刑诉
刑诉概述Criminal Procedure Overview
证明标准Standards of Proof
We will learn about evidentiary standards in Criminal Procedure, Evidence, and Civil Procedure. From lowest to highest, they are:
我们会在刑诉、证据法和民诉中学到证据标准。从低到高分别为：
In Evidence law, if the authenticity of a piece of evidence is challenged, the judge should admit it as long as there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that it is authentic. However, whether the evidence is actually authentic is ultimately for the jury to decide.
证据法中，一个证据的真实性如果被质疑，法官只要有足够的证据（sufficient evidence）相信它是真实的，就应当采纳。但证据究竟是否是真的，应当让陪审团决定。
The standard for upholding a jury verdict in civil litigation, or for a judge not to bypass the jury and direct a verdict, is also that there is legally sufficient evidence, or substantial evidence supporting a party's claim.
民事诉讼的陪审团裁决得以维持，或者法官不应该绕过陪审团直接判决，其标准也是有法律上足够的证据，或者说有显著的证据支持某方的主张。
Any decision to terminate parental rights must be based on clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, it violates the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. [Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)]
任何终止父母抚养权的决定都必须基于清晰可信的证据，否则违反宪法的正当程序条款。[Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)]
A universally applicable principle is that the prosecutor has the burden of proving the defendant's guilt, and every element of the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
一些放之四海皆准的原则是，检察官有义务证明被告人犯罪，且每一个元素都要被证明到排除一切合理怀疑的标准。
If a statute specifies that the elements of rape include 'the victim's lack of consent,' then the victim's lack of consent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
如果在法条中规定强奸罪的要素包括“被害人不同意”，那么需要将被害人不同意证明到排除一切合理怀疑的标准。
The MBE also likes to use 'the defendant has the burden to prove their innocence' as a distractor option, which is definitely incorrect.
MBE也喜欢把“被告人有义务证明自己无罪”作为混淆选项，这一定是错的。
However, for a defendant's affirmative defenses, state law may establish different standards.
但是，对于被告人的积极抗辩，州法却可以制订不同的标准。
Under common law, 'self-defense' is an affirmative defense to murder. State A provides that if a defendant raises this defense, they only need to present a scintilla of evidence to prove self-defense. State B, however, requires self-defense to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither provision is unconstitutional. Note the distinction from the previous example where the legislature makes 'absence of self-defense' an element of murder. A more common affirmative defense is insanity; state law can arbitrarily set the defendant's standard of proof for this defense, even requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt [Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 (1952)].
普通法下，“正当防卫”是故意杀人罪的积极抗辩。甲州规定，如果被告人提出该抗辩，只需要提出一点点证据证明正当防卫即可。乙州却规定需要排除一切合理怀疑证明正当防卫。两种规定都不违宪。注意区分上例立法“没有正当防卫”是故意杀人罪的要素的情形。更常见的积极抗辩是精神失常（insanity），州法可以任意规定被告人对于该抗辩的证明标准，哪怕是排除一切合理怀疑[Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 (1952)]。
Regarding the standard to which the prosecutor and the defendant must prove the elements distinguishing murder and manslaughter, we can understand the Supreme Court's stance through two cases.
关于故意杀人罪（murder）和致人死亡罪（manslaughter）之间的要素究竟需要检察官和被告人证明到什么标准，我们通过两个案例来了解最高法院的态度。
The only difference between murder and voluntary manslaughter is whether the defendant had malice aforethought; if the defendant was adequately provoked, there is no malice aforethought. From this perspective, the trier of fact (usually the jury) must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not adequately provoked in order to convict the defendant of murder. Otherwise, even if it is established that the defendant intentionally caused the victim's death, they can only be convicted of voluntary manslaughter. [Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975)]
故意杀人（murder）和故意致人死亡（voluntary manslaughter）之间的唯一区别是被告人是否有事前的恶意（malice aforethought），如果被告人被足够的激怒，就没有事前的恶意。从这个角度来说，事实的审理者（通常是陪审团）需要排除一切合理怀疑认定被告人没有被足够激怒，才能给被告人定murder。否则，即使确立了被告人故意导致被害人死亡，也只能定voluntary manslaughter. [Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975)]
However, if state law provides that a defendant charged with second-degree murder can reduce the charge to manslaughter by proving extreme emotional disturbance by a preponderance of the evidence, this does not violate constitutional requirements. It still requires the jury to prove every element of second-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, but merely provides the defendant with an additional affirmative defense. [Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977)]
但是，如果州法规定被指控二级谋杀的被告人提供大于对半开的证据（preponderance of the evidence）证明自己有极端情绪困扰就可以把谋杀降低到致人死亡（manslaughter）并不违反宪法要求。它依然要求陪审团排除合理怀疑证明二级谋杀的每一个要素，只是给被告人多了一个积极抗辩的事由。[Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977)]
羁押Seizure
第4修正案The Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. We will first learn what constitutes a seizure of a person: a person is seized when they reasonably believe they are not free to leave.
宪法第4修正案禁止不合理的搜查、扣押、羁押（search and seizure），我们先学习什么是羁押（seizure of a person），当一个人合理地怀疑他不能自由地离开时，他即被羁押。
Police broke into a suspect's home at 3:00 a.m., woke him up, and said they needed to talk. After the suspect agreed to talk, the police handcuffed him. Regardless of the police's reasons for handcuffing him, a reasonable person could not possibly believe they were free to leave at that moment, or tell the police they were going back to sleep. This situation clearly constitutes a seizure. [Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626 (2003)]
警察凌晨三点闯入犯罪嫌疑人家中唤醒了他，说他们要谈谈，嫌疑人同意谈话后，警察给他带上了手铐。无论警察出于什么原因给他带上手铐，一个合理的人不可能认为此时可以自由地离开，或者告诉警察他要回去睡大觉。该情形显然构成羁押。[Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626 (2003)]
逮捕Arrest
An arrest occurs when the police take a person into custody against their will for purposes such as criminal prosecution. An arrest is clearly a type of seizure. An arrest requires probable cause, which is defined as the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge at the time being sufficient to warrant a prudent and reasonable person in believing that the suspect has committed or is committing an offense. [Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949); Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)]
逮捕（arrest）是警察为了刑事诉讼等原因，违背当事人的意愿将人关押。逮捕显然是羁押的一种。逮捕需要有相当的理由（probable cause），其定义是当时已经了解的事实和情况，对警官来说，可以让一个成熟理性的人相信嫌疑人已经或正在犯罪[Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949); Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)]。
The presence of drugs in a private car constitutes probable cause to arrest the driver and all passengers, even if there is no direct evidence proving they had knowledge of the drugs. [Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003)]
私家车上有毒品是probable cause，可以逮捕司机和所有乘客，即使没有任何证据证明他们对毒品知情。[Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003)]
As the police were leaving a crime scene, John Doe walked past the door. Although not many people pass by in this neighborhood, mere presence near a crime scene is absolutely not probable cause.
警察离开犯罪现场时，张三从门口路过，虽然这个街区路过的人并不多，但仅仅出现在犯罪现场附近绝对不是probable cause.
If the police arrest a suspect for the wrong offense, the arrest remains valid as long as the facts at the time provided probable cause for another offense.
警察如果使用错了逮捕的罪名，那么只要当时的事实依据其他罪名有probable cause，逮捕也是有效的。
Police discovered a suspect impersonating a police officer. When the police approached to question him, the suspect recorded the officers. Out of anger, the police arrested the suspect for illegal recording. It was later discovered that the recording was actually legal, but the suspect's impersonation of a police officer provided sufficient probable cause for an arrest, so the arrest was valid. [Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2005)]
警察发现犯罪嫌疑人冒充警察，警察上前问话后，嫌疑人对警察进行录音。警察恼羞成怒，用非法录音的罪名逮捕了犯罪嫌疑人。随后发现录音其实是合法的，但嫌疑人冒充警察是足以逮捕的probable cause，所以逮捕是有效的。[Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2005)]
If, in the previous example, the police had arrested the suspect for illegal recording and only subsequently discovered he was impersonating a police officer through a search incident to arrest, it would be a different story.
如果上例中，警察以非法录音的罪名逮捕了犯罪嫌疑人，随后通过搜身才发现他冒充警察，则是另一个故事。
As we have seen, an arrest does not always seem to require an arrest warrant. More generally, if the police have probable cause to believe a suspect has committed a felony, or if they witness a person committing a misdemeanor, they can make a warrantless arrest in a public place. This applies even if the misdemeanor itself is not punishable by imprisonment. [Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001)]
我们已经看到，逮捕似乎并不需要逮捕令（arrest warrant）。更一般地，警察如果有probable cause相信犯罪嫌疑人犯了重罪（felony），或者亲眼看到人犯了轻罪（misdemeanor），可以在公众场合直接逮捕。即使该轻罪本身都不能用监禁来惩罚[Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001)]。
However, if the police wish to arrest a suspect in their own home or in a third party's home, they must obtain an arrest warrant in advance; otherwise, the arrest is presumptively unlawful. [Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984)] Of course, with exigent circumstances, a warrantless arrest can be made, but the government bears the burden of proof to show that the warrantless arrest or search was necessary.
