John Ferdico's Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice Professional
The purpose of this work is to thoroughly and comprehensively review the work of John Ferdico entitled "Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice Professional.
According to Ferdico the law of criminal procedure can be described as "rules designed to balance the important government functions of maintaining law and order and protecting the rights of citizens." Chapter One in Ferdico's "Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice Professional is in relation to the U.S. Constitution and the Individual Rights expressed in the Bill of Rights. Ferdico states that these are the common working within every government that is not "totally authoritarian or anarchistic."
Ferdico relates that there exists a conflict since the more "emphasis on maintaining law and order" ends up involving "greater intrusions" in the lives and in relation to the rights of the individual. In other words policies of the government that are originally focused toward protection of the individual and maintaining law and order in the community may very well result in increased breaking and disrespect of the law that sought to protect. Ferdico next gives the history of the development of U.S. law relating the historical facts concerning the U.S. Constitution and the accompanying Bill of Rights. The laws governing rules and procedures and protecting the rights of the individual are based on the principles of Constitution in the United States of America, which is a country governed by democracy.
I. Right to a Fair Hearing/Trial:
Ferdico addresses the principle in law of the individual's right to a fair hearing and not only what that means but how today's version of a fair hearing culminated and the changes ands processes in law that occurred along the way. Chapter three introduces the reader to the case of Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923). This case was an appeal from an order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas in which a "writ of habeas corpus" was dismissed upon demurrer. The presiding judge certified "probable cause" in allowing the appeal. The appellants in this case were five black men convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death. In this case the Governor appointed a "Committee of Seven" to deal with the 'insurrection' in the county.
At the time the black men were arrested a mob formed planning to storm the jail and lynch the black men. The lynching party was halted by U.S. troops and the Committee of Seven whom were handing out promises that the guilty men would be executed. At that time the Committee of Seven called a meeting. Among those called to give testimony at the 'meeting' were black witnesses who were whipped and tortured to ensure the testimony that was 'not so truthful' but scored points toward the judgment with the death punishment attached. The black witnesses whipped tortured and scared told the lies that were commanded of them resulting in an indictment being obtained from the Grand Jury. The men were summarily tried, found guilty and sentenced to death in a very short period of time and were each "systemically excluded
" from the grand jury and petit jury process. According to the records of the court:
"The counsel did not venture to demand delay or a change of venue, to challenge a juryman or to ask for separate trials. He had had no preliminary consultation with the accused, called no witnesses for the defense although they could have been produced, and did not put the defendants on the stand. The trial lasted about three-quarters of an hour and in less than five minutes the jury brought in a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. According to the allegations and affidavits there never was a chance for the petitioners to be acquitted; no juryman could have voted for an acquittal and continued to live Phillips County and if [261 U.S. 86, 90] any prisoner by any chance had been acquitted by a jury he could not have escaped the mob" (CaseLaw.ol.findlaw.com / scrip s/get case.pl?court=IUS& vol=261& invol=86) [as cited by Ferdico (2004) ]
Ferdico leads the reader through the progression of how laws are formulated citing the case Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 335, 35 S. Sup. Ct. 582- 590 (59L.Ed .96 9)
which was the case that first addressed the injustice to the black men in Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923)
when the recognition by the courts as well as individual citizens that if a case adheres to case [261 U.S. 86, 91] that obstruction of justice has occurred with disregard for the due processes of democratic law; and that if this was left on the books as case law that perhaps the mob would next time give rise to domination over themselves or family members. In the case of [237 U.S. 209, 335, S.Sup.Ct. 582-590 (59 L. Ed.969)] a motion or a new trial was submitted which was promptly denied however, upon the appeal process filed in the Supreme Court the petition requesting a new trial was affirmed.
'As to the 'due process of law' that is required by the Fourteenth Amendment, it is perfectly well settled that a criminal prosecution in the courts of a state, based upon a law not in itself repugnant to the federal Constitution, and conducted according to the settled course of judicial proceedings as established by the law of the state, so long as it includes notice, and a hearing, or an opportunity to be heard, before a court of competent jurisdiction, according to established modes of procedure, is 'due process' in the constitutional sense."
This status of the case was that in which all twelve black men under a death sentence, whose sentences were suspended due to court procedural violations. Six of the black men filed appeals with the Supreme Court who declined review of the cases and the other six, who were granted new trials after having reversed the initial cases, were convicted. These six were appeal to the Supreme Court of the state and attorneys of their personal choice were the defense attorneys in their cases.
II. Double Jeopardy:
Ferdico states that:
"The clause 'nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb' is the principle which governs the Freedom from Double Jeopardy Clause in which recognition was given by the United States Supreme Court of three guarantees that are in the body of this clause as follows:
Protection against being prosecuted twice for the same offense after being acquitted.
Protection against being prosecuted twice for the same offense.
Protection from being prosecuted more than once for the same offense by use of multiple statutes. Ferdico (2004).
Ferdico states that Fifth Amendment protection is that which "Protects a person being incriminated by his or her own compelled testimonial communications" which is covered under the Fourteenth Amendment, Malloy v. Hogan 37 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964).
According to Ferdico:
"While different theories have been advanced to support the permissibility of retrial, of greater importance than the conceptual abstractions employed to support the permissibility of retrial of greater importance than the conceptual abstractions employed to explain the principle are the implications of that principle for the sound administration of justice. Corresponding to the right of an accused to be given a fair trial is the societal interest in punishing one whose guilt is clear after he has obtained such a trial. It would be a high price indeed for society to pay were every accused granted immunity from punishment because of any defect sufficient to constitute reversible error in the proceedings leading to conviction. United States v. Tateo 377 U.S. 463, 466, 84 S .Ct. 1587, 1589, 12 L.Ed.2d.448, 451 (1964). Ferdico (2004)
According to Ferdico the daily tasks of a law enforcement officer including the enforcement of law, keeping peace in the public arena and further in the investigation and prevention of criminal activity. Ferdico explains that law enforcement officers must be knowledgeable about the proper rules and procedures governing the case throughout the judicial system and the trial process. The law enforcement officer Ferdico relates is often a witness in a case and otherwise is not considered vital in the case processing. Court procedure in criminal cases are "governed by court rules and statues." Ferdico (2004)
Next Ferdico tackles the explanation of the structure of the court system explaining jurisdiction, which is "the authority of a court to deal with a particular type of case "Ferdico (2004) or in other words the court which is in the county, city, town, municipality, or Federal District that will hear the case. The rule of court concerning arrest warrants are addressed by Ferdico who states that "the warrant procedure is favored because it places the sometimes delicate decision of determining whether there is probable cause to justify an arrest in the hands of…