{"id":378,"date":"2026-03-06T11:26:33","date_gmt":"2026-03-06T11:26:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/?page_id=378"},"modified":"2026-03-16T08:38:22","modified_gmt":"2026-03-16T08:38:22","slug":"chapter-9-case-studies","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/students\/chapter-9-case-studies\/","title":{"rendered":"Chapter 9 Case Studies"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignwide has-background has-global-padding is-layout-constrained wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained\" style=\"background-color:#f4eedc;padding-top:var(--wp--preset--spacing--60);padding-bottom:var(--wp--preset--spacing--60)\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignwide has-global-padding is-content-justification-left is-layout-constrained wp-container-core-group-is-layout-12dd3699 wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained\"><div class=\"aioseo-breadcrumbs\"><span class=\"aioseo-breadcrumb\">\n\tHome\n<\/span><\/div>\n\n<h2 class=\"alignwide wp-block-post-title\">Chapter 9 Case Studies<\/h2><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-group has-global-padding is-layout-constrained wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignwide is-layout-flow wp-block-group-is-layout-flow\">\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Case Study 1<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>John Smith, a 20-year-old defendant, was charged with rape and murder. Sadie Lennon had been discovered in her apartment, brutally raped, with her head severed. When police arrested Smith, he exhibited strange behavior, arguing with people who weren\u2019t there and hitting himself. At one point, he picked up the table and flung it across the room. The assistant district attorney wondered about his competence to stand trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Smith, the wealthy heir to his father\u2019s fortune, had a skilled attorney who mounted an insanity defense. Attorney Hine claimed that Smith suffered from schizophrenia and therefore could not be held responsible for his actions. At his trial, Hine called an expert witness to testify to Smith\u2019s mental illness. Dr. Smart provided evidence of Smith\u2019s childhood abuse and said that in his sessions with Smith, Smith exhibited the classic symptoms of schizophrenia. Smith could not be held responsible for his actions, the doctor testified, as he was unaware of what he was doing at the time of the attack. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Smith was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or mental defect and sent to a psychiatric facility. After the trial, in investigating a robbery, police discovered video evidence in the suspect\u2019s apartment of Smith describing the crime and talking about how he would get out of the death penalty. Smith described how he would pretend to be schizophrenic and then eventually make a \u201cmiraculous recovery.\u201d He bragged how no one would be able to touch him, even when they found out that he faked his mental illness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Questions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>1. Why was John Smith so confident that he would not be punished, even after it was discovered that he faked his mental illness?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;autoclose&quot;: false, &quot;accordionItems&quot;: [] }\" data-wp-interactive=\"core\/accordion\" role=\"group\" class=\"wp-block-accordion is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-is-layout-flow\">\n<div data-wp-class--is-open=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;id&quot;: &quot;accordion-item-1&quot;, &quot;openByDefault&quot;: false }\" data-wp-init=\"callbacks.initAccordionItems\" data-wp-on-window--hashchange=\"callbacks.hashChange\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-item is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-item-is-layout-flow\">\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading\"><button aria-expanded=\"false\" aria-controls=\"accordion-item-1-panel\" data-wp-bind--aria-expanded=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-on--click=\"actions.toggle\" data-wp-on--keydown=\"actions.handleKeyDown\" id=\"accordion-item-1\" type=\"button\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle\"><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-title\">Answer<\/span><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-icon\" aria-hidden=\"true\">+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<div inert aria-labelledby=\"accordion-item-1\" data-wp-bind--inert=\"!state.isOpen\" id=\"accordion-item-1-panel\" role=\"region\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-panel is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-panel-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>The Fifth Amendment contains a clause prohibiting double jeopardy. Double jeopardy prohibits the government from charging the same person twice for the same crime, following a conviction or acquittal. Smith was found not guilty for the rape and murder of Sadie Lennon by reason of mental disease or defect, and so he could not be tried again for the crime.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>2. What are the requirements for the provision discussed in the previous condition?