但是在嫌疑人家中，或者在第三人家中，警察如果想要逮捕犯罪嫌疑人，需要预先获得逮捕令，否则默认为非法的逮捕[Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984)]。当然，如果有充分的理由，也可以在没有逮捕令的情况下紧急逮捕，政府有责任证明（burden of proof）无证逮捕、无证搜查是必要的。
截停Stop
Stopping a person on the street and asking them to identify themselves is a type of seizure if the police's show of authority makes the person believe they are not free to leave.
在大路上截停（stop）一个人，询问名字（identify）是羁押（seizure）的一种，如果警察的压迫感让人不相信他可以自行离去。
However, its requirement is lower than that of an arrest; it does not require the police to have probable cause, only reasonable suspicion. [Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)] After a lawful stop, if there is reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect is armed, the police may also conduct a frisk. We call this type of stop a Terry stop.
但它的要求比逮捕（arrest）低，不要求警察有相当的理由（probable cause），只要有合理的嫌疑（reasonable suspicion）[Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)]。在合法截停后，如果有合理的嫌疑认为嫌疑人带了武器，也可以进行拍身（frisk）。我们把这种截停叫做Terry stop。
While investigating a crime scene, the police saw John Doe and approached him to ask what he had seen. John Doe became overly nervous and confessed to everything. Mere questioning does not constitute a stop, so it does not even require reasonable suspicion. The standard remains the definition of a seizure: whether a passerby feels they can refuse the police's questioning and leave at any time.
警察调查犯罪现场的时候看到张三，随后警察上前询问他看到了什么。张三过于紧张于是全盘招供。仅仅是问话不构成截停，所以甚至不需要有合理的嫌疑（reasonable suspicion）。判断标准依然是羁押的定义：路人有没有感觉到他可以拒绝警察的问话，并随时离去。
Reasonable suspicion is not precisely defined. What is certain is that it is a lower standard than probable cause, but it absolutely does not mean a person can be stopped for no reason at all.
Reasonable suspicion并没有被精确地定义，可以确定的是，它比probable cause的要求要低，但也绝对不是毫无理由就可以截停一个人。
Merely being present near a crime scene is not reasonable suspicion, nor is running away upon seeing the police. However, combined together, they can constitute reasonable suspicion. The police may pursue, stop, question, and frisk, but they cannot arrest the suspect until they obtain probable cause. [Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000)]
仅仅出现在犯罪现场周围不是reasonable suspicious，看到警察就跑也不是。但结合在一起可以认为是reasonable suspicious，警察可以追逐、截停、问话、拍身，但直到获得probable cause之前，不可以逮捕犯罪嫌疑人[Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000)]。
An informant's tip can establish reasonable suspicion, but it must be sufficiently specific to allow the police to believe the tip is reliable before making the stop.
线人的线索可以创造reasonable suspicion，但要足够具体（specific），能让警察在截停之前就相信线人的线索是准确的。
An anonymous informant tipped off that a woman would be carrying cocaine, leaving a specific apartment at a specific time, driving a specific car, and heading to a specific location for a transaction. When the police observed a woman actually doing this, they had reasonable suspicion and could stop her. [Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990)]
匿名线人举报会有妇女携带可卡因在特定时间、离开特定的公寓、驾驶特定的车、开往特定的交易地点。当警察观察到有妇女的确这么做时，就有了reasonable suspicion，可以对妇女进行截停。[Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990)]
An anonymous informant reported that a Black man wearing a plaid shirt standing at a bus stop was carrying a weapon. The police arrived at the bus stop and saw a Black man in a plaid shirt. Unlike the previous example, 'a Black man wearing a plaid shirt standing at a bus stop' is a relatively common occurrence and is not sufficiently specific. The police had no way of knowing the reliability of the tip before the stop, so there was no reasonable suspicion. [Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)]
匿名线人举报站在公交车站穿格子衣服的黑人持有武器，警察到了该公交车站看到了穿格子衣服的黑人。和上例不同，“有黑人穿格子衣服站在公交车站”是比较常见的事项，并不足够具体，警察在截停之前无从知道线索的准确性，所以没有reasonable suspicion. [Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)]
If state law requires a person to disclose their identity to the police after a lawful stop, refusing to do so constitutes probable cause for a lawful arrest. [Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 542 U.S. 177 (2004)] This applies unless merely stating one's name would constitute self-incrimination, though such situations are extremely rare.
如果州法要求被合法截停后，必须对警察披露身份，那么拒绝这么做就构成了probable cause，可以依法逮捕[Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 542 U.S. 177 (2004)]。除非只说名字也构成了自证其罪，但这种情况非常罕见。
There is no specific time limit for a stop. As long as the police pursue their investigation in a diligent and reasonable manner, a 20-minute stop is permissible. [United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985)] However, detaining luggage suspected of containing contraband for 90 minutes failed to meet this standard [United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983)], because the scope of a Terry stop is limited.
截停的时间没有具体规定，只要警察积极、合理地为了调查嫌疑推进（diligent and reasonable manner），那么20分钟也是可以的[United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985)]。但是将怀疑有违禁品的行李扣押90分钟则没能满足这个标准[United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983)]，因为Terry stop的范围是受限制的（limited in scope）。
拦车Automobile Stops
Stopping a vehicle is very similar to a Terry stop of a pedestrian, requiring the police to have reasonable suspicion. The difference is that, due to the high mobility of vehicles, police are allowed to set up roadblocks to stop passing vehicles without reasonable suspicion, provided they meet the following requirements:
截停车辆和截停行人的Terry stop十分类似，要求警方有reasonable suspicion. 不一样的是，因为车辆的流动性太大，警方允许在没有reasonable suspicion的时候设置路障截停来往的车辆，但必须做到：
Police can stop every fifth car, or simply stop all cars, but they cannot stop cars at their own discretion, because stopping cars at will amounts to "stopping whoever they dislike," which constitutes a de facto illegal seizure.
警察可以每五辆车截停一辆，或者干脆截停所有车，但不能看心情截停，因为看心情截停就是“看着不爽就截停”，成为了实质上的非法羁押。
If an inmate escapes from prison, police can set up a roadblock on nearby roads to check all vehicles. Police can even set up a checkpoint at a crime scene a week after the crime occurred to ask passing drivers if they have any information about the perpetrator [Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004)].
因为监狱有人越狱，警察可以在附近的道路设卡检查所有车辆。警察甚至可以在犯罪现场、距离案发时间一周后设卡询问来往司机是否有任何关于罪犯的线索[Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004)]。
Because drunk driving is a serious problem, police can stop all passing vehicles to conduct sobriety tests [Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)]. However, police cannot conduct such stops just because of widespread drug use; otherwise, it would mean police could use any reason to conduct stops [Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000)].
因为酒驾问题严重，警察可以截停来往的所有车辆并进行酒精测试 [Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)]。但警察不能因为毒品泛滥进行这样的截停，否则就相当于警察可以用任何理由来进行截停[Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000)]。
Police can stop all vehicles at fixed border checkpoints to check for illegal immigrants. [United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)]
警察可以在固定的边境检查站（fixed checkpoints）截停所有的车辆查看有没有非法移民。[United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)]
Inspections of vessels are even more relaxed; customs officials can board any vessel docked at a port for inspection, without even needing to meet the previous two requirements. Because the statute allowing customs to board vessels without cause was enacted by the same Congress that passed the Fourth Amendment, it cannot be unconstitutional from the perspective of the framers' original intent [United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U.S. 579 (1983)].
对船只的检查则更加宽松，海关可以登上任何停靠在港口的船只进行检查，甚至不需要满足前两个要求。因为允许海关无理由登船的法律正是通过宪法第四修正案的同一届国会制订的，从立法者原意来看不可能违宪[United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U.S. 579 (1983)]。
A stop based on a mistaken but objectively reasonable mistake of law or fact is generally valid.
基于错误但客观上合理（objectively reasonable）的原因进行的截停通常是有效的。
An officer mistakenly believed that a car must have two working brake lights, but state law only required one working brake light to be legally driven. Based on this mistaken belief, the officer stopped a car with only one working brake light and discovered evidence of other crimes. Although the officer's reason was mistaken, he stopped the car reasonably and in good faith, so it was not an illegal stop. [Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014)]
警察错误地认为汽车必须要有两个刹车灯，但州法只规定一个刹车灯亮就可以合法上路。基于这个错误的原因，警察拦下了一辆只有一个刹车灯亮的车并发现了其他的犯罪线索。虽然警察的原因是错误的，但他合理地、真诚地拦下了车，不是非法拦车。[Heien v. North Carolina, 574 US 54 (2014)]
After stopping a vehicle, police may order all occupants out of the car (without needing additional justification) and conduct a frisk (if there is reasonable suspicion that they are armed and dangerous) [Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977); Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997)].
