Dr. Malachi Z. York
Witness Recants Her Testimony
Ques: Why is the government still holding
Dr. Malachi Z York-EL with these FACTS from there lead witness?
Ans: Because, Abigail recantment proves the
government targeted Dr. Malachi Z York-EL and the pretrial transcripts
backs her testimony, No EVIDENCE, Agents didn't audio tape or video tape
the alleged victims statements and more. (Government Conspiracy)
What happens when Black
people can no longer recognize white racism? [read
Dr. Malachi Z York-El caring ways
Ques: Why didn't the government
follow these rules in Dr. York's case?
The framework of laws and rules that govern the administration
of justice in cases involving an individual who has been accused
of a crime, beginning with the initial investigation of the
crime and concluding either with the unconditional release of
the accused by virtue of acquittal (a judgment of not guilty) or
by the imposition of a term of punishment pursuant to a
conviction for the crime.
Criminal procedures are safeguards against the indiscriminate
application of criminal laws and the wanton treatment of
suspected criminals. Specifically, they are designed to enforce
the constitutional rights of criminal suspects and defendants,
beginning with initial police contact and continuing through
arrest, investigation, trial, sentencing, and appeals.
The main constitutional provisions regarding criminal procedure
can be found in Amendments IV, V, VI, and VIII to the
Constitution. The Fourth Amendment covers the right to be free
from unreasonable searches and arrests:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
A warrant is a paper showing judicial approval of a search or
arrest. The Supreme Court has determined that the Fourth
Amendment does not require a warrant for all searches; rather,
it prohibits unreasonable searches. All warrantless searches are
unreasonable unless they are executed pursuant to one of several
exceptions carved out by the Court.
The Fifth Amendment covers an array of procedural concerns,
including the death penalty, multiple trials for the same
criminal offense (double jeopardy), self-incrimination, and the
general right to due process. It reads, in relevant part,
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand
Jury … nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to
be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled
in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
The Sixth Amendment addresses the procedures required at trial.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State
and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be
confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Finally, the Eighth Amendment states, "Excessive bail shall not
be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
At first, these amendments were construed as applying only to
federal prosecutions. The states were free to enact criminal
procedures contrary to them until the passage of the Fourteenth
Amendment in 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment forbids the states
to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law" (§ 1). Under the Fourteenth Amendment,
states must provide most of the criminal safeguards found in the
Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments.
Federal courts must comply with all the criminal procedures
listed in the amendments to the Constitution. For state courts,
the U.S. Supreme Court has adopted a "selective incorporation"
approach to determine precisely what process is due a criminal
defendant. Under this approach, only fundamental rights are
According to the Supreme Court, fundamental rights in criminal
procedure include freedom from unreasonable searches and
seizures, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, assistance
of counsel, protection against self-incrimination, confrontation
of opposing witnesses, a speedy trial, compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses, a jury trial for prosecutions for cases in
which the defendant could be incarcerated, and protection
against double jeopardy. The only protections not specifically
required of states are the Eighth Amendment prohibition against
excessive bail and the Fifth Amendment requirement that infamous
crimes be prosecuted by grand jury.
The judicial interpretation of fundamental rights has allowed
states considerable leeway in shaping their own criminal
procedures. Although their procedural rules and statutes are
similar in many respects, federal and state legislatures are
responsible for their own criminal procedures, and procedures
can vary from state to state.
State and federal governments may not limit the protections
guaranteed by the Constitution, but they may expand them. An
example of this principle may be seen in the automobile
exception to the Constitution's search warrant requirement.
Under the automobile exception, states may allow the warrantless
search of an automobile if the police officer reasonably
believes that the vehicle holds evidence of a crime. The Supreme
Court has determined that this exception is not a violation of
the Fourth Amendment because drivers have a "reduced expectation
of privacy" and because a vehicle is inherently mobile.
