiss,
which typically alleges lack of probable cause for
the seizure. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
17. The Fifth Amendment
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except
in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in
the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or
public danger; nor shall any person be subject for
the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life
or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken
for public use, without just compensation” U.S.
Const., amend V.
The right to remain silent exists during the
investigation and interrogation phase of a legal
case. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
19. Litigating Fifth Amendment Violations
Alleged violations of Fifth Amendment rights are
challenged via a Motion to Suppress Evidence.
This motion requests that the trial court apply the
finding of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
to rule inadmissible at trial all unlawfully-obtained
inculpatory and exculpatory statements made by
the Defendant.
20. The Sixth Amendment
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an
impartial jury of the State and district wherein the
crime shall have been committed, which district
shall have been previously ascertained by law, and
to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses
against him; to have compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” U.S.
Const., amend VI.
Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), held that
criminal suspects have a right to counsel during
police interrogations under the Sixth Amendment.
22. Litigating Sixth Amendment Violations
Alleged violations of Sixth Amendment rights are
challenged via a Motion to Suppress Evidence.
This motion requests that the trial court apply the
Exclusionary Rule as a sanction for the violation,
in accord with United States v. Wade, 388 U.S.
218 (1967) and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263
(1967).
23. Constitutional Rights During Pretrial Proceedings
Amendment V
“Due Process”
Amendment VI
“Confrontation”
Amendment VIII
“Jail & Bail”
24. What Process Is Due?
Lawful Arrest (IV, V)
Initial Appearance on Complaint (V, VI)
Bail Review (V, VIII)
Preliminary Examination of Probable Cause (V, VI)
Arraignment on Information (V, VI)
Bail Review (V, VIII)
Pretrial Discovery (V, VI)
Pretrial Litigation via Motion (IV, V, VI, VIII)
Jury Trial (V, VI, VIII)
Sentencing (V, VI, VIII)