Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Last updated

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are the procedural rules that govern how federal criminal prosecutions are conducted in United States district courts and the general trial courts of the U.S. government. They are the companion to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The admissibility and use of evidence in criminal proceedings (as well as civil) are governed by the separate Federal Rules of Evidence.

Contents

Drafting and enactment

The rules are promulgated by the Supreme Court of the United States, pursuant to its statutory authority under the Rules Enabling Act. [1] The Supreme Court must transmit a copy of its rules to the United States Congress no later than May 1 of the year in which they are to go into effect, and the new rule can then become effective no earlier than December 1 of that year.

Congress retains the power to reject the Court's proposed rules or amendments, to modify them, or to enact rules or amendments itself. Congress has rarely rejected the Court's proposed amendments, though it has frequently passed its own.

The rules are initially drafted by an Advisory Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which consists of appointed judges, U.S. Department of Justice representatives, practicing lawyers, and legal scholars. After public comment, the draft rules are submitted to the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, which in turn submits them to the Judicial Conference, which finally recommends them to the Supreme Court for approval. The explanatory notes of the drafting Advisory Committee are published with the final adopted rules, and are frequently used as an authority on their interpretation.

History

For the first 150 years of the federal judiciary, there was no uniform federal criminal procedure. The Judiciary Act of 1789 directed federal courts to apply the law of the state in which the court sat regarding jury selection and the process for arrests, bail, and preliminary hearings. The Act did not address procedure in other areas, and though subsequent legislation filled in some gaps, Congress never enacted a generally applicable statutory command to observe state criminal procedure, as it had regarding civil procedure under the Conformity Act. Congress also enacted some specific federal rules, beginning in 1790 with provisions included in the first U.S. federal criminal statutes. [2]

The result was an incomplete patchwork of state and federal law that the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts did little to fill in, despite seeming authorization under the Judiciary Act to do so. [3] Early Supreme Court cases also fully endorsed congressional authority to enact rules of procedure, [4] and declined the opportunity to directly claim such authority for the courts under Article III of the United States Constitution. A few federal court decisions nonetheless established what amounted to particular federal common law rules of criminal procedure, which added to the lack of conformity in the federal system.

In 1933, Congress authorized the Supreme Court to prescribe rules of criminal appellate procedure, which included any proceeding after the entry of a verdict or plea. [5] Satisfaction with the first Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enacted in 1938, led to support for uniform criminal rules, and authority to establish rules of general criminal procedure was given to the Supreme Court in 1940, with the Sumners Courts Act. [6] The first Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were subsequently adopted by order of the Court on December 26, 1944, for procedures up to verdict, and on February 8, 1946, for procedures after verdict, thus completing the project. Justices Black and Frankfurter dissented. The full set, denominated the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, then took effect on March 21, 1946. [7]

Under the Sumners Courts Act, the U.S. Attorney General was given the responsibility of transmitting amendments of the rules to Congress, though this was amended in 1949 to give that duty to the Chief Justice. The turn-around period for the rules becoming effective was originally one full congressional session. This was amended in 1950 to impose the May 1 deadline, but with a 90-day delay in effectiveness. In 1988, authorization for the Rules was incorporated under the Rules Enabling Act, and codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072, 2074.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Code</span> Official compilation of U.S. federal statutes

The United States Code is the official codification of the general and permanent federal statutes of the United States. It contains 53 titles. The main edition is published every six years by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives, and cumulative supplements are published annually. The official version of these laws appears in the United States Statutes at Large, a chronological, uncodified compilation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary Act of 1789</span> United States law establishing the federal court system

The Judiciary Act of 1789 was a United States federal statute enacted on September 24, 1789, during the first session of the First United States Congress. It established the federal judiciary of the United States. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution prescribed that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and such inferior Courts" as Congress saw fit to establish. It made no provision for the composition or procedures of any of the courts, leaving this to Congress to decide.

