Process crime

Last updated

In United States criminal procedure terminology, a process crime is an offense against the judicial process. [1] These crimes include failure to appear, false statements, obstruction of justice, contempt of court and perjury.

Contents

Process crimes are sometimes a basis for a "pretextual prosecution", in which prosecutors bring process crime charges against a defendant in order to punish them for another crime for which a conviction is more difficult to obtain.

Definition

Process crimes are the offenses that "interfere with the procedures and administration of justice". [2] They are prosecuted because they are considered to harm the public interest in the functioning and integrity of the judicial system. [2]

There is a broad range of process crimes, covered in the U.S. by a variety of federal and state laws. The five "archetypal" process charges are failure to appear, false statements, obstruction of justice, contempt of court and perjury. [3] Persons who do not cooperate with an arrest may be charged with such process crimes as resisting arrest, flight to elude arrest or battery on police officers. [4]

In U.S. legal literature, prosecutions for process crimes are covered largely as a phenomenon of federal criminal law. [5] But they are also frequently prosecuted in state courts. [6]

Pretextual prosecutions

Process crimes lend themselves to being prosecuted regardless of the actual harm done to the furtherance of justice. [7] They are therefore frequently a basis for "pretextual prosecutions", a prosecutorial tactic in which "prosecutors target defendants based on suspicion of one crime but prosecute them for another". [8] The classic example is the pretextual prosecution of the gangster Al Capone for tax evasion rather than for his many other crimes in 1931. [9]

To prosecutors, process crimes are particularly suitable for such purposes because they "carry a strong veneer of legitimacy" (i.e., most people agree that lying in court should be punishable), because they carry significant penalties, and because the prosecution is able to help produce these crimes. For instance, prosecutors can set up situations such as grand jury hearings or discovery requests in which process crimes – lies and omissions – tend to frequently occur. [9] Process crimes also tend to be easier to prove than other crimes, and they often do not present a statute of limitations problem because they can arise late in the investigation of another crime that is more difficult to prove. [9]

Examples in which process crimes are used for pretextual prosecutions include using "dissuading a witness" charges to sanction domestic abusers, or contempt charges for violating court orders to stay away from a place or person to punish suspected street criminals. [10] On occasion, prosecutors may even go beyond a pretextual prosecution (through which they seek to sanction a real, if perhaps unprovable, offense) and use process crime charges merely to punish a defendant for their perceived obstinacy or insubordination. [11]


Footnotes

  1. ↑ Murphy 2008, p. 1: "an offense not against a particular person or property, but against the machinery of justice itself"
  2. 1 2 Murphy 2008, p. 4.
  3. ↑ Murphy 2008, p. 15.
  4. ↑ Weisburd 2017, p. 5.3.
  5. ↑ Murphy 2008, p. 2.
  6. ↑ Murphy 2008, pp. 11–12.
  7. ↑ Murphy 2008, p. 6: "The further a prosecution moves from redressing the core prohibitions of process offenses—such as acts that directly pervert a function of justice or compromise a collective interest in a healthy system—the less firm the moral justification for punishment. In simplistic terms, killing a witness launches a direct assault on the machinery of justice and thus stands on firm footing for prosecution; but discouraging a witness from volunteering information to investigators perhaps just places a pebble in the wheel, and therefore the legitimacy of prosecution becomes more contestable."
  8. ↑ Richman & Stuntz 2005, p. 583.
  9. 1 2 3 Murphy 2008, p. 8.
  10. ↑ Murphy 2008, p. 12.
  11. ↑ Murphy 2008, pp. 12–15.


Related Research Articles

Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. A similar attitude toward a legislative body is termed contempt of Parliament or contempt of Congress. The verb for "to commit contempt" is contemn and a person guilty of this is a contemnor.

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law. In civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. Variation in common law countries is the peremptory plea, which may take the specific forms of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. These doctrines appear to have originated in ancient Roman law, in the broader principle non bis in idem.

Within some criminal justice systems, a preliminary hearing, preliminary examination, preliminary inquiry, evidentiary hearing or probable cause hearing is a proceeding, after a criminal complaint has been filed by the prosecutor, to determine whether there is enough evidence to require a trial. At such a hearing, the defendant may be assisted by a lawyer.

A plea bargain is an agreement in criminal law proceedings, whereby the prosecutor provides a concession to the defendant in exchange for a plea of guilt or nolo contendere. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of the several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.

Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.

In jurisprudence, selective prosecution is a procedural defense in which defendants argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as the criminal justice system discriminated against them by choosing to prosecute. In claims of selective prosecution, defendants essentially argue that it is irrelevant whether they are guilty of violating a law, but that the fact of being prosecuted is based upon forbidden reasons. Such a claim might, for example, entail an argument that persons of different age, race, religion, or gender, were engaged in the same illegal acts for which the defendant is being tried and were not prosecuted, and that the defendant is only being prosecuted because of a bias.

Obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, is a crime consisting of obstructing prosecutors, investigators, or other government officials. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of perverting the course of justice.

Prosecutor Legal profession

A prosecutor is a legal representative of the prosecution in states with either the common law adversarial system or the civil law inquisitorial system. The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case in a criminal trial against an individual accused of breaking the law. Typically, the prosecutor represents the state or the government in the case brought against the accused person.

Nolle prosequi, abbreviated nol or nolle pros, is legal Latin meaning "to be unwilling to pursue". In Commonwealth and US common law, it is used for prosecutors' declarations that they are voluntarily ending a criminal case before trial or before a verdict is rendered; it is a kind of motion to dismiss and contrasts with an involuntary dismissal.

A "failure to appear" (FTA) occurs when a defendant or respondent does not come before a tribunal as directed in a summons. FTAs are also known as "bail jumping." In the United States, FTAs are punishable by fines, incarceration, or both when committed by a criminal defendant. The severity of the punishment depends on the seriousness of the criminal charges that were the subject of the missed proceeding. An FTA may trigger a bench warrant for the defendant's arrest and impair their eligibility for bail and pretrial release in subsequent proceedings.

Witness tampering is the act of attempting to improperly influence, alter or prevent the testimony of witnesses within criminal or civil proceedings.

Criminal justice system of Japan

Within the criminal justice system of Japan, there exist three basic features that characterize its operations. First, the institutions—police, government prosecutors' offices, courts, and correctional organs—maintain close and cooperative relations with each other, consulting frequently on how best to accomplish the shared goals of limiting and controlling crime. Second, citizens are encouraged to assist in maintaining public order, and they participate extensively in crime prevention campaigns, apprehension of suspects, and offender rehabilitation programs. Finally, officials who administer criminal justice are allowed considerable discretion in dealing with offenders.

Witness immunity from prosecution occurs when a prosecutor grants immunity to a witness in exchange for testimony or production of other evidence.

The Barry Bonds perjury case was a case of alleged perjury regarding use of anabolic steroids by former San Francisco Giants outfielder and all-time Major League Baseball career home run leader, Barry Bonds, and the related investigations surrounding these accusations. On April 13, 2011, Bonds was convicted of one felony count of obstruction of justice for giving an incomplete answer to a question in grand jury testimony. A mistrial was declared on the remaining three counts of perjury, and those charges were dropped. The obstruction of justice conviction was upheld by an appellate panel in 2013, but a larger panel of the appellate court overturned the conviction in 2015.

A private prosecution is a criminal proceeding initiated by an individual private citizen or private organisation instead of by a public prosecutor who represents the state. Private prosecutions are allowed in many jurisdictions under common law, but have become less frequent in modern times as most prosecutions are now handled by professional public prosecutors instead of private individuals who retain barristers.

Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that, because of the doctrine of "dual sovereignty", the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not prohibit one state from prosecuting and punishing somebody for an act of which they had already been convicted of and sentenced for in another state.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

A deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is very similar to a non-prosecution agreement (NPA), is a voluntary alternative to adjudication in which a prosecutor agrees to grant amnesty in exchange for the defendant agreeing to fulfill certain requirements. A case of corporate fraud, for instance, might be settled by means of a deferred-prosecution agreement in which the defendant agrees to pay fines, implement corporate reforms, and fully cooperate with the investigation. Fulfillment of the specified requirements will then result in dismissal of the charges.

Crimes Act of 1790 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".

In United States criminal law, a perjury trap is a form of prosecutorial strategy, which is sometimes claimed to be prosecutorial misconduct in which a prosecutor calls a witness to testify, typically before a grand jury, with the intent of coercing the witness into perjury. Courts on state and federal levels almost never recognize such as inappropriate, as doing so would in essence, condone perjury.

References

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.