截停车辆后，警察可以让所有人下车（无需额外理由）并进行拍身检查（需要合理怀疑持有武器且危险）[Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977); Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997)]。
Police sometimes follow a vehicle hoping it will violate a traffic law, which would provide a reason for a stop. Even if their true intent is to investigate other crimes, as long as the duration of the police investigation does not exceed the time needed to issue a traffic ticket, it remains a valid stop.
警察有时候会跟踪车辆，希望它能违反交通法规，这样就构成了截停的理由。即使其真实意图是调查其他犯罪，只要警察调查的时间没有超过开罚单的时间，就依然属于合理的截停。
While one officer is issuing a ticket, another officer using a drug-sniffing dog to sniff the trunk of the car and obtaining probable cause is permissible [Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005)]. However, detaining the person for a few more minutes after the ticket has been issued to conduct a dog sniff is not allowed [Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015)].
一个警察开罚单期间，另外一个警察用缉毒犬嗅探车的后备箱并获得了probable cause，这是允许的[Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005)]。但是，在开完罚单之后又将人羁押了几分钟用于嗅探车是不行的[Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015)]。
救济Remedies
证据的排除Exclusion of Evidence
In the Criminal Procedure section, our guiding principle is that evidence and confessions obtained in violation of the Constitution generally cannot be used. If tried by a jury, the jury should not be exposed to such evidence at all. Simply put, exclusion is the rule, and non-exclusion is the exception.
在刑诉篇，我们的精神是，违反宪法获得的证据和供认通常不能使用。如果由陪审团审理，陪审团根本不应该接触到这些证据。简单地说，以排除为原则，以不排除为例外。
The exclusionary rule emerged in the common law system over a century ago. In the Weeks case, police entered the defendant's home and seized various properties without complying with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Although the lower court ordered the return of most properties unrelated to the charges, it refused to return certain letters, which were to be used as evidence to charge the defendant with violating a statute prohibiting the circulation of lottery tickets.
证据排除规则（exclusionary rule）于一百多年前在英美法系兴起。在Weeks一案中，警察没有按照宪法第4修正案的要求，就进入被告人家中扣押了各种财物。初级法院虽然判令返还大部分和指控无关的财物，但拒绝返还一些信件，这些信件将用作证据指控被告人违法了一条关于禁止彩票流通的成文法。
The defendant petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that these letters were searched and seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, should be returned immediately, and should not be used as evidence.
被告人请愿到最高法院，争辩说这些信件是在违反宪法第4修正案的情况下搜到的，应当被立即返还，且不应当被用作证据。
The Supreme Court agreed with the defendant. The Court held that if evidence obtained through illegal searches could be used in court to prosecute a defendant, the Fourth Amendment's protection of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures would be meaningless and might as well be stricken from the Constitution. While the efforts of the lower courts and government officials to punish crime are commendable, they must not be achieved at the expense of the fundamental principles established in the fundamental law of the land after years of struggle and suffering [Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914)].
最高法院同意了被告人的观点。最高法院认为，如果非法搜查得到的证据能够被在法庭上指控被告人，宪法第4修正案保护人民免于不合理的搜查、羁押和扣押的条款毫无意义，还不如直接删除。初级法院及政府官员惩罚犯罪的努力虽然值得称赞，但不得以牺牲那些经过多年的抗争和苦难，并最终确立在国家根本大法中的基本原则为代价[Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914)]。
Shortly after the Weeks case, the government came up with a clever workaround: photographing and copying the documents immediately after an illegal seizure. Although the prosecutor expressed regret for the illegal seizure and returned the originals, they argued that these photographs and copies could be used as evidence against the defendant in subsequent proceedings. The Supreme Court held that if evidence obtained from an illegal search could be used after being copied, the government would bypass constitutional requirements with just one extra step, rendering the Fourth Amendment a mere formality.
在Weeks一案后不久，政府想了一个绝妙的办法：在非法扣押后立刻对文件进行拍照和复印。检察官虽然对非法扣押表示遗憾并返还了原件，但认为可以将这些拍照和复印作为证据，在后续程序中对被告人不利。最高法院认为，如果非法搜查获得的证据复印后就可以使用的话，政府仅仅是多一个步骤就绕过了宪法要求，这会让第4修正案流于形式。
Illegally obtained evidence is not only inadmissible in court as evidence, but it shall not be used at all [Silverthorne Lumber Co., Inc. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920)]. Any new evidence obtained through further investigation based on information acquired from an illegal search must also be excluded; this is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine.
非法获得的证据不仅仅是不能在法院作为证据使用，而是根本不能使用[Silverthorne Lumber Co., Inc. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920)]，任何以非法搜查获得的信息为基础而进一步调查得到的新证据都应当被排除，这就是毒树之果原则（fruit of a poisonous tree）。
After learning these two principles, let's look at some cases. Just as Criminal Law does not consider procedural issues, Criminal Procedure assumes by default that the possession of various drugs (including marijuana) violates substantive law (statutes), and only considers whether such evidence can be excluded.
学习这两个原则之后，我们来看一些案例。和刑法不考虑程序问题一样，刑诉默认持有各类毒品（包括大麻）都违反了实体法（成文法条），只考虑能否把这些证据排除。
If a defendant is arrested without probable cause, the defendant's confession must still be excluded, no matter how perfectly the police safeguard the defendant's rights during interrogation. This is because, but for the unconstitutional arrest, there would be no confession. [Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687 (1982)]
被告人在没有probable cause的情况下被逮捕，那么无论警察在询问时保障被告人权益做的多么完美，被告人的供词依然要被排除。因为如果不是违反宪法的逮捕，就不会有被告人的供词。[Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687 (1982)]
In a high-drug-crime neighborhood, police saw a Hispanic man walking toward them. Having never seen this person in the community, the police asked if he had any illegal items on him. The man ignored the police's question and kept walking. The police then loudly ordered him to stop and raise his hands. After stopping, the man threw a bag of drugs into the bushes, which the police recovered. Merely being present in a high-crime neighborhood does not constitute reasonable suspicion, so the stop was illegal [Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)], and the drugs, obtained as a result of the illegal stop, should be excluded.
在一个毒品高发的街区，警察看到一个墨西哥裔向他们走来，警察从未在社区见过这个人，于是询问那个人身上是否有非法物品。墨西哥裔忽略了警察的问话继续走路，警察于是大声让他停下并将双手举起来。墨西哥裔停下后丢出了一包毒品到草丛里，警察获得了毒品。仅仅出现在犯罪高发的街区不属于reasonable suspicion，所以截停是违法的[Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)]，而毒品是基于非法截停获得的，应当被排除。
After issuing a traffic ticket, the police detained the person for a few more minutes to conduct a dog sniff of the car, and based on the dog's alert, obtained probable cause, further gaining the right to search the car and finding drugs. The suspect cannot be charged with illegal possession of drugs because the sniff was illegal, meaning the probable cause was illegally obtained, and the subsequent search was also illegal. The drugs, as items obtained from an illegal search, cannot be used as evidence. [Rodriguez v. United States, supra]
警察在开完罚单之后又将人羁押了几分钟用于嗅探车，并基于警犬的反映获得了probable cause，进一步获得搜车的权利并找到毒品。嫌疑人无法被控非法持有毒品，因为嗅探的行为是非法的，于是probable cause也是非法获得的，进一步搜查也是非法的。毒品作为非法搜查获得的物品，不能作为证据使用。[Rodriguez v. United States, supra]
We will learn about many similar situations in the upcoming chapters on searches, confessions, and so on.
我们会在接下来的搜查、供认等章节学到大量类似的情形。
证据排除的例外Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
The exclusionary rule is so powerful that the Supreme Court has established numerous exceptions through piecemeal modifications over time. As early as the Silverthorne Lumber Co., Inc. case, which introduced the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, the Court made it clear that facts obtained through an illegal search are not sacred and inaccessible; if the police lawfully learn the facts again from a completely independent source, they need not be excluded. This is known as the independent source exception.
证据排除规则过于强大，所以最高法院又在一次次修修补补中设立了诸多例外。早在引入毒树之果的Silverthorne Lumber Co., Inc.案中，法院就明确了非法搜查获得的真相不是神圣而不可接近的，如果警察从完全独立的渠道再次合法了解真相，就不必被排除。这叫做独立信源例外（independent source exception）。
After discovering marijuana during an illegal search, the police did not seize it, but instead used completely unrelated information sources to apply for a search warrant and searched the premises again. If the marijuana is still found at the scene during this second search, it can be used as evidence [Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988)].
警察非法搜查发现大麻之后，并没有扣押，而是用完全无关的信息来源申请到了搜查令并再次搜查。这次如果大麻还在现场被搜到了，是可以被用作证据的[Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988)]。
If the evidence would have been inevitably discovered regardless of whether the police conducted an unconstitutional search, there is no reason to exclude it. This is another important exception (the inevitable discovery exception).
