{"id":14364,"date":"2018-02-19T22:19:39","date_gmt":"2018-02-19T22:19:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=14364"},"modified":"2018-02-19T22:19:39","modified_gmt":"2018-02-19T22:19:39","slug":"types-of-hearings-pertaining-solely-to-criminal-cases","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=14364","title":{"rendered":"Types of Hearings pertaining Solely to Criminal Cases:"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

detention hearing<\/span> –<\/strong> (1959) 1.<\/strong> Criminal law<\/em>. A hearing to determine whether an accused should be released pending trial.\u00a0 *\u00a0 Such a hearing is usually held soon after the defendant\u2019s arrest.<\/strong>\u00a0 See pretrial detention<\/em> under DETENTION (1).\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Fatico<\/em> hearing<\/span> –\u00a0<\/strong> (1979) Criminal procedure<\/em>. A sentencing hearing at which the prosecution and the defense may present evidence about what the defendant’s sentence should be. U.S. v Fatico<\/em>, 603 F.2d 1053 (2d Cir. 1979).<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Franks<\/em> hearing<\/span> –<\/strong>\u00a0 (1978) Criminal procedure<\/em>. A proceeding in which a defendant seeks to suppress evidence based on the falsity of an affiant’s declaration.\u00a0 * The defendant must establish that (1) the affiant deliberately misstated or omitted facts, and (2) the falsehood was necessary to the finding of probable cause.<\/strong> See Franks v Delaware<\/em>, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674 (1978)<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

independent-source hearing<\/span> –<\/strong> (1990) Criminal procedure<\/em>. A hearing to determine whether evidence was obtained illegally, and if so, whether the evidence is admissible.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Kastigar<\/em> hearing<\/span> –<\/strong> (1975) Criminal law<\/em>. A hearing at which the prosecution must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the governments evidence derives from proper, nonimmunized sources. Kastigar <\/em><\/strong>v. U.S<\/em>., 406 U.S. 441, 92 S.Ct. 1653 (1972).<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Mapp<\/em> hearing<\/span> –<\/strong>\u00a0 (1971) Criminal procedure<\/em>. A hearing held to determine whether evidence implicating the accused was obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure, and should therefore be suppressed. Mapp v. Ohio<\/em>, 367 U.S. 642, 81 S.Ct. 1684 (1961).<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

omnibus hearing<\/span> –<\/strong> (1969) Criminal procedure<\/em>. A hearing designed to bring judicial oversight to a criminal case at an early stage to make certain that the case is being handled expeditiously and properly.\u00a0 *\u00a0 At an omnibus hearing, the court is primarily interested in ensuring that discovery is being conducted properly, that any necessary evidentiary hearings have been scheduled, and that all issues ripe for decision have been decided.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

competency hearing<\/span> –<\/strong> (1958) Criminal law<\/em>. A hearing to determine the physical and mental fitness of a defendant <\/strong>to be tried for a crime.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Garcia<\/em> hearing<\/span> –\u00a0<\/strong> (1981) Criminal procedure<\/em>. A hearing held to ensure that a defendant who is one of two or more defendants represented by the same attorney understands (1) the risk of a conflict of interest inherent in this type of representation, and (2) that he or she is entitled to the services of an attorney who does not represent anyone else in the defendant’s case. U.S. v. Garcia<\/em>, 517 F.2d 272 (5th Ctr. 1975).\u00a0<\/strong> See CONFLICT OF INTEREST (2).<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

retention hearing<\/span> –<\/strong> (1971) Criminal procedure<\/em>. 1. A proceeding to decide whether a criminal defendant who has been found not guilty by reason of mental disease or insanity should be released.\u00a0 2. A proceeding to decide whether police-seized property, having been an instrumentality of a crime, should be released from police custody.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

revocation hearing<\/span> –<\/strong> (1928) Criminal procedure<\/em>. A hearing held to determine whether a parolee should be returned to prison for violating the terms of parole.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Sell<\/em> hearing<\/span> –<\/strong> (2005) Criminal law<\/em>. A hearing to consider whether a criminal defendant who has been <\/strong>found incompetent to stand trial can be forced to take medicine that will restore competency.\u00a0 Sell v. U.S<\/em>., 539 <\/strong>U.S. 166, 123 S.Ct. 2174 (2003).<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

suppression hearing<\/span> –<\/strong> (1955) Criminal procedure<\/em>. A pretrial hearing in which a criminal defendant seeks to prevent the introduction of evidence alleged to have <\/strong>been seized illegally.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

transfer hearing<\/span> –<\/strong> (1968) Criminal procedure<\/em>. In a juvenile court case, a hearing to determine whether the case should be transferred to adult criminal court so that the juvenile may be tried as an adult.\u00a0 *\u00a0 Every state, as well as the District of Columbia, has a transfer statute. The United States Supreme Court defined the due-process requirements for transfer hearings in Kent v. US<\/em>, 383 U.S.. 541, 86 S. Ct. 1045 (1966). <\/strong>\u2014 aka certification hearing<\/strong><\/em>; waiver hearing<\/strong><\/em>; fitness hearing<\/strong><\/em>. See TRANSFER STATUTE; MANDATORY WAIVER; STATUTORY EXCLUSION.<\/span><\/p>\n

safety hearing<\/span> –<\/strong> Criminal law<\/em>. An administrative hearing held by a department of motor vehicles to decide whether a motorist’s license should be suspended, as when a motorist has refused a chemical test or has caused a fatality.\u00a0<\/strong> See REFUSAL HEARING; FATALITY HEARING.<\/span><\/p>\n

refusal hearing<\/span> –<\/strong> (1972) Criminal procedure<\/em>. An administrative or judicial proceeding to determine whether a DWI or DUI defendant has declined to take a chemical test, such as a breath test, and, if so, the legal consequences of having done so.\u00a0<\/strong> See BREATH TEST.<\/span><\/p>\n

References:<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Disclaimer:<\/span><\/span><\/strong> All material throughout this website is compiled in accordance with Fair Use<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]: Black\u2019s Law Dictionary\u00a0Deluxe Tenth Edition<\/a>\u00a0by Henry Campbell Black & Editor in Chief Bryan A. Garner. ISBN: 978-0-314-62130-6<\/b><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[2]: Ballantine\u2019s Law Dictionary\u00a0<\/a><\/b><\/span><\/strong>with Pronunciations
\n<\/b><\/span><\/a><\/em>Third Edition<\/b><\/span><\/a><\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>by James A. Ballantine\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/strong>(James Arthur 1871-1949).\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/em>Edited by William S. Anderson.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a9 1969 by THE LAWYER\u2019S CO-OPERATIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY.\u00a0 Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 68-30931<\/b><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[3]:\u00a0\u00a0Ballantine\u2019s Law Dictionary <\/a><\/b><\/span><\/strong>Legal Assistant Edition<\/b><\/span><\/a><\/em>
\nby Jack Ballantine\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/strong>(James Arthur 1871-1949).\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/em>Doctored<\/b><\/span><\/a><\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/em>by\u00a0Jack G. Handler,\u00a0J.D.<\/a>\u00a0\u00a9 1994 Delmar by Thomson Learning.\u00a0 ISBN 0-8273-4874-6.<\/b><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

*******************************<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Back to Exclusionary Rules<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Back to<\/span><\/span><\/strong>\u00a0Preliminary Hearing or Grand Jury Proceedings<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Back to<\/span><\/span><\/strong> Criminal Proceedings<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Home Page<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Like this website?<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Please Support Our Fundraiser<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

or donate via\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/strong>PayPal<\/span><\/a><\/strong>:<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n