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;autoclose&quot;: false, &quot;accordionItems&quot;: [] }\" data-wp-interactive=\"core\/accordion\" role=\"group\" class=\"wp-block-accordion is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-is-layout-flow\">\n<div data-wp-class--is-open=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;id&quot;: &quot;accordion-item-2&quot;, &quot;openByDefault&quot;: false }\" data-wp-init=\"callbacks.initAccordionItems\" data-wp-on-window--hashchange=\"callbacks.hashChange\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-item is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-item-is-layout-flow\">\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading\"><button aria-expanded=\"false\" aria-controls=\"accordion-item-2-panel\" data-wp-bind--aria-expanded=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-on--click=\"actions.toggle\" data-wp-on--keydown=\"actions.handleKeyDown\" id=\"accordion-item-2\" type=\"button\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle\"><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-title\">Answer<\/span><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-icon\" aria-hidden=\"true\">+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<div inert aria-labelledby=\"accordion-item-2\" data-wp-bind--inert=\"!state.isOpen\" id=\"accordion-item-2-panel\" role=\"region\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-panel is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-panel-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>Three conditions are necessary to acquire double jeopardy protection against reprosecution: (1) an earlier prosecution must progress to the point of jeopardy attachment; (2) the subsequent prosecution must involve the same offense; and (3) both prosecutions must be brought by the same government entity.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>3. When does the protection against the provision attach in a jury trial?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;autoclose&quot;: false, &quot;accordionItems&quot;: [] }\" data-wp-interactive=\"core\/accordion\" role=\"group\" class=\"wp-block-accordion is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-is-layout-flow\">\n<div data-wp-class--is-open=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;id&quot;: &quot;accordion-item-3&quot;, &quot;openByDefault&quot;: false }\" data-wp-init=\"callbacks.initAccordionItems\" data-wp-on-window--hashchange=\"callbacks.hashChange\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-item is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-item-is-layout-flow\">\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading\"><button aria-expanded=\"false\" aria-controls=\"accordion-item-3-panel\" data-wp-bind--aria-expanded=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-on--click=\"actions.toggle\" data-wp-on--keydown=\"actions.handleKeyDown\" id=\"accordion-item-3\" type=\"button\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle\"><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-title\">Answer<\/span><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-icon\" aria-hidden=\"true\">+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<div inert aria-labelledby=\"accordion-item-3\" data-wp-bind--inert=\"!state.isOpen\" id=\"accordion-item-3-panel\" role=\"region\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-panel is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-panel-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>Jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when a jury has been empanelled and sworn. The attachment rule reflects the judgment that, once a trial has started, the defendant has a valued right to have the charges resolved by the first tribunal chosen so that his ordeal can be brought to a close. This means that, once the trial begins, it will normally be the government\u2019s one and only shot at establishing the defendant\u2019s guilt.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:50px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Case Study 2<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Jocelyn Santarpio was on trial for murder. Police had discovered the body of her husband, Mario, in the couple\u2019s bedroom after she had called them. Jocelyn was covered in Mario\u2019s blood, and her fingerprints were on the knife used to kill him. When she was questioned by police, Jocelyn claimed that she had come home from work at her private consulting practice and discovered her husband\u2019s body. She had attempted to revive him, she said, and that was why she was covered in his blood. Pulling the knife out, she claimed, was something she did to try to save him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Evidence against Jocelyn Santarpio appeared to be damning. She had worked alone that day, and no one had seen her arrive at or leave her office. What\u2019s more, a neighbor, Angela Barker, told police that she had seen Jocelyn at the couple\u2019s home the day of the murder and said that she looked agitated. Barker agreed to testify at trial. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>When Barker took the stand for the prosecution, she testified as to Jocelyn\u2019s whereabouts the day of the murder and also claimed that the relationship between the defendant and her husband was strained. Jocelyn Santarpio\u2019s defense attorney, Jane Jackson, had information that she thought relevant to Barker\u2019s testimony. She questioned Barker about what Jocelyn had been wearing when she saw her, as there were inconsistencies in her testimony. She questioned the time at which Barker had seen Jocelyn, as Jackson had discovered that Barker was not at home at the time she claimed to have seen the defendant. In addition, Attorney Jackson asked Barker about her relationship with Mario Santarpio. Jocelyn Santarpio told Attorney Jackson that she thought that Barker was in love with her husband and that might have provided motivation for her testimony. After repeated questioning, Barker finally admitted that she had not seen Jocelyn Santarpio at the time of the murder. This admission cast enough doubt on Jocelyn Santarpio\u2019s guilt that she was found not guilty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Questions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>1. When Attorney Jackson questioned Barker, what right was being exercised?