如果无论警察是否会违宪搜查，证据都不可避免地会被发现，那么也没有理由排除，这是另一个重要的例外（inevitable discovery exception）。
Although the defendant's statement regarding the location of the body was obtained illegally by the police, the government proved that even without the defendant's statement, the body would have been discovered within a short period of time, having no material impact on the autopsy. Ultimately, the autopsy report was admitted. [Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984)]
虽然被告人关于尸体位置的供述是警方违法获得的，但政府证明了即使没有被告人的供述，尸体也会在较短时间内被发现，对尸检没有实质性影响，最终尸检报告得以被采纳。[Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984)]
The primary reason courts exclude illegally obtained evidence is to deter police from maliciously conducting unconstitutional searches. If the police conduct a search, seizure, or arrest in good faith, the evidence may still be used even if the warrant is later found to be defective. This is called the good faith exception.
法院之所以要排除非法获得的证据，主要是为了防止警察恶意进行违宪的搜查。如果警察是基于善意进行的搜查、扣押、逮捕，那么即使后面发现搜查令有瑕疵，证据也是可以使用的。这叫善意例外（good faith exception）。
A police officer checked with a clerk and found an arrest warrant for the defendant, then conducted a search and found drugs. However, the warrant had actually been recalled five months earlier. The drugs need not be excluded. [Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009)]
警察查询书记员发现被告人的逮捕令，于是搜查后发现了毒品。但实际上，该逮捕令5个月之前已经被撤回。毒品不必被排除。[Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009)]
In recent years, the application of the exclusionary rule has become increasingly narrow. The Court has recognized that the exclusionary rule imposes substantial social costs, allowing the guilty to go free or releasing dangerous individuals back into society rather than keeping them in prison. Therefore, unless there is a clearly malicious violation of the Constitution, when deciding whether evidence should be excluded, we must consider:
越到近年，证据排除的使用就越来越窄。法院认识到证据排除规则增加了巨大社会成本，它允许罪犯逍遥法外，或者将危险的人放回社会而不是关在监狱中。所以如果不是明显恶意地违反宪法，我们在决定证据是否应当排除时，要考虑：
As long as there is a search warrant, the evidence will eventually be discovered regardless of whether the police knock and announce. Therefore, even if failing to knock is illegal, it is not worth excluding all evidence found during the search on that basis [Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006)].
只要有搜查令，无论是否敲门，证据终将被发现。所以不敲门哪怕违法，也不值得就因此排除搜查发现的所有证据[Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006)]。
After illegally arresting a suspect, the police released him back to his home, but after careful consideration, the suspect went to the police station and confessed. Although the suspect might not have confessed if the police had not acted as they did, the factor of releasing him home was sufficient to break the connection between the illegal arrest and the confession. [Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)]
警察将嫌疑人非法逮捕后，又把他放回了家中，但嫌疑人深思熟虑后还是去警察局认罪了。虽然警察不这么做，嫌疑人可能不会认罪，但放回家这个因素足以打断非法逮捕和认罪之间的联系。[Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)]
The police stopped a suspect without reasonable suspicion. After the suspect showed his identification, the police checked the system and found a pre-existing arrest warrant for him, so they arrested him and found drugs during the search. The drugs need not be excluded for two reasons: the discovery of the arrest warrant broke the causal chain between the unconstitutional stop and the discovery of the evidence, and the law enforcement costs to society of excluding the evidence in this situation would be enormous. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the officer's illegal stop was malicious. [Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232 (2016)]
警方没有合理怀疑就截停了嫌疑人，嫌疑人展示身份之后，警方查询系统发现早就有针对嫌疑人的逮捕令，于是逮捕了嫌疑人并搜出了毒品。毒品不必被排除，原因有二：逮捕令的发现打破了违宪拦截与发现证据之间的因果链，且在这种情况下依然排除证据给社会带来的执法成本是巨大的。此外，没有证据表明警官的非法拦截是基于恶意的。[Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232 (2016)]
The Wong Sun and Utah cases have also been summarized in recent years as another exception to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine: the purged taint exception. This means that although the evidence might have been tainted, the causal connection between the police misconduct and the discovery of the evidence is so weak that the taint is considered dissipated.
Wong Sun和Utah这两个案件近年来也被总结为毒树之果原则的另外一个例外：被洗白的污点（purged taint exception），意思是证据本来可能是有瑕疵的，但警方的不当行为和证据的发现之间的因果关系过于微弱，这个瑕疵是微不足道的。
Furthermore, the exclusionary rule does not apply to civil proceedings, such as IRS tax proceedings [United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (1976)], nor does it apply to arrests or searches that violate state law or agency regulations but do not violate the Constitution. It also does not apply to parole revocation proceedings [Pennsylvania v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998)].
此外，证据排除规则不适用于民事诉讼，比如IRS的税务诉讼[United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (1976)]，不适用于违反州法或部门条例但不违反宪法的逮捕或搜查，不适用于将假释出来的人重新关押（parole revocation）的程序[Pennsylvania v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998)]。
Police arrested a suspect based on a suspended driver's license, but in fact, state law did not permit arresting a driver solely for a suspended license. The police had probable cause that the suspect was driving without a license, making the arrest constitutionally reasonable. If state law does not require the exclusion of evidence obtained based on such an arrest, the Constitution does not interfere. [Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008)]
警察基于驾照被吊销逮捕了嫌疑人，但实际上，州法并不允许仅仅因为驾照被吊销而逮捕驾驶员。警察有嫌疑人无证驾驶的probable cause，从宪法意义上逮捕是合理的。如果州法不要求基于该逮捕获得的证据被排除，宪法并不干涉。[Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008)]
Finally, although illegally obtained evidence cannot be used directly to convict the defendant, it can sometimes be used to impeach the defendant's credibility. As long as it is used for impeachment purposes, the testimony being impeached does not have to directly contradict the illegally obtained evidence used for impeachment [United States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620 (1980)]. Illegally obtained evidence can only be used to impeach the defendant's own credibility, not the credibility of other witnesses [James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307 (1990)].
最后，非法获得的证据虽然不能直接用来给被告人定罪，但有时候可以用来反驳被告人的诚信，只要是用作反驳目的，被驳斥的证词不必和用于反驳的、非法获得的证据直接矛盾[United States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620 (1980)]。非法获得的证据只能用来反驳被告人自己的诚信，而不是其他证人的诚信[James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307 (1990)]。
不适用排除规则Inapplicability of the Exclusionary Rule
An illegal arrest itself is not a defense to a crime. An illegal arrest alone does not immunize a criminal suspect from prosecution [Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (1952)]. Of course, if excluding the evidence obtained through the illegal arrest results in failing to meet the standard for prosecution, or clearly makes it impossible for a jury to reach a guilty verdict, the case will not be prosecuted or will be quickly dismissed by the court. Conversely, if the admission of illegally obtained evidence is harmless, the conviction does not necessarily have to be overturned; however, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence did not contribute to the conviction [Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967)]. In particular, illegal evidence does not affect a grand jury indictment; a witness cannot refuse to answer questions in a grand jury hearing simply because the evidence might have been illegally obtained [United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974)], nor will a grand jury indictment be dismissed on this basis.
非法逮捕本身并不是犯罪的抗辩。不会因为非法逮捕本身就可以让犯罪嫌疑人免于刑事诉讼[Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (1952)]。当然，如果排除通过非法逮捕获得的证据之后达不到起诉标准，或者明显无法让陪审团得出有罪的裁决，案件不会被起诉，或者会很快被法院驳回。反过来，如果将非法获得的证据是无关紧要（harmless），那么定罪也不是必然要被推翻，但是，检方必须排除一切证据可能影响定罪的合理怀疑（beyond all reasonable doubt）[Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967)]。非法证据尤其不影响大陪审团的起诉，证人不能因为证据可能是非法获得的就拒绝在大陪审团听证中回答问题[United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974)]，大陪审团的起诉也不会因此而被撤销。
Harmless error is a commonly used test in criminal procedure, which considers whether a defect would have led to a different judgment or verdict. If it is unlikely—meaning the other evidence is still so overwhelming as to convict the defendant—a retrial is unnecessary. Conversely, a structural error severely affects the basic framework of the trial, resulting in fundamental unfairness. Such errors do not require a harmless error analysis; no matter how strong the prosecution's evidence is, the appellate court must automatically reverse the conviction.
