Criminal Procedure Flashcards

When analyzing a search and seizure issue under the Oregon Constitution, Oregon courts will:

Answer: Conduct an independent state constitutional analysis under Article I, Section 9 that may provide broader protections than federal minimums

Oregon courts independently analyze Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, which may afford greater protections than the federal Fourth Amendment, requiring attorneys to separately analyze both provisions.

Under Brady v. Maryland and its progeny, the prosecution's constitutional disclosure obligation requires turning over:

Answer: Material evidence favorable to the defendant, including both exculpatory and impeachment evidence

Brady and its extension in Giglio v. United States require disclosure of all material evidence favorable to the defendant, encompassing both exculpatory evidence and evidence useful to impeach prosecution witnesses.

In Oregon, a defendant charged with a felony offense:

Answer: May waive the right to grand jury indictment and consent to prosecution by information

Oregon law permits defendants charged with felonies to waive the right to grand jury indictment and agree to proceed directly on an information filed by the district attorney.

Under Georgia v. Randolph, when two co-occupants of a shared dwelling are both physically present and one consents to a police search while the other explicitly refuses, the warrantless search is:

Answer: Invalid because the physically present, objecting co-occupant's refusal overrides the consenting co-occupant's permission

Georgia v. Randolph held that a warrantless search conducted over the explicit objection of a physically present co-occupant is unconstitutional even when another co-occupant consents.

The 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine requires suppression of derivative evidence stemming from a constitutional violation UNLESS:

Answer: The evidence falls within the independent source, inevitable discovery, or attenuation exceptions

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine suppresses derivative evidence but recognizes three established exceptions: independent source, inevitable discovery, and sufficient attenuation of the taint.

Under In re Winship, the Due Process Clause requires that in any criminal prosecution the government prove:

Answer: Every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt

In re Winship held that the Due Process Clause requires the prosecution to prove every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard of proof in American law.

Under the rule established in Apprendi v. New Jersey, which facts must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

Answer: Any fact other than a prior conviction that increases the penalty beyond the prescribed statutory maximum

Apprendi held that any fact, other than a prior conviction, that increases the penalty beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.