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;autoclose&quot;: false, &quot;accordionItems&quot;: [] }\" data-wp-interactive=\"core\/accordion\" role=\"group\" class=\"wp-block-accordion is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-is-layout-flow\">\n<div data-wp-class--is-open=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;id&quot;: &quot;accordion-item-4&quot;, &quot;openByDefault&quot;: false }\" data-wp-init=\"callbacks.initAccordionItems\" data-wp-on-window--hashchange=\"callbacks.hashChange\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-item is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-item-is-layout-flow\">\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading\"><button aria-expanded=\"false\" aria-controls=\"accordion-item-4-panel\" data-wp-bind--aria-expanded=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-on--click=\"actions.toggle\" data-wp-on--keydown=\"actions.handleKeyDown\" id=\"accordion-item-4\" type=\"button\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle\"><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-title\">Answer<\/span><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-icon\" aria-hidden=\"true\">+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<div inert aria-labelledby=\"accordion-item-4\" data-wp-bind--inert=\"!state.isOpen\" id=\"accordion-item-4-panel\" role=\"region\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-panel is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-panel-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>The Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused person\u2019s right to confront adverse witnesses who testify against him or her in open court. This is called cross-examination. Cross-examination has been described as the \u201cgreatest legal engine ever invented for discovery of truth.\u201d The witness, in this case Barker, may have had an inadequate opportunity to observe the matters about which she testifies, her memory may be faulty and language imprecise, or she may not be telling the truth. Cross-examination gives the accused an opportunity to challenge a witness\u2019s veracity and expose weaknesses in her testimony. Upon cross-examination in this case, Barker\u2019s testimony was shown to be false. Had Jocelyn Santarpio not had this right to cross-examination, Barker\u2019s testimony might have resulted in Santarpio\u2019s execution for the murder of her husband, a crime of which she was innocent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>2. Is this right binding on the states? Why?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;autoclose&quot;: false, &quot;accordionItems&quot;: [] }\" data-wp-interactive=\"core\/accordion\" role=\"group\" class=\"wp-block-accordion is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-is-layout-flow\">\n<div data-wp-class--is-open=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;id&quot;: &quot;accordion-item-5&quot;, &quot;openByDefault&quot;: false }\" data-wp-init=\"callbacks.initAccordionItems\" data-wp-on-window--hashchange=\"callbacks.hashChange\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-item is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-item-is-layout-flow\">\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading\"><button aria-expanded=\"false\" aria-controls=\"accordion-item-5-panel\" data-wp-bind--aria-expanded=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-on--click=\"actions.toggle\" data-wp-on--keydown=\"actions.handleKeyDown\" id=\"accordion-item-5\" type=\"button\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle\"><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-title\">Answer<\/span><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-icon\" aria-hidden=\"true\">+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<div inert aria-labelledby=\"accordion-item-5\" data-wp-bind--inert=\"!state.isOpen\" id=\"accordion-item-5-panel\" role=\"region\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-panel is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-panel-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>Because the confrontation clause provides a fundamental mechanism for ensuring the reliability of the evidence offered against an accused, it is regarded as an integral part of due process and is binding on the states.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>3. What is an important exception to this right?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;autoclose&quot;: false, &quot;accordionItems&quot;: [] }\" data-wp-interactive=\"core\/accordion\" role=\"group\" class=\"wp-block-accordion is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-is-layout-flow\">\n<div data-wp-class--is-open=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;id&quot;: &quot;accordion-item-6&quot;, &quot;openByDefault&quot;: false }\" data-wp-init=\"callbacks.initAccordionItems\" data-wp-on-window--hashchange=\"callbacks.hashChange\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-item is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-item-is-layout-flow\">\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading\"><button aria-expanded=\"false\" aria-controls=\"accordion-item-6-panel\" data-wp-bind--aria-expanded=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-on--click=\"actions.toggle\" data-wp-on--keydown=\"actions.handleKeyDown\" id=\"accordion-item-6\" type=\"button\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle\"><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-title\">Answer<\/span><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-icon\" aria-hidden=\"true\">+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<div inert aria-labelledby=\"accordion-item-6\" data-wp-bind--inert=\"!state.isOpen\" id=\"accordion-item-6-panel\" role=\"region\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-panel is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-panel-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>Child victims of sexual abuse can testify via one-way, closed-circuit television, as their presence in open court might prove to be too traumatic.