无关紧要（harmless）是刑事诉讼中常用的测试，考虑一个瑕疵是否会导致判决、裁决的不同，如果不大可能，也就是其他的证据依然足以（so overwhelming）给被告人定罪，就不必重审。反过来，结构性错误（structural error）则严重影响审判的基本框架，导致审判根本不公。这类错误无需进行harmless error分析，无论检方证据多么强大，上诉法院必须自动撤销原定罪判决。
Structural errors include, but are not limited to:
结构性错误包括但不限于：
We will gradually learn about these situations later in the text, and you might remember this list better when you see it for the second time. Structural errors can be understood as errors that undermine the foundation of the entire trial process; their impact is profound and unquantifiable, thus requiring the reversal of the original judgment.
我们会在后文陆续学到这些情形，你或许第二次看到这个清单才会更好地记住他们。结构性错误可以理解为破坏了整个审判程序基础的错误，其影响深远且无法量化，因此必须撤销原判。
搜查Search
合理隐私期待Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Next, we will study evidentiary search and seizure. Like arrests, searches and seizures must be reasonable. However, unlike arrests, warrantless searches are presumptively invalid unless they fall under one of the six exceptions to the warrant requirement. But first, two questions need to be clarified: whose search is it, and what constitutes a search.
我们接着学习搜查和对物品的扣押（evidentiary search and seizure），和羁押一样，搜查和扣押也要合理（reasonable）。但和羁押不一样的是，没有搜查令（warrant）的搜查默认是不合法的，除非列入6种不需要搜查令的例外。但首先还有两个问题需要澄清：谁的搜查，以及什么是搜查。
If you have studied Constitutional Law well, you will remember that the Bill of Rights regulates government action, not private action. In criminal procedure, police, customs officers, and prosecutors are naturally government actors, and even courts are considered government actors. However, security guards and good Samaritans are generally not government actors. Of course, if a private individual acts at the direction or request of the government, their actions are treated as government action.
如果你宪法学得足够好，就会记得权利法案调整的是政府行为而不是私人行为，刑诉中常见的警察、海关、检察官当然都是政府行为，甚至包括法院也是政府行为。但保安、见义勇为的人通常就不是政府行为，当然，如果私人是受政府委托行动，等同于政府的行为。
A courier opened a package, saw contraband, and then informed the DEA. DEA agents reopened the package and examined the contraband. The courier's act of opening the package is not regulated by the Constitution. Since the DEA agents already knew the contents of the package, it was virtually transparent to them, so their reopening of it did not constitute a search [United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984)].
快递员打开包裹看到违禁品，然后告诉了缉毒局，缉毒局人员再次打开包裹并对违禁品进行检查。快递员打开包裹的行为不受宪法调整，而缉毒局人员已经知道包裹的内容，包裹对他们来说是透明的，所以也不构成搜查[United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984)]。
The question of "what constitutes a search" introduces one of the most important concepts in criminal procedure. In Katz, the government attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public telephone booth used by the suspect. The defendant sought to suppress the evidence obtained through the wiretap. The defendant argued that the public telephone booth was a constitutionally protected area, while the government strongly denied this.
而“什么是搜查”则引入了刑诉最重要的知识点。在Katz一案中，政府在犯罪嫌疑人使用的公用电话旁边装了监听器，被告人希望能排除通过监听获得的证据。被告人辩称，公用电话展位是宪法保护的区域，而政府则极力否认。
The Court adopted a completely different approach, holding that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. More specifically, it protects a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected and cannot be arbitrarily searched. Speaking softly in a public telephone booth clearly indicates an expectation that the conversation will not be heard by others; thus, the government's installation of a listening device to record it constituted a search. Therefore, evidence obtained through such eavesdropping without a warrant is presumptively invalid. [Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)]
法院采取了完全不同的解释方法，法院认为，宪法第4修正案保护的不是区域，而是人。更具体来说，是人们对隐私的合理期待（reasonable expectation of privacy）。一个人，即使是在自己家中，他主动公开的东西也不受宪法保护。但如果他离开了家，即使进入了公共的区域，他试图将其保护为私有的东西，也受到宪法保护，不能被随意搜查。在公用电话亭小声通话，显然并不希望为他人听到，政府在这里安装窃听器录音，就构成了搜查。那么通过此种窃听获得的证据，在没有搜查令的情况下，就默认是非法的。[Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)]
For the MBE, the "reasonable expectation of privacy" is the primary standard for determining whether a search has occurred. We will next look at numerous cases to see how the Supreme Court views different situations.
对MBE考试而言，“对隐私的合理期待”是讨论是否构成搜查的唯一标准，我们接下来通过大量案例来判断最高法院对不同情形的看法。
Individuals clearly have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information generally exposed to the public, including voice exemplars [United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973)], handwriting exemplars [United States v. Mara, 410 U.S. 19 (1973)], paint on the outside of a vehicle [Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583 (1974); Illinois v. Caballes, supra], and bank records [United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976)]. However, people do not expect their luggage to be subjected to a tactile, squeezing inspection, even if the luggage is not opened [Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000)]. Cell-site location information (CSLI), although somewhat similar to the aforementioned bank records, is not an appropriate analogy; if police were allowed to access CSLI without a warrant, a person's past movements would be completely revealed, which violates a reasonable expectation of privacy [Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___ (2018)]. The expectation of privacy in one's movements was established in an earlier case, which held that police installing a GPS device on a suspect's vehicle constitutes a Fourth Amendment search [United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)].
个人对通常会被暴露给公众的信息显然没有合理隐私期待，包括声纹[United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973)]，笔迹[United States v. Mara, 410 U.S. 19 (1973)]，车外的涂鸦[Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583 (1974); Illinois v. Caballes, supra]，银行流水[United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976)]。但是，人们没有期待到自己的行李会被挤压式检查，即使并不打开行李[Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000)]。手机基站的信息，虽然有点像前面的银行流水，但并不适合类比，如果允许警察没有搜查令就访问手机基站信息，一个人过去的行踪将一览无余，这不符合人们合理的隐私期待[Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___ (2018)]。人们对自己的行踪有隐私期待在更早的案例中确立，该案例认为警察在嫌疑人车上安装GPS设备构成第4修正案的搜查[United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)]。
Searches of homes are frequently tested on the MBE, as people have a very high expectation of privacy in their homes. Admittedly, police can approach a home without a warrant to knock and talk, just like a neighbor or a courier (as an implied licensee), and conduct simple questioning, but such investigations cannot exceed the scope of that implied license. For example, bringing a drug-sniffing dog to the suspect's front porch to conduct a sniff is not permitted [Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013)]. Police use of a thermal imaging device to detect activities inside a suspect's home also constitutes a search, even if the device is set up entirely outside the home [Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)]. However, what can be seen with the naked eye from a helicopter or drone flying over a residence is not protected by the Fourth Amendment [Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)]. By contrast, tools like drug-sniffing dogs and thermal imaging devices are not in general public use, so people do not have a reasonable expectation that their privacy will be compromised by such means.
对住宅的搜查是MBE的常考点，人们对自己的家里面隐私期待非常高。诚然，警察可以不获得搜查令在就像邻居、快递员一样敲门拜访（licensee）并进行简单的问话，但这种调查不能超过必要的限度，比如带上缉毒犬在嫌疑人前门进行嗅探是不允许的[Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013)]。警察用热成像仪窥探嫌疑人在家中的行为也构成搜查，即使热成像仪完全在屋外架设[Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)]。但是，用直升机、无人机飞过住宅上方，然后肉眼可以看到的内容不受宪法第4修正案保护[Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)]。作为对比，缉毒犬、热成像仪这些手段不是熟为人知且大众能接触到的，人们没有对自己的隐私会被用这种手段暴露的合理期待。
The expectation of privacy gradually decreases for the curtilage of a home and open fields, especially in the United States where open land can be quite vast [Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984)]. Courts consider factors such as 1. the distance from the home; 2. whether it is within an enclosure surrounding the home; 3. the use of the open space; and 4. whether there are measures to shield it from observation, to measure the homeowner's expectation of privacy [United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987)]. Therefore, if a suspect uses a barn on a farm to manufacture drugs, and police cross a perimeter fence, several barbed wire fences, and a wooden fence in front of the barn, and then shine a flashlight inside to see the drug manufacturing equipment, it still does not constitute a search [United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987)]. Similarly, rummaging through trash left out for collection does not constitute a search [California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988)].
人们对家的小院（curtilage）和农场的隐私期待逐渐降低，尤其是在美国这种空地可能相当大[Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984)]。法院要考虑1、离屋子的距离；2、是否在屋子的栅栏里面；3、该空地的用途；和4、是否有遮挡措施等衡量屋主对隐私的期待[United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987)]。所以，如果犯罪嫌疑人用农场上的谷仓制毒，警察越过了篱笆、几个带刺铁丝网和谷仓前的木栅栏，用手电筒照进去看到制毒设备的存在，依然不构成搜查[United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987)]。类似的，翻找等待物业上门回收的垃圾桶不构成搜查[California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988)]。
If the police violate the reasonable expectation of privacy of a third party rather than that of the suspect, the suspect does not automatically have standing to suppress the evidence.