A writ of coram nobis is a legal order allowing a court to correct its original judgment upon discovery of a fundamental error that did not appear in the records of the original judgment's proceedings and that would have prevented the judgment from being pronounced. The term coram nobis is Latin for "before us" and the meaning of its full form, quae coram nobis resident, is "which [things] remain in our presence". The writ of coram nobis originated in the courts of common law in the English legal system during the sixteenth century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil Rights Act of 1960</span> United States law

The Civil Rights Act of 1960 is a United States federal law that established federal inspection of local voter registration polls and introduced penalties for anyone who obstructed someone's attempt to register to vote. It dealt primarily with discriminatory laws and practices in the segregated South, by which African Americans and Mexican-American Texans had been effectively disenfranchised since the late 19th and start of the 20th century. This was the fifth Civil Rights Act to be enacted in United States history. Over an 85-year period, it was preceded only by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, whose shortcomings largely influenced its creation. This law served to more effectively enforce what was set forth in the 1957 act through eliminating certain loopholes in it, and to establish additional provisions. Aside from addressing voting rights, the Civil Rights Act of 1960 also imposed criminal penalties for obstruction of court orders to limit resistance to the Supreme Court's school desegregation decisions, arranged for free education for military members' children, and banned the act of fleeing to avoid prosecution for property damage. The Civil Rights Act of 1960 was signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

United States federal administrative law encompasses statutes, regulations, rules, common law rulings, and directives issued by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Executive Office of the President, that together define the extent of powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of the United States government. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the U.S. federal government cannot always directly perform their constitutional responsibilities. Specialized powers are therefore delegated to an agency, board, or commission. These administrative governmental bodies oversee and monitor activities in complex areas, such as commercial aviation, medical device manufacturing, and securities markets.

First adopted in 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence codify the evidence law that applies in United States federal courts. In addition, many states in the United States have either adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with or without local variations, or have revised their own evidence rules or codes to at least partially follow the federal rules.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rules Enabling Act</span> Congressional Act (1934) cocerning Rules for the Judiciary

The Rules Enabling Act is an Act of Congress that gave the judicial branch the power to promulgate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Amendments to the Act allowed for the creation of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and other procedural court rules. The creation and revision of rules pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act are usually carried out by the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure and its advisory committees, which are part of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body of the United States federal courts.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that set forth the legal test for when U.S. federal courts must defer to a government agency's interpretation of a law or statute. The decision articulated a doctrine now known as "Chevron deference". Chevron deference consists of a two-part test that is deferential to government agencies: first, whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue at question, and second, "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."

The Judiciary Act of 1793 is a United States federal statute, enacted on March 2, 1793. It established a number of regulations related to court procedures.

The Lloyd–La Follette Act of 1912 began the process of protecting civil servants in the United States from unwarranted or abusive removal by codifying "just cause" standards previously embodied in presidential orders. It defines "just causes" as those that would promote the "efficiency of the service." August 24, 1912, § 6, 37 Stat. 555, 5 U.S.C. § 7511

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Classified Information Procedures Act</span> 1980 US federal law covering state secrets

The Classified Information Procedures Act or CIPA is codified as the third appendix to Title 18 of the U.S. Code, the title concerning crimes and criminal procedures. The U.S. Code citation is 18 U.S.C. App. III. Sections 1-16.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009</span>

The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, or FERA, Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law  111–21 (text)(PDF), S. 386, 123 Stat. 1617, enacted May 20, 2009, is a public law in the United States enacted in 2009. The law enhanced criminal enforcement of federal fraud laws, especially regarding financial institutions, mortgage fraud, and securities fraud or commodities fraud.