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:50px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Case Study 3<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>News of the murder of celebrity Susan Lamb\u2019s husband at the couple\u2019s winter home in a small town in a northern state traveled like wildfire. Harold Lamb had been discovered in the hallway, shot twice in the chest and once in the head. The story broke the morning of the murder, and by that evening, the story was splashed all over the news. When police arrested Susan Lamb, the story grew even bigger. Media hordes gathered outside the small-town courthouse, so thick that court staff could hardly break through to get inside. Tabloids had already convicted Lamb, splashing stories of rumored affairs, drug binges, and past crimes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Judge Serena Delaney was worried that the media attention would contaminate the jury pool. There might be a few residents living off the grid up in the mountains who had not heard about the murder, but the townspeople could not leave their front doors without some reporter asking them what they thought of Susan Lamb. Lamb\u2019s team of attorneys had considered applying for a change of venue, but since news of the murder dominated the news night after night, they doubted that they would be able to find a juror who had not heard of the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The trial date was set for nine months from the date of arraignment. In addition, Judge Delaney ordered the defense attorneys, the lone witness, the prosecutors, and law enforcement officers not to release to the media information that could prejudice the jury or make statements inadmissible. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>When the time came to question potential jurors, the small mountain town proved that it had decent, sensible people who were able to set aside what they had heard about the case and \u201crender a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.\u201d However, in order to make sure that jurors did not learn anything about the case from the outside media while the trial was in progress, Judge Delaney ordered that they be sequestered. Surprisingly, the trial went smoothly. Susan Lamb was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Questions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>1. What are the dangers associated with a celebrity trial?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;autoclose&quot;: false, &quot;accordionItems&quot;: [] }\" data-wp-interactive=\"core\/accordion\" role=\"group\" class=\"wp-block-accordion is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-is-layout-flow\">\n<div data-wp-class--is-open=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;id&quot;: &quot;accordion-item-7&quot;, &quot;openByDefault&quot;: false }\" data-wp-init=\"callbacks.initAccordionItems\" data-wp-on-window--hashchange=\"callbacks.hashChange\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-item is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-item-is-layout-flow\">\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading\"><button aria-expanded=\"false\" aria-controls=\"accordion-item-7-panel\" data-wp-bind--aria-expanded=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-on--click=\"actions.toggle\" data-wp-on--keydown=\"actions.handleKeyDown\" id=\"accordion-item-7\" type=\"button\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle\"><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-title\">Answer<\/span><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-icon\" aria-hidden=\"true\">+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<div inert aria-labelledby=\"accordion-item-7\" data-wp-bind--inert=\"!state.isOpen\" id=\"accordion-item-7-panel\" role=\"region\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-panel is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-panel-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>A highly publicized investigation can result in contaminating the jury pool. Before being selected, prospective jurors could have absorbed news and gossip about the crime and determined the guilt or innocence of the defendant before the trial has even started.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>2. How were these dangers counteracted?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;autoclose&quot;: false, &quot;accordionItems&quot;: [] }\" data-wp-interactive=\"core\/accordion\" role=\"group\" class=\"wp-block-accordion is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-is-layout-flow\">\n<div data-wp-class--is-open=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;id&quot;: &quot;accordion-item-8&quot;, &quot;openByDefault&quot;: false }\" data-wp-init=\"callbacks.initAccordionItems\" data-wp-on-window--hashchange=\"callbacks.hashChange\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-item is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-item-is-layout-flow\">\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading\"><button aria-expanded=\"false\" aria-controls=\"accordion-item-8-panel\" data-wp-bind--aria-expanded=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-on--click=\"actions.toggle\" data-wp-on--keydown=\"actions.handleKeyDown\" id=\"accordion-item-8\" type=\"button\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle\"><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-title\">Answer<\/span><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-icon\" aria-hidden=\"true\">+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<div inert aria-labelledby=\"accordion-item-8\" data-wp-bind--inert=\"!state.isOpen\" id=\"accordion-item-8-panel\" role=\"region\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-panel is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-panel-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>The trial date was set for nine months after the indictment, in hopes that time would help to quell the publicity surrounding the murder. Judge Delaney barred those associated with the case from revealing details to the media. Potential jurors were examined for evidence of bias. The jurors were then sequestered, to keep them from media reports while the trial was under way.