如果警察侵犯的不是嫌疑人对隐私的合理期待，而是第三人，嫌疑人并不当然就是排除证据的适格主体（have standing）。
Going to someone else's apartment solely to deal drugs carries a lesser expectation of privacy. More generally, the expectation of privacy in commercial activities is inherently lower than in social activities. Therefore, if police observe a drug transaction through an apartment window, a drug dealer who is only there for a few hours to conduct the transaction cannot suppress the police officer's testimony. While the police may have violated the apartment owner's reasonable expectation of privacy, the suspect lacks standing to challenge that violation. [Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1999)]
只为了交易毒品跑到其他人的公寓，对隐私的期待就较小。更一般地，商业活动的隐私期待天生就不如社交活动。所以，如果警察透过公寓的窗户看到了毒品交易，仅仅停留几个小时进行交易毒贩就不能排除警察的证词，诚然，警察可能侵犯了公寓主人对隐私的合理期待，但嫌疑人并不是提出该侵权的适格主体。[Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1999)]
If a co-conspirator's reasonable expectation of privacy is violated, the suspect himself does not have standing to suppress the evidence if his own reasonable expectation of privacy was not violated. [United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77 (1993)]
如果共犯的合理隐私期待被侵犯，嫌疑人自己并不是排除证据的适格主体（standing），如果他自己的合理隐私期待没有被侵犯的话。[United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77 (1993)]
搜查令Search Warrants
理由Probable Cause
If an action constitutes a search—that is, it violates a person's reasonable expectation of privacy—a warrant is generally required. In this outline, "warrant" is translated as search warrant or seizure warrant depending on the context, while an arrest warrant is translated as such.
如果构成搜查，也就是侵犯了人们对隐私的合理期待，通常就需要搜查令、扣押令（warrant）。本讲义视情况将warrant翻译成搜查令（search warrant）或扣押令（seizure warrant），只为了逮捕的arrest warrant翻译成逮捕令。
A search or seizure warrant must:
搜查令、扣押令必须：
The definition of probable cause for a search warrant is the same as that for an arrest. The difference is that the existence of probable cause is not determined by the police themselves; rather, the facts establishing probable cause must be set forth in an affidavit and submitted by the police to a magistrate, who makes the determination.
申请搜查令的probable cause和前面逮捕的probable cause的定义是一样的，区别在于，是否具有probable cause不由警察自己决定，而是需要将形成probable cause的事实列举在宣誓中，由警察提交给治安官，让治安官来决定。
Therefore, a mere declaration by a police officer in an affidavit that "probable cause exists" does not satisfy the requirement for a warrant. The officer must present sufficient specific facts to allow the magistrate to determine whether probable cause exists. [United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965)]
所以，警察仅仅在宣誓中声明“probable cause是存在的”不满足申请搜查令的要求。他必须呈现足够多的具体事实，让治安官决定probable cause是否存在。[United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965)]
Police may apply for an anticipatory search warrant for a crime expected to occur in the future.
警察可以为预计未来会发生犯罪事先申请搜查令。
Based on the progress of a suspect's order, police anticipated that child pornography would soon be delivered to the suspect's residence, and that a search of the residence thereafter would reveal evidence of a crime. Such an anticipatory warrant is valid. [United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006)]
警察根据嫌疑人的订单进度，预计很快儿童色情影片就会送达到嫌疑人的住所，并且在此之后，搜查该住所就可以发现犯罪线索。该搜查令是成立的。[United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006)]
As with arrests, probable cause may be based on information obtained from informants. The police may present the information obtained to the magistrate via an affidavit without disclosing the informant's identity or characteristics. [Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983)]
和逮捕一样，probable cause可以来自警方有从线人获得线索。警方可以将获得的线索通过宣誓的方式提供给治安官，而不必暴露线人的特征和姓名。[Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983)]
精确Particularity
The warrant itself must be sufficiently particular; it is not enough that the supporting affidavit is particular.
搜查令本身必须足够地精确，仅仅支持搜查令的宣誓精确是不够的。
If a building contains multiple apartments, the warrant must specify the exact apartment number. In a fraud case, a warrant specified certain documents to be seized and also authorized the seizure of any other evidence relating to the crime found during the search. The warrant was held valid because, given the complexity of the fraud, it was difficult to specify all the materials to be seized with complete accuracy at the outset. [Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (1976)]
如果一栋楼里有很多间公寓，必须精确到具体的房门号。对诈骗案来说，搜查令指定了一些希望被扣押的文件，同时还注明了在搜查过程发现的任何可能和犯罪有关的证据也一并扣押。搜查令是有效的，基于诈骗案的复杂性，很难一开始就完全准确地指明将要扣押的材料。[Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (1976)]
签发Issuance
The person issuing the warrant must be neutral and detached. This is usually done by a magistrate, though a clerk of court is also permissible [Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 407 U.S. 345 (1972)], but a prosecutor generally is not [Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971)]. A magistrate's compensation cannot be tied to the number of warrants they issue [Connally v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 245 (1977)].
签发搜查令的人必须是中立的、利益不相关的（neutral and detached），这通常由治安官（magistrate）来完成，法院的书记员（clerk of court）也是可以的[Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 407 U.S. 345 (1972)]，但检察官通常不行[Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971)]。治安官的薪水不能和他签发搜查令的数量挂钩[Connally v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 245 (1977)]。
A warrant should not be issued if its execution would "shock the conscience."
不应该签发让人大受震撼（shock the conscience）的搜查令。
Issuing a warrant for a blood draw is permissible [Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)], but ordering surgery to remove a bullet is not [Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985)]. In contrast, breathalyzer tests and DNA tests may not even require a warrant in certain circumstances.
签发搜查令抽血是可以的[Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)]，但做手术取出子弹不行[Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985)]。作为对比，酒精呼气测试、DNA测试在一些情况下甚至都不需要搜查令。
As previously discussed regarding the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, a defective warrant does not necessarily result in the exclusion of evidence obtained during the search, unless:
我们之前介绍过证据排除规则的善意例外，搜查令的瑕疵并不会必然导致搜查获得的证据被排除，除非：
A search warrant need not be directed at a criminal suspect; a warrant may be issued to search the premises of a third party if there is probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will be found there. [Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978)]
搜查令不必针对犯罪嫌疑人，如果认为有probable cause可以在第三人的处所发现犯罪证据，也可以对第三人签发搜查令。[Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978)]
执行Execution
The execution of a search warrant must be carried out solely by law enforcement officers (police). The person who issued the warrant cannot participate [Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319 (1979)], journalists cannot be brought along, and private individuals cannot be assigned to execute it. However, third parties may be present to identify stolen property or otherwise assist in the search. [Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (1999)]
执行搜查令只能由执法机关（警察）完成，不能由签发搜查令的人参与[Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319 (1979)]，不能安排记者在场，不能指派私人完成。但可以有来指认赃物或者其他协助搜查的人员在场[Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (1999)]。
Officers generally must knock and announce their presence before searching. However, if they reasonably believe that knocking would be dangerous or that evidence would be destroyed, they may execute a "no-knock" entry, or break in immediately after knocking without waiting for the door to be opened. Most importantly, even if a no-knock entry is unjustified, the evidence obtained will not be excluded. At most, a civil suit may be brought against the police [Hudson v. Michigan, supra].
搜查之前通常需要敲门，但如果觉得敲门危险，或者证据会被破坏，也可以不敲门，或者敲门之后不等开门立刻闯入。最重要的是，就算不敲门是错误的，证据也并不会因此排除。顶多可以对警方提起民事诉讼[Hudson v. Michigan, supra]。
The search must be strictly limited to the items specified in the warrant, but any contraband or evidence of a crime observed in plain view during the search may be seized.
搜查必须严格针对搜查令上的物品，但搜查过程中看到的的任何违法物品都可以被扣押。
If a warrant specifies searching for a fugitive, opening a closet may be reasonable because a person could hide there. If drugs are found upon opening the closet, they may be seized. However, opening a small drawer would be unreasonable because a person cannot hide in a drawer; if drugs are found in the drawer, they will be excluded.
如果搜查令上注明是找一个逃犯，打开柜子或许是合理的，因为人可能藏到柜子里。如果打开柜子发现毒品，毒品可以被扣押。但打开抽屉就不合理了，因为人不可能藏到抽屉里，抽屉里发现了毒品，也会被排除。
While police are obtaining a search warrant, they may prevent a suspect from entering the premises [Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001)]. During the execution of a search warrant, police may temporarily detain anyone present on the premises [Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981)], but they may not detain individuals outside the premises, even if they have just left [Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186 (2013)]. Unless the police arrest a person on the premises based on probable cause, or the warrant specifically names the person to be searched, they may not search individuals found on the premises [Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979)]. However, if there is reasonable suspicion that they are armed and dangerous, a Terry frisk may be conducted.
