Significant differences between an initial appearance and arraignment focus on what actions and information the court system requires the defendant to declare.
Even though the judge reads the official charges against the defendant at the initial appearance and arraignment, the defendant does not respond to the charges at the initial appearance. At an arraignment, the defendant must enter in a plea of "guilty," "not guilty," or "no contest. Judges must notify defendants of their legal rights when they read the charges at an initial appearance. At an initial appearance, the judge is responsible for verifying the accuracy of the defendant's identity.
During the appearance, the defendant must confirm he is the person listed in the formal complaint. The arraignment does not require the judge to confirm the defendant's identity. In some cases, the court schedules the arraignment immediately following the initial appearance.
The defendant may need to verify that he understands the charges or complaint filed against him at an initial appearance. Most judges will ask the defendant if he has a copy of the original complaint. An arraignment is necessary so that the accused individual knows the charges that have been filed against them by the prosecuting attorney, which may be different than the potential charges for which they were arrested by law enforcement officers, and can enter their plea.
Due to this discrepancy, the defendant should be informed of the charges against them at all stages of the process: the potential charges for which they were arrested by law enforcement officers at their initial appearance and the charges officially filed by the prosecutor at their arraignment. Arguments can be made for combining the initial appearance and arraignment in order to streamline the process. However, this approach could also cause significant delays.
Prior to the arraignment, the prosecutor must have time to review the potential charges submitted by the arresting officer and the defendant must also have time to obtain and meet with their attorney prior to entering their plea.
It is extremely unlikely that all of that could take place within the hour window usually required for the initial appearance. Arguments could also be made for forgoing an in-person arraignment in favor of a paper or virtual arraignment through which the defendant is informed of their charges and can enter their plea through the mail or a teleconference in order to cut down on the number of court appearances missed work, travel costs, etc.
Practice Question On Friday night, Charles was arrested on Friday night for assault after getting into a fight at a bar. Charles will be informed of the potential charges for which he was arrested at his initial appearance, which will take place within hours of his arrest.
However, he will not respond to any charges against him until his formal arraignment after the potential charges for which he was arrested have been reviewed and then withdrawn or officially filed by the prosecuting attorney. Some state laws specify how soon suspects are entitled to appear in court, while others vaguely ban "unnecessary delay" after arrest. Typically, though, a person who was arrested and is sitting in jail must get before a judge within 24 to 72 hours with some exceptions.
In both state and federal court, the initial court appearance is typically the point at which the court advises the defendant of the charges and certain constitutional rights , including the right to counsel. The court may also:. Some states combine "probable cause determinations" with the initial court appearance. That's because, for law enforcement to keep a suspect in custody pursuant to a warrantless arrest, the Fourth Amendment requires a judicial determination of probable cause.
Most arrests are warrantless. If the court doesn't find probable cause sufficient grounds to believe the defendant committed the crime—a rare occurrence—it must order the defendant's release. Probable cause determinations may be informal, based only on affidavits, which are a form of sworn written statements, or similar documents.
The defendant's presence may not even be required. If the government a county, for example combines probable cause determinations with initial appearances, it must hold them "as soon as is reasonably feasible, but in no event later than 48 hours after arrest. Even a less-thanhour delay may be unreasonable—for instance, if officers orchestrated it in order to allow time for the defendant to confess.
If authorities go beyond the hour window, the government has the burden of proving that an emergency caused the delay. County of Riverside v. McLaughlin , U. Despite the Supreme Court ruling that initial appearances that are combined with probable cause hearings must be held within 48 hours of arrest, many jurisdictions provide a hour window for arraignment. This allows for the timely arraignment of defendants nabbed over the weekend.
Regardless of the hour "mandate," courts routinely approve the hour schedule. In practice, government agents have a bit of slack—as long as they make a conscientious effort to get a suspect in front of a judge quickly, they're probably in the clear.
And even an illegal delay in bringing a defendant to court probably won't invalidate a subsequent conviction unless the delay somehow contributed to it. Chavez , F. In a federal case, for example, FBI agents arrested the defendant for bank robbery pursuant to an arrest warrant early on a Friday morning.
The agents began trying to locate a magistrate shortly after the arrest but couldn't find one who was free before Monday, which is when they ended up taking the defendant to court. In the meanwhile, the officers interviewed the defendant—during that interview, which was more than 12 hours after the arrest, he gave self-incriminating statements.
The defendant asked the court to suppress exclude his statements because he made them before officers had brought him to a judge.
0コメント