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>3. What is the due process standard for impartiality among the jurors? How is this determined?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;autoclose&quot;: false, &quot;accordionItems&quot;: [] }\" data-wp-interactive=\"core\/accordion\" role=\"group\" class=\"wp-block-accordion is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-is-layout-flow\">\n<div data-wp-class--is-open=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;id&quot;: &quot;accordion-item-9&quot;, &quot;openByDefault&quot;: false }\" data-wp-init=\"callbacks.initAccordionItems\" data-wp-on-window--hashchange=\"callbacks.hashChange\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-item is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-item-is-layout-flow\">\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading\"><button aria-expanded=\"false\" aria-controls=\"accordion-item-9-panel\" data-wp-bind--aria-expanded=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-on--click=\"actions.toggle\" data-wp-on--keydown=\"actions.handleKeyDown\" id=\"accordion-item-9\" type=\"button\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle\"><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-title\">Answer<\/span><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-icon\" aria-hidden=\"true\">+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<div inert aria-labelledby=\"accordion-item-9\" data-wp-bind--inert=\"!state.isOpen\" id=\"accordion-item-9-panel\" role=\"region\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-panel is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-panel-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>The due process standard for jury selection is whether the \u201cjuror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on evidence presented in court.\u201d Jurors are not required to be ignorant of the case, but they are required to approach the trial without preconceived ideas about guilt or innocence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:50px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Case Study 4<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>When it came time to sentence Susan Lamb for the brutal murder of her husband (see prior Case Study), prosecutors sought the death penalty. In the trial, it had come out that Susan Lamb had been carrying on an affair with a neighbor. The neighbor testified that Susan Lamb had suggested killing her husband as a way to get out of a prenuptial agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The prosecution proved that Susan Lamb had plotted her husband\u2019s murder for months and had chosen a moment for the murder that she thought would ensure that she would not be charged. She shot her husband three times, twice in the chest and once in the head. Her plans for escaping without detection, however, were foiled, however, when a lone witness saw her leaving the scene of the crime, covered in blood. Had she succeeded in getting away with the crime, Susan Lamb would have received a substantial financial reward from her husband\u2019s life insurance policy and would have been free of the prenuptial agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Prosecutors argued that in addition to the wanton depravity of the crime, Susan Lamb had also committed premeditated murder. In the mountain state where the crime took place, this made the crime eligible for the death penalty. The defense argued that Susan Lamb\u2019s relationship with her husband was strained. They admitted that Susan Lamb had been carrying on an affair, but her husband had also cheated on her and was lately threatening to divorce her. The husband had once hit Susan Lamb hard enough to send her to the hospital. Prior to the murder, Susan Lamb had never been convicted of a crime, and she was known for doing charitable work for needy children. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Judge Delaney weighed the facts and the severity of the crime, and decided to sentence Susan Lamb to life in prison without the possibility of parole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Questions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>1. What makes a crime eligible for the death penalty? What did prosecutors focus on in arguing for it? What Amendment comes into play here?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;autoclose&quot;: false, &quot;accordionItems&quot;: [] }\" data-wp-interactive=\"core\/accordion\" role=\"group\" class=\"wp-block-accordion is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-is-layout-flow\">\n<div data-wp-class--is-open=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;id&quot;: &quot;accordion-item-10&quot;, &quot;openByDefault&quot;: false }\" data-wp-init=\"callbacks.initAccordionItems\" data-wp-on-window--hashchange=\"callbacks.hashChange\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-item is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-item-is-layout-flow\">\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading\"><button aria-expanded=\"false\" aria-controls=\"accordion-item-10-panel\" data-wp-bind--aria-expanded=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-on--click=\"actions.toggle\" data-wp-on--keydown=\"actions.handleKeyDown\" id=\"accordion-item-10\" type=\"button\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle\"><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-title\">Answer<\/span><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-icon\" aria-hidden=\"true\">+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<div inert aria-labelledby=\"accordion-item-10\" data-wp-bind--inert=\"!state.isOpen\" id=\"accordion-item-10-panel\" role=\"region\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-panel is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-panel-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>The death penalty may be imposed only for crimes that result, or that are intended to result, in the taking of a human life. The Supreme Court has repeatedly invalidated state statutes that authorize the death penalty for crimes such as rape or kidnapping where the victim is not killed. Unless a human life is taken, the Eighth Amendment prohibits imposition of the death penalty. In imposing the death penalty, aggravating factors must be present. In this case, Susan Lamb had committed premeditated murder. In the state where she was tried, the death penalty can be imposed for premeditated murder.