◆ SpookStack

B. Verdicts l. U.S. ve Powell, 105 S.Ct. 471 (12-10-84)** The Supreme Court refused to recognize an exception to the rule that a convicted defendant cannot successfully gain a new trfal merely because the jury’s verdicts on several counts are inconsistent, A criminal defendant is afforded sufficient protection against jury irrattonality or error by the independent review of the sufficiency of the evidence undertaken by the trial and appellate courts. C. Insanity Defense i. Ake v. Oklahoma, 105 S.Ct. 1087 (2+26-85) Indigent defendant who makes preliminary showing that his sanity at time of offense is likely to be "significant factor" at trial or capital sentencing hearing is entitled under due process clause to his own state-provided psychiatrist to examine him and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of his defense, including cross-examination of state"s witnesses, D. Double Jeopardy 1. Fugate v. New Mexico, 105 §.Ct. 1858 (3-26-85)* An equally divided Supreme Court affirmed a decision of the New Mexico Supreme Court which held that a defendants conviction in municipal court of driving while intoxicated and careless driving did not create a double jeopardy bar to his subsequent prosecution, in a higher court,.for vehicular homicide based on the same incident, The Supreme Court heard the Double Jeopardy arguments of a petitioner who, after pleading guilty to a predicate offense, was convicted of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) in violation of 21 U.S.C. 848. The Court held that Congress, in passing the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, intended the CCE offense to be a separate offense that waa both prosecutable and punishable in addition to, nor as a substitute for, the predicate offenses, I, Criminal Procedure A. Open Flelds - Aerial Surveillance 1. California v. Ciraolo Il - eee ee rn ee A I ru ce Ae cee eee te