在警方获得搜查令期间，可以禁止犯罪嫌疑人进入[Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001)]，在搜查期间，可以短暂羁押处所内的任何人[Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981)]，但不可以羁押处所外面的人，即使他刚离去[Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186 (2013)]。除非警察基于probable cause逮捕了处所内的人，或者搜查令上明确注明了被搜身的人的名字，否则也不可以搜身 [Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979)]，如果有合理怀疑（reasonable suspicion）他们持有武器，可以进行Terry拍身。
无需搜查令Warrantless Searches
肉眼可见Plain View
There are six exceptions to the warrant requirement. The plain view doctrine is the most obvious exception to warrantless searches. The police must:
不需要搜查令可以直接搜查的有6个例外。警方肉眼可见（plain view）的内容是无证搜查最显然的例外。警察必须
After stopping a vehicle based on reasonable suspicion, an officer sees an opaque balloon. Although it may not seem unusual to an ordinary person, the officer, based on experience, believes there is probable cause that such balloons contain drugs, and thus seizes it. The seizure is lawful. [Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983)]
警察基于reasonable suspicion截停车辆后看到一个不透明的气球，虽然对一般人来说并没有什么异常，但警察基于经验认为这样的气球中有相当的可能（probable cause）藏有毒品，于是扣押了气球。扣押是合法的。[Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983)]
If the item is not in plain view, even the slightest movement of the item will defeat this exception.
如果不是肉眼可见，哪怕只需要一点点动作，也不符合这个例外。
Moving a piece of white paper on a desk to discover a forged check underneath, or moving stereo equipment to check the serial numbers on the back [Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987)] do not fall under the plain view exception. If the police have probable cause to believe there is a forged check under the paper, they should apply for a warrant in advance. However, if the police already have probable cause to suspect the stereo is stolen, they can seize it directly.
挪开桌上的白纸发现下面的假支票，挪开音响检查后面的序列号[Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987)]都不符合肉眼可见的例外。如果警方基于probable cause认为白纸下面有假支票，应该预先申请搜查令。但如果警察有probable cause怀疑音箱是盗窃品，可以直接收缴。
In contrast, police are permitted to move a piece of paper obscuring a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) without probable cause [New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (1986)] (provided the vehicle was lawfully stopped), because the VIN is legally required to be in plain view of the police. If moving the paper reveals drugs hidden underneath, they are naturally obtained lawfully.
作为对比，警察允许在没有probable cause的情况下就挪开挡在车辆序列号（VIN）上的白纸[New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (1986)]（如果该车是被合法截停的），因为该序列号本来就应该是被警察肉眼可见的。如果挪开白纸后下面藏着毒品，自然也是合法获得的。
逮捕后搜查Search Incident to Arrest
Search incident to a lawful arrest. As introduced earlier, if the police have probable cause to believe a suspect committed a felony, or witness a suspect committing a misdemeanor, they can make an arrest. In addition, state law may authorize arrests for even minor offenses; even if state law does not authorize an arrest, if the police arrest a suspect for a minor misdemeanor, the Constitution does not necessarily prohibit it.
合法逮捕后的搜查（search incident to a lawful arrest）。我们之前介绍过，如果警察有probable cause相信嫌疑人犯了重罪，或者亲眼见到嫌疑人犯了轻罪，都可以逮捕。此外，州法也可以规定更轻微的情况也可以逮捕，甚至州法没有规定可以逮捕的情况，警方即使逮捕了轻罪的嫌疑人，宪法也并不干涉。
State law allows for either a citation or an arrest for speeding. If the traffic officer chooses to arrest, a search may be conducted; but if the officer merely issues a traffic citation, a search is not permitted. [Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1999)]
州法允许在嫌疑人超速的情况下罚款或者逮捕。如果交警选择逮捕，可以搜查，但如果交警只是罚款（traffic citation），则不可以搜查。[Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1999)]
The scope of the search is limited to the suspect's person and the area within their immediate control (wingspan) where they might reach to obtain a weapon or destroy evidence [Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)]. If the police suspect accomplices are present, they may also conduct a protective sweep beyond the wingspan [Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990)]. For automobiles, the search can be more thorough; any area within the vehicle where the police have probable cause to believe evidence related to the crime might be found can also be searched.
搜查的范围限于犯罪嫌疑人身上，和他可以够着获得武器的范围（wingspan）[Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)]，如果警察怀疑有同伙，也可以在wingspan之外进行保护性扫荡（protective sweep）[Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990)]。对汽车而言，可以搜的更仔细一些，车内任何警察有probable cause相信的可能和犯罪有关的地方也可以搜查。
As previously introduced, an arrest warrant alone authorizes police to enter the suspect's home to make an arrest. However, if the house appears empty and neighbors tell the police the defendant went on a business trip a week ago, the police, possessing only an arrest warrant and no search warrant, may only enter to search for the suspect when there is reason to believe the suspect is inside [Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 603 (1980)].
前面还介绍过，只要有嫌疑人的逮捕令，可以去嫌疑人家中逮捕。但如果家里看起来没有人，邻居也告诉警察说被告人一周前就出差了。如果只有逮捕令、没有搜查令，警方依然只能在有理由认为嫌疑人在家中的时候才可以进屋搜查（when there is reason to believe the suspect is inside）[Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 603 (1980)]。
After arresting Zhang San, police find Drug 1 on his person. Zhang San asks to go back into his house to use the bathroom, so the police search the path to the bathroom and any places where weapons could be hidden along the way, discovering Drug 2. The police then conduct a sweep of every room to rule out the presence of accomplices, finding Drug 3 in plain view. Subsequently, the police open a drawer that is neither on the way to the bathroom nor capable of hiding an accomplice, and find Drug 4. Drugs 1 and 2 will not be excluded; the admission of Drug 3 requires the police to have reasonable suspicion that a dangerous person is hiding in the house; Drug 4 will be excluded.
警察逮捕张三后，在张三身上搜到毒品1。张三提出要回家上厕所，警察于是搜查了他和厕所途中任何可能藏有武器的地方并发现毒品2。警察又对每间屋子进行扫荡（sweep）排除同伙的存在，在肉眼可见的地方发现毒品3。警察随后又打开并不在去厕所途中、也不能藏同伙的抽屉发现毒品4。毒品1-2不会被排除，毒品3的采纳要求警方基于合理怀疑（reasonable suspicion）认为房屋内藏有危险人物，毒品4会被排除。
After stopping a car, an officer sees marijuana. He arrests all passengers for marijuana possession and then searches the passenger compartment for more marijuana, which is permissible [New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981)]. However, if the officer arrests the driver for speeding and the driver is handcuffed, there are neither weapons within the arrestee's reach in the car nor any possible evidence related to the crime of arrest, making a search of the vehicle unlawful [Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009)].
警察拦下车后看到了大麻，他因持有大麻逮捕了所有乘客，然后检查车内是否有大麻，这是允许的[New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981)]。但是，如果警察因超速逮捕了犯人，犯人也带上了手铐，车内既不可能有犯人够得着的武器，也不可能有和犯罪有关的证据，搜查就是不合法的[Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009)]。
A search incident to arrest must be contemporaneous in time and place with the arrest, but it does not require absolute simultaneity, nor does it require the suspect to be inside the vehicle at the time of arrest. For example, in the previous scenario, if drugs are discovered shortly after the suspect exits the vehicle, the police can secure the suspect and, under the automobile exception, take their time to search the vehicle for other contraband. [Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004)]
逮捕后附带的搜查要求和逮捕的时间、地点是一致的，但并不要求绝对同时，也不要求逮捕时嫌疑人在车上。比如在上例中，如果在嫌疑人下车后不久就被发现毒品，警方可以将嫌疑人控制起来，并根据汽车例外慢慢搜车上是否有其他违禁品。[Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004)]
Following the rationale that searches are meant to protect police from weapons, officers may examine the physical exterior of a cell phone to ensure it does not conceal a sharp weapon or a miniature bomb. However, they may not search its digital contents without a warrant. [Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)]
沿用搜查是为了保护警察不受武器伤害的标准，警察可以检查手机外观，看有没有锋利的凶器，或者微型炸弹。但不可以在没有搜查令的情况下检查其中的内容。[Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)]
Arresting a suspect in a third party's home requires both a search warrant for the third party's home and an arrest warrant for the suspect. However, the mere lack of a search warrant for the third party's home does not allow the suspect to move to suppress evidence obtained from that unlawful search, because the suspect lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy in the third party's home. But evidence found during the arrest that is used to charge the homeowner can be suppressed upon the homeowner's motion [Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981)].
在第三人家中逮捕了犯罪嫌疑人，分别需要第三人家中的搜查令和犯罪嫌疑人的逮捕令。不过，仅仅没有第三人家中的搜查令，犯罪嫌疑人不能申请排除该非法搜查获得的证据，因为他在第三人家中没有合理的隐私期待。但逮捕途中用来指控屋主犯罪的证据，可以被屋主申请排除[Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981)]。
For certain investigative methods utilizing technology, courts will consider the degree of physical intrusion on the human body.