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>2. What are factors that can cause a judge to decide against imposing the death penalty? What did the defense focus on in arguing against the death penalty for Susan Lamb?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;autoclose&quot;: false, &quot;accordionItems&quot;: [] }\" data-wp-interactive=\"core\/accordion\" role=\"group\" class=\"wp-block-accordion is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-is-layout-flow\">\n<div data-wp-class--is-open=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;id&quot;: &quot;accordion-item-11&quot;, &quot;openByDefault&quot;: false }\" data-wp-init=\"callbacks.initAccordionItems\" data-wp-on-window--hashchange=\"callbacks.hashChange\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-item is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-item-is-layout-flow\">\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading\"><button aria-expanded=\"false\" aria-controls=\"accordion-item-11-panel\" data-wp-bind--aria-expanded=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-on--click=\"actions.toggle\" data-wp-on--keydown=\"actions.handleKeyDown\" id=\"accordion-item-11\" type=\"button\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle\"><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-title\">Answer<\/span><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-icon\" aria-hidden=\"true\">+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<div inert aria-labelledby=\"accordion-item-11\" data-wp-bind--inert=\"!state.isOpen\" id=\"accordion-item-11-panel\" role=\"region\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-panel is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-panel-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>In arguing against the death penalty, the defense introduced mitigating circumstances, such as Susan Lamb\u2019s clean record before the murder, including her work with children and evidence of spousal abuse. Judge Delaney weighed the evidence and decided that life without parole would be a fitting punishment for Lamb.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>3. Why was the sentence imposed after the guilt phase of the trial had concluded?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;autoclose&quot;: false, &quot;accordionItems&quot;: [] }\" data-wp-interactive=\"core\/accordion\" role=\"group\" class=\"wp-block-accordion is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-is-layout-flow\">\n<div data-wp-class--is-open=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-context=\"{ &quot;id&quot;: &quot;accordion-item-12&quot;, &quot;openByDefault&quot;: false }\" data-wp-init=\"callbacks.initAccordionItems\" data-wp-on-window--hashchange=\"callbacks.hashChange\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-item is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-item-is-layout-flow\">\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading\"><button aria-expanded=\"false\" aria-controls=\"accordion-item-12-panel\" data-wp-bind--aria-expanded=\"state.isOpen\" data-wp-on--click=\"actions.toggle\" data-wp-on--keydown=\"actions.handleKeyDown\" id=\"accordion-item-12\" type=\"button\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle\"><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-title\">Answer<\/span><span class=\"wp-block-accordion-heading__toggle-icon\" aria-hidden=\"true\">+<\/span><\/button><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<div inert aria-labelledby=\"accordion-item-12\" data-wp-bind--inert=\"!state.isOpen\" id=\"accordion-item-12-panel\" role=\"region\" class=\"wp-block-accordion-panel is-layout-flow wp-block-accordion-panel-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>The sentencing phase must be kept separate from the guilt phase because during the sentencing phase, evidence such as the defendant\u2019s prior record and character is irrelevant for the crime for which he or she is on trial. This information would prove highly prejudicial to the jury.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Case Study 1 John Smith, a 20-year-old defendant, was charged with rape and murder. Sadie Lennon had been discovered in her apartment, brutally raped, with her head severed. When police arrested Smith, he exhibited strange behavior, arguing with people who weren\u2019t there and hitting himself. At one point, he picked up the table and flung&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":26,"featured_media":0,"parent":338,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-378","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/378","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/26"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=378"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/378\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":395,"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/378\/revisions\/395"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/338"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/constitutionallawforcriminaljustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=378"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}