However, states are not required to adopt the automobile
exception. The New Hampshire Supreme Court, for example, has
determined that all warrantless searches are unreasonable except
for a group of well-defined such searches, and this group does
not include warrantless automobile searches (State v. Sterndale,
139 N.H. 445, 656 A.2d 409 ). Thus, in New Hampshire, a
police officer may not base the warrantless search of a vehicle
on the mere fact that the place to be searched is a vehicle. New
Hampshire, therefore, provides expanded protections under the
Conversely, a state may not allow the search of any vehicle
without reasonable suspicion. A vehicle search conducted in the
absence of reasonable suspicion would be an infringement of
guaranteed Fourth Amendment protection, and a court would strike
down such an infringement as unconstitutional. See also
Automobile Searches In Focus: Is the Fourth Amendment in
Criminal prosecutions officially begin with an arrest. However,
even before an arrest, the law protects the defendant against
unconstitutional police tactics.
The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable
searches and seizures by law enforcement officers. Generally, a
search warrant is required before an officer may search a person
or place. This general requirement is waived for many searches
and seizures, including a search incident to a lawful arrest, a
stop and frisk for weapons, a seizure of items in plain view, a
search of an automobile, a search consented to by the suspect, a
search after a hot pursuit, and a search in exigent, or
When an officer seeks a search warrant, the officer must present
evidence to a judge or magistrate. The evidence must be
sufficient to establish probable cause that evidence of a crime
will be found at the place to be searched. Probable cause is a
level of belief beyond mere suspicion but short of full
certainty. Whether an officer can establish probable cause to
obtain a search warrant depends on the facts of the case. For
example, if an arrested person is discovered with a small amount
of marijuana, this alone will not justify a search of the
person's home. However, if the person is discovered with a large
amount of marijuana, the quantity may support the suspicion that
more marijuana may be found in the person's home, and the large
amount may be used as the basis for obtaining a search warrant.
Police officers seeking a search warrant must state, under oath
and with particularity, the facts supporting probable cause. If
the search warrant is later found to be lacking in probable
cause, or if important statements made by the officers are found
to have been intentionally misleading, the evidence seized
pursuant to the warrant may be excluded from trial. Also, if the
search goes beyond the scope granted in the warrant, the
evidence seized as a result of that encroachment may be excluded
from trial. For example, if the warrant states that the officers
may search only the suspect's apartment, they may not expand the
search to a storage closet outside the apartment.
The exclusionary rule protects the right to be free from
unreasonable searches. This rule holds that evidence illegally
obtained by police officers must be excluded from trial. Along
with the right of appeal, the exclusionary rule is a defendant's
chief remedy for a violation of criminal procedure.
The exclusionary rule deters police misconduct in searches.
Without use of the evidence at trial, the case against the
alleged criminal may be dismissed, and the officer's actions in
gathering that evidence will have been wasted effort. The
exclusionary rule also prohibits the use of evidence obtained in
violation of other constitutional rights, such as statements of
the accused that are elicited in violation of the right against
The most important exception to the exclusionary rule is the
good faith exception. Essentially, the good faith exception
allows the use of evidence obtained in violation of a person's
constitutional rights if the officer who obtained the evidence
acted in a reasonable manner. If evidence is illegally seized
and does not fall under an exception but is erroneously admitted
at trial by the judge, a guilty verdict will be reversed on
appeal if the prosecution cannot show beyond a reasonable doubt
that the evidence did not contribute to the conviction.
When officers have collected evidence pursuant to a search
warrant, the burden is on the defendant to show that the warrant
lacked probable cause or that other problems tainted the
collection process. For a warrantless search, the prosecution
bears the burden of proving that the search was reasonable.
These arguments are usually heard in a suppression hearing held
The law of search and seizure is detailed and complex. Special
issues include consent searches, inventory searches of impounded
automobiles, electronic surveillance, emergency searches,
searches by private parties, and administrative searches by
government agencies. The manner in which the police obtained
evidence is almost always an issue in a criminal trial.
The general rule is that to make an arrest, the police must
obtain an arrest warrant. However, if an officer has probable
cause to believe that a crime has been committed, and there is
no time to obtain a warrant, the officer may make a warrantless
arrest. Also, an officer may make a warrantless arrest of
persons who commit a crime in the officer's presence.
An invalid arrest is not generally a defense to prosecution.