对于一些利用科技的检查手段，法院会考察对人体的侵害程度。
A breathalyzer test generally does not require a warrant, but a blood draw does. Even if state law implies that all drivers consent to blood draws, refusing a blood draw can at most be punished by a fine, not imprisonment [Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016)].
呼气测酒精通常不需要搜查令，但抽血要。即使州法默认所有开车的人都默认同意抽血，不抽血也顶多处罚金，不能处监禁[Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016)]。
Conducting a DNA swab test on an individual lawfully arrested and charged with a serious offense is permissible, as merely obtaining a saliva sample involves a minimal intrusion on the human body. [Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301 (2012)]
针对被合法逮捕、指控严重犯罪的人进行DNA测试是允许的，因为仅仅获取唾液对人体的侵害较小。[Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301 (2012)]
搜车Vehicle Searches
Persons or property awaiting incarceration or impoundment may be subjected to a comprehensive search. The former is to prevent contraband from entering the detention facility, while the latter is to create an inventory to avoid disputes over lost property and to protect police from potential danger [Illinois v. Lafayette, 459 U.S. 986 (1983), Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987)].
等待羁押或扣押（incarceration or impoundment）的人或物可以进行全方位的搜查，前者是为了避免携带违禁品进入羁押处所，后者是为了制作物品清单避免扯皮，也避免对警察造成危险[Illinois v. Lafayette, 459 U.S. 986 (1983), Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987)]。
There is nothing improper about such a routine inventory search even if it is completed some time after the impoundment [United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478 (1985)].
这种例行的搜车（inventory search）即使是在扣押后一段时间完成的，也并没有什么不妥[United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478 (1985)]。
Searching an impounded vehicle to locate an unsecured firearm is not only an exception for vehicle searches but also an exercise of the police's community caretaking function [Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973)]. However, this function does not extend to the firearm owner's home; if the police wish to seize an unsafe firearm from the owner's home, they must obtain a warrant [Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. ___ (2021)].
在扣押的车内找一把没有上保险的枪支不仅是搜车的例外，也是警察在行使他的社区救助职责[Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973)]。但该职责不及于枪支主人的家中，如果警察希望扣押枪支主人家中不安全的枪支，必须获得扣押令[Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. ___ (2021)]。
Vehicles on the road can be searched without a warrant, provided there is probable cause. The Supreme Court reasoned that 1) due to the mobility of vehicles, requiring a warrant for every vehicle search is impractical, and 2) people have a lesser expectation of privacy in a vehicle than in a home [Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925)]. For the same reasons, a vehicle parked within the curtilage of a home requires a warrant to be searched [Collins v. Virginia, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)], but one parked on a public street outside the house may not. A motor home traveling on the road can also be searched without a warrant [California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985)].
在路上的车可以不需要搜查令，只有probable cause就可以搜查。最高法院认为1、因为车的流动性，每次搜车都需要搜查令是不切实际的，2、人们在车内比在家中有更少的隐私期待[Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 1 32 (1925)]。基于同样的理由，停靠在家附近（curtilage）的车就必须要先获得搜查令才能搜查[Collins v. Virginia, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)]，但停在房子外面的公共街道上就未必了。房车如果开在路上，也可以不需要搜查令就搜查[California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985)]。
An alert by a sufficiently trained narcotics-detection dog constitutes probable cause. [Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013)]
受过足够缉毒训练的警犬报警是probable cause. [Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013)]
As with a search warrant, the scope of the search is determined by the object of the search and the places where there is probable cause to believe it may be found.
和有搜查令一样，搜查的范围基于probable cause产生的原因。
If an officer has probable cause to suspect there are drugs in a vehicle, he can search almost anywhere in the vehicle, including a passenger's purse [Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999)]. However, if the officer suspects the vehicle is hiding illegal immigrants, he can only search places where a person could hide; if drugs are found in the passenger-side glove compartment, they must be excluded [United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982)].
如果警察基于probable cause怀疑车内有毒品，他几乎可以搜查车内的任何地方，甚至包括乘客的钱包[Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999)]；但是，如果警察怀疑车内藏有非法移民，他就只能搜查能藏下人的地方，如果在副驾的储物箱(compartment)找到毒品，就要被排除[United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982)]。
If an officer's probable cause is limited to a specific container having drugs, a warrant is generally required to open the container. Even if the officer arrests the suspect, a locked container poses no threat to the officer; thus, based on the suspect's higher expectation of privacy in a locked container, a warrant is usually required [United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977)]. However, if the suspect moves the container into a vehicle and drives onto the road, the officer may open the container directly without a warrant, but the officer may not expand the scope of the search to the entire vehicle unless there is new probable cause to believe there are drugs elsewhere in the vehicle [California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991)].
如果警察的probable cause基于箱子里有毒品，通常要有搜查令才能打开箱子。即使警察将嫌疑人逮捕，上锁的箱子也不会对警察造成威胁，那么基于嫌疑人对上锁的箱子有较高的隐私期待，通常也需要获得搜查令[United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977)]。但如果箱子被嫌疑人转移车里并开到路上，警察可以直接打开箱子，不过警察不可以将搜查的范围扩展到整台车，除非有新的probable cause认为车内也有毒品[California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991)]。
同意Consent
With the consent of a person who has apparent authority, police may search within the scope of that consent.
经过表见有权（apparent authority）的人同意（consent）后，警察可以在同意的范围内搜查。
After issuing a ticket, an officer asked if he could search the vehicle. The driver consented, and drugs were found. As we learned earlier, unless the officer has probable cause to believe there are drugs in the vehicle, obtains a warrant (which also requires probable cause), or arrests the driver (where the scope of a search incident to arrest is limited), the vehicle generally cannot be searched. The driver argued that the officer did not inform him of his right to refuse the search and leave. The Supreme Court held that the officer was not required to do so, and the consent was valid. [Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996)]
警察给人开了罚单后，询问是否可以搜车。司机表示同意后被找出了毒品。我们前面学过，除非警察有probable cause相信车内有毒品，或者获得搜查令（同样需要probable cause），或者逮捕司机（逮捕后搜查的范围也有限），否则通常不能搜车。司机争辩称，警察没有告诉他有权利不同意搜查并自行离去，最高法院认为警察没有必要这么做，同意是有效的。[Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996)]
The scope of consent is also governed by a standard of objective reasonableness. If a suspect knows the police are looking for drugs and does not explicitly forbid the police from searching closed containers, he cannot complain when the police find drugs inside them. [Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991)]
同意的范围也适用合理标准，如果嫌疑人知道警察找的是毒品，也没有明确禁止警察搜查密封的包裹，就不能抱怨警察在其内找到了毒品。[Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991)]
Apparent authority means that the consent does not have to come from the criminal suspect themselves, nor even from a person who actually has the authority to consent, as long as the police reasonably believe that the consenting person has the authority to do so.
表见有权的意思是不用是犯罪嫌疑人自己同意，甚至不用是实际有权同意的人同意，只要警察合理相信同意人有权同意即可。
A 14-year-old child can consent to a search of the living room and her own bedroom. Parents can consent to a search of their 23-year-old child's room, but they cannot consent to a search of a locked drawer (because the parents themselves are not supposed to open the drawer).
14岁小孩可以同意搜查客厅和她自己的卧房，父母可以同意搜查23岁子女的房间，但不能搜索锁上的抽屉（因为父母自己都不应该打开抽屉）。
If multiple people share property, as long as any one co-occupant who is present objects to the search, the police still need a warrant to conduct a lawful search [Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006)]. However, if the police arrest and remove the objecting co-occupant for reasons other than the refusal to consent itself, a lawful search may still be conducted if the remaining co-occupant consents [Fernandez v. California, 571 U.S. 292 (2014)].
如果多人共有财产，只要任何一个人反对搜查，警方就依然需要搜查令才可以合法搜查[Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U. S. 103 (2006)]。但警察可以用除了拒绝同意本身的其他原因逮捕并带走不同意的人，只要剩下的人同意依然可以合法搜查[Fernandez v. California, 571 U.S. 292 (2014)]。
Based on the Administrative Search / Special Needs doctrine, airports have the default authority to conduct comprehensive searches of boarding passengers, and passengers wishing to fly are deemed to have implicitly consented to such searches.
基于行政搜查/特殊需要（Administrative Search / Special Needs）理论，机场默认有权对乘机的旅客进行全方位搜查，想要乘坐飞机的旅客也默认同意此种搜查。
If state law requires parolees to agree to be subject to warrantless searches at any time, such consent is valid [Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006)].
如果州法要求被假释的人（parolees）同意被随时无证搜查，该同意是有效的[Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006)]。
However, not all similar laws are constitutional. For example, as mentioned earlier, a law requiring all drivers to consent to a blood draw is invalid; at the very least, blood cannot be drawn forcibly, nor can imprisonment be imposed—at most, a fine may be levied. As we will introduce later, requiring all hotels to consent to warrantless searches at any time is also invalