Comparison – Criminal Law and Procedure EC 2

September 2016 |  by Mick

Fall 2016 Comparison Criminal Law and Procedure Extra Credit Audio #2

Click to stream, right click to download (Save As). You must comment to receive credit for this assignment.

Listen Here Chapter 6 – Lineups and Other Pre-Trial Identification Procedures (Keyed to Emmanuel Bootcamp for the MBE)

52 thoughts on “Comparison – Criminal Law and Procedure EC 2

  1. Wendy Alterno

    This section covered the lineups and pretrial identification procedures and how these procedures : fingerprints, blood samples and voice print – will not trigger the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, which only protects against compulsion to give testimony or communicative evidence.
    It discussed the exigent circumstances (evanescent evidence likely to disappear before a warrant can be obtained) v not exigent circumstances officers for officers to obtain a warrant to take blood from a suspect and it’s violation of the 4th Amendment rights and the cases that determined that law.
    Also the Mass distinction that if the government intend to conduct a voice identification procedure, the D can’t speak the exact same words that were spoken during incident. Any words spoken during identification will be suppressed. On the federal level, there is no violation of constitutional rights in making the D speak the exact words alleged to have been said at the time of the incident.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Email Us