However, if an arrest is unsupported by probable cause, evidence
obtained pursuant to the invalid arrest may be excluded from
When an arrest is made, the arresting officer must read the
Miranda warnings to the arrestee. The Miranda warnings apprise
an arrestee of the right to obtain counsel and the right to
remain silent. If these warnings are not read to an arrestee as
soon as he or she is taken into custody, any statements the
arrestee makes after the arrest may be excluded from trial.
After the arrest, the police must follow certain guidelines
during their investigations. For example, if the arrestee
requests an attorney or expresses a wish to remain silent, the
officers must honor the request and refrain from questioning the
arrestee. The police may, however, attempt to confirm that they
have arrested the right person. They may do so by showing a
victim a photo array that includes a picture of the suspect; by
arranging a lineup of live persons at the police station, with
the suspect included in the lineup; or by organizing a show-up,
which is a personal showing of the arrestee to the victim
shortly after commission of the crime.
Where photo arrays or lineups are used, the police must refrain
from highlighting the arrestee. For example, if an arrestee is
white, an officer cannot show a witness a series of photographs
in which all the other subjects are black. If an identification
procedure is too suggestive, any identification by the victim
may be excluded from trial.
At trial, a criminal defendant has a number of constitutional
rights, including the right to counsel, the right to a public
trial, the right to a trial by jury, the right to a fair and
impartial trial, the right to confront witnesses in court, the
right to compulsory process to obtain witnesses, and the
privilege against self-incrimination. Violation of any of these
rights may result in the reversal or vacation of a conviction on
There are exceptions and nuances to most of the procedural trial
rights. Under the Sixth Amendment, if a defendant is indigent,
or unable to afford an attorney, the court will appoint an
attorney. This right applies only for felony charges and cases
in which actual imprisonment may be imposed. This means that an
indigent who is not represented by counsel at trial cannot be
sentenced to incarceration, regardless of whether conviction of
the offense warrants incarceration (Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S.
367, 99 S. Ct. 1158, 59 L. Ed. 2d 383 ). However, a
defendant will not be appointed an attorney if the defendant is
able to pay for a private attorney.
A criminal defendant has the right to an attorney from the first
critical stage of the criminal process to the end. This means
that an attorney must be present at the request of the defendant
during such events as interrogation, lineup identifications
after charges have been filed, preliminary hearing s before the
court, trial, and sentencing.
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel includes the mandate that a
defendant's counsel must be effective and not incompetent.
A defendant is free to reject counsel and proceed pro se, or by
self-representation. However, a judge may disregard the
defendant's request and appoint an attorney if the pro se
defendant engages in dilatory or disruptive tactics.
The Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury does not guarantee
a jury in all cases. The right generally applies only in
"serious cases" — which are generally considered to be those in
which conviction can result in incarceration for more than six
months. When a jury trial is not guaranteed, the trial court
judge will hear the case and make a decision.
In federal court, a jury verdict must be unanimous. This
directive is not applicable to the states. In some states, a
vote of nine out of twelve jurors is sufficient to convict or
acquit. States may even provide as few as six jurors. Six is the
minimum amount, because juries should represent a cross section
of the community. If a jury of six is used, the verdict must be
Under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, a
defendant has the right to cross-examine all prosecution
witnesses at trial. Under limited circumstances, the statements
of a witness absent from court may be offered through the
testimony of a third party. For example, this evidence, known as
hearsay, can be admitted if the statements were made under oath,
the statements were subject to cross-examination by the
defendant's attorney, and the witness is unavailable despite the
best efforts of the prosecution.
The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination extends
from the moment of custody. A defendant need not make statements
or testify at trial, and that right is absolute. However, with a
sufficient showing of need by the prosecution,
self-incrimination may come from sources other than the
defendant's statements or testimony. For example, a court may
force a defendant to provide a blood sample, appear before
witnesses for identification, give handwriting samples, give
fingerprints, repeat certain words or gestures, and give a voice
If the defendant does testify, she or he may be questioned by
the prosecutor about previously inadmissible statements that
contradict the testimony. Thus, the Fifth Amendment privilege
against self-incrimination does not apply if the defendant has
made statements contrary to testimony given on the witness
The Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment gives a
defendant the right to obtain favorable witnesses. This means
that the defendant has the same power as the prosecutor to
subpoena witnesses. However, if the government, acting in good
faith, deports a potential defense witness (makes the witness
leave the jurisdiction), it does not violate compulsory process
The Sixth Amendment grants the right to "an impartial jury of
the State and district wherein the crime shall have been
committed." This clause gives a defendant the right to question
jurors for bias and prejudice. The right belongs to both the
defense and the prosecution, and it is exercised in a proceeding
called voir dire. In voir dire, both sides are allowed to
question jurors and reject a certain number of jurors, until the
jury pool is complete. The rejection of jurors may not be based
on race, sex, or national origin.
At trial, the prosecution has the burden of proving the
defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This level of
belief is abstract and has been described in a number of ways.
The best definition is that any doubt regarding the defendant's
guilt should not be fanciful or conjured up to avoid delivering
a verdict of guilty. This standard is reserved for criminal
trials; it is a higher standard than "by a preponderance of the
evidence" and "by clear and convincing evidence," the burdens of
proof used in civil trials.
The vast majority of criminal cases are resolved with a plea of
guilty before, or sometimes during, trial. Prosecutors may use
their discretion to reduce charges in exchange for a guilty
plea, in an arrangement known as a plea bargain. A plea of
guilty cannot be revoked after it has been accepted by a court.
Generally, it can be appealed only if the right to a trial was
not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived.
Prosecutors are often content with a plea bargain because it
satisfies the criminal justice system's goal of encouraging
people to accept responsibility for their actions, and because
plea bargains avoid costly, time-consuming trials. A prosecutor
may also agree to defer prosecution and drop charges after a
specified period if the defendant fulfills certain conditions. A
defense attorney may seek a plea bargain if the evidence against
the defendant is overwhelming. Both sides are free to reject any
plea bargains and proceed to trial.
If a defendant is acquitted of all criminal charges, the
prosecution may not subsequently prosecute the defendant for the
same act that produced those charges. This right is derived from
the prohibition of double jeopardy found in the Fifth Amendment.
In a jury trial, double jeopardy protection attaches when the
jury is impaneled and sworn in. For bench trials, or cases
presented to a judge only, double jeopardy protection begins
when the first witness is sworn in. Under double jeopardy
protection, the prosecution may not deliberately cause a
mistrial if the trial is going poorly for the prosecution.
However, if the jury cannot reach a verdict and a mistrial is
declared by the court, the defendant may be retried for the same
Generally, a defendant may not face both federal and state
prosecutions for the same offense. One exception to this general
rule is that a defendant in state court may face charges in
federal court for the same act with the permission of the
attorney general, but only if the offense is within the
jurisdiction of the federal court. For example, a conviction for
driving while intoxicated raises no federal concerns; federal
laws do not address that offense. Thus, the attorney general
cannot authorize the federal prosecution of a defendant
acquitted in state court of driving while intoxicated. The
acquitted defendant may, however, face a civil lawsuit for
damages, because civil actions do not put a person "in jeopardy
of life or limb," and therefore double jeopardy does not apply
to them (U.S. Const. amend. V, cl. 2).
After conviction, a defendant may be allowed to remain free
until sentencing. The decision on this issue is made by the
court, and it depends on the nature of the conviction and the
nature of the defendant's perceived character. For example, a
court will not allow a convicted murderer or rapist to remain
free until sentencing. A court may, however, allow a nonviolent
convict to post a bond and remain free pending sentencing.
Sentencing for a felony conviction is usually heard by the court
in a separate hearing held several days or weeks after the
verdict. At a felony sentencing hearing, the prosecution makes a
recommendation of punishment, and the defendant usually argues
for leniency. For lesser offenses, such as misdemeanors and
violations, sentencing may immediately follow the verdict.
Judges generally have wide discretion to craft individualized
sentences within statutory guidelines. In federal court,
however, some convictions, such as drug convictions, call for
mandatory minimum sentences. Statutory directives for these
convictions remove sentencing from the discretion of the judge.
Sentencing can include any combination of community service,
forfeiture of property, fines, and incarceration. Courts may
also exercise their sentencing discretion and order a term of
Under state and federal forfeiture laws, law enforcement
authorities are authorized to confiscate property of certain
criminal defendants. Under federal law, persons convicted of
controlled substance violations or racketeering schemes may be
forced to relinquish much of their personal property, including
real estate, stocks, cash savings, and vehicles. States also
authorize forfeitures for the violation of certain state laws,
such as those regarding controlled substances and the
solicitation of prostitution.