Civil procedure in the United States consists of rules that govern civil actions in the federal, state, and territorial court systems, and is distinct from the rules that govern criminal actions. Like much of American law, civil procedure is not reserved to the federal government in its Constitution. As a result, each state is free to operate its own system of civil procedure independent of her sister states and the federal court system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Administrative Procedure Act</span> US federal statute allowing courts oversight over agencies

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law  79–404, 60 Stat. 237, enacted June 11, 1946, is the United States federal statute that governs the way in which administrative agencies of the federal government of the United States may propose and establish regulations, and it grants U.S. federal courts oversight over all agency actions. According to Hickman & Pierce, it is one of the most important pieces of United States administrative law, and serves as a sort of "constitution" for U.S. administrative law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Marshall Court</span>

The Marshall Court (1801–1835) heard forty-one criminal law cases, slightly more than one per year. Among such cases are United States v. Simms (1803), United States v. More (1805), Ex parte Bollman (1807), United States v. Hudson (1812), Cohens v. Virginia (1821), United States v. Perez (1824), Worcester v. Georgia (1832), and United States v. Wilson (1833).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Chase Court</span>

The Chase Court (1864–1873) issued thirty-five opinions in criminal cases over nine years, at a significantly higher rate than the Marshall Court or Taney Court before it. Notable such cases include Ex parte Milligan (1866), Pervear v. Massachusetts (1866), Ex parte McCardle, Ex parte Yerger (1868), and United States v. Kirby (1868).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crimes Act of 1790</span> US bill

The Crimes Act of 1790, formally titled An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States, defined some of the first federal crimes in the United States and expanded on the criminal procedure provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Crimes Act was a "comprehensive statute defining an impressive variety of federal crimes".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crimes Act of 1825</span> U.S. federal law

The Crimes Act of 1825, formally titled An Act more effectually to provide for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and for other purposes, was the first piece of omnibus federal criminal legislation since the Crimes Act of 1790. In general, the 1825 act provided more punishment than the 1790 act. The maximum authorized sentence of imprisonment was increased from 7 to 10 years; the maximum fine from $5,000 to $10,000. But, the punishments of stripes and pillory were not provided for.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Certificate of division</span> Source of appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts to the Supreme Court of the United States

A certificate of division was a source of appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1802 to 1911. Created by the Judiciary Act of 1802, the certification procedure was available only where the circuit court sat with a full panel of two: both the resident district judge and the circuit-riding Supreme Court justice. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, he did not have "the privilege of dividing the court when alone."

Patchak v. Zinke, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act, which precludes federal courts from hearing lawsuits involving a particular parcel of land. Although six Justices agreed that the Gun Lake Act was constitutional, they could not agree on why. In an opinion issued by Justice Thomas, a plurality of the Court read the statute to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over cases involving the property and held that this did not violate Article Three of the United States Constitution. In contrast, Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, both of whom concurred in the judgment, upheld the Act as a restoration of the government's sovereign immunity. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for himself and Justices Kennedy and Gorsuch, dissented on the ground that the statute intruded on the judicial power, in violation of Article III.

References

  1. ↑ The Rules Enabling Act was codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072, 2074.
  2. ↑ Act of Apr. 30, 1790, ch. 9, § 29, 1 Stat. 118 (requiring those accused of treason to receive copy of indictment and list of witnesses and jurors three days before trial; a two-day notice requirement for all other capital cases); id. § 30, 1 Stat. 119 (the silence of the accused is not to be treated as a guilty plea); id. § 31, 1 Stat. 119 (establishing statute of limitations for prosecution).
  3. ↑ The Judiciary Act of 1789 stated that federal courts had the power to establish "all necessary rules for the orderly conducting [of] business."
  4. ↑ Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1 (1825), based this congressional power in the Necessary and Proper Clause. Livingston v. Story , 34 U.S. 632 (1835) based it in the congressional power to "ordain and establish" the lower federal courts under Article III.
  5. ↑ Act of Feb. 24, 1933, Pub. L. No. 371, 47 Stat. 904, later codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3772.
  6. ↑ The Sumners Courts Act of June 29, 1940, 76 P.L. 675; 76 Cong. Ch. 445; 54 Stat. 688, later codified at 18 U.S.C.   § 3771. The act was named after Congressman Hatton W. Sumners (D-TX), the chair of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary from 1931 until 1947.
  7. ↑ 327 U.S. 821; Cong. Rec., vol. 91, pt. 1, p. 17, Exec. Comm. 4; H. Doc. 12, 79th Cong.

Bibliogrpahy

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.