Probation releases a convicted defendant into the community
under the supervision of a probation officer. This is generally
reserved for first-time offenders, to give them an opportunity
to reform and rehabilitate.
A probationer will be called back into court and sentenced to
serve a term of incarceration if he or she breaks the terms of
the probation. For example, suppose a person convicted of
marijuana possession and sentenced to probation has been ordered
to complete treatment for chemical dependency and report to a
probation officer two times a week. If the probationer fails to
complete these tasks, the court may order the defendant to serve
a period of incarceration for the marijuana offense.
If probation is revoked, the probationer is entitled to counsel.
However, an indigent probationer is not automatically entitled
to a court-appointed attorney. Whether a probationer receives
free counsel depends on a number of factors. Generally, the
court will appoint an attorney if an indigent probationer denies
committing the alleged act and faces lengthy imprisonment.
Under the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual
punishment, sentencing and confinement in jail or prison may not
involve torture or barbarity. The Eighth Amendment is also
construed as meaning that the punishment should fit the crime.
For example, it would be cruel and unusual punishment to
sentence a person convicted of trespassing to the same
punishment as a person convicted of homicide.
According to the Supreme Court and many state legislatures, it
is not cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a defendant to
death for the commission of first-degree murder. Such a sentence
is called capital punishment, and it is generally reserved for
persons convicted of first-degree murder. A death penalty
sentence cannot be imposed automatically. State courts must
provide a separate hearing before a judge or jury to determine
whether it is appropriate, and the jury must be unanimous in its
decision to execute the defendant.
When an inmate faces prison discipline such as solitary
confinement, the inmate generally has no right to an attorney.
The inmate is entitled to other due process rights, such as
advance written notice of the charge and a written statement of
the fact findings, evidence, and reasons for the action taken.
Contrary to popular belief, the Constitution does not guarantee
the right to appeal a criminal conviction. Most states do
provide the right to an appellate review of criminal
convictions, to protect against trial court errors. However,
many states limit their review of state court convictions by
hearing only short oral arguments and issuing decisions without
Federal statutes grant criminal defendants in federal court the
right to appeal. Only one review is granted as a matter of
right, and this is to a U.S. court of appeals. Review of state
and federal convictions in the U.S. Supreme Court is
Where a criminal appeal is granted by state law as a matter of
right, the court is required to appoint an attorney to represent
indigent defendants on appeal. An indigent defendant is also
entitled to a free trial transcript or other means of affording
appellate review; this applies to any indigent defendant,
including one punished only with a fine.
On appeal, the burden is on the defendant to prove that an error
occurred in the trial or that the evidence was insufficient to
convict. A trial error can come from a variety of sources; it
can be committed by a judge, a prosecutor, or even a defense
attorney. Transgressions by a juror can also be grounds for the
reversal or vacation of a conviction. Defendants must raise all
claims of trial error in their first appeal in order to preserve
the claims for future appeals.
Habeas Corpus Petition
After an incarcerated defendant has exhausted all appeals
without success, she or he may file a writ of habeas corpus.
This is a civil suit against the warden of the prison,
challenging the constitutionality of the incarceration. There is
no right to the assistance of an attorney for habeas corpus
A habeas corpus petition is not another appeal. The only basis
for a writ of habeas corpus is the deprivation of a
constitutional right. For example, an inmate may claim that she
or he was denied the assistance of counsel guaranteed by the
Sixth Amendment because the defense attorney was incompetent.
Significantly, violations of the Fourth Amendment search warrant
requirement cannot provide the basis for a federal writ of
habeas corpus if a state court defendant had an opportunity to
argue the issue in state court.
If an inmate is released on parole and then violates the terms
of the parole, he or she must attend a hearing to determine if
parole will be revoked. The parolee may be entitled to the
assistance of counsel at the revocation hearing. This
entitlement will depend on a number of factors, including
whether the parolee denies committing the alleged acts, and the
rules of the parole board. If the parolee can afford a private
attorney, he or she is free to hire one; there is no bar to
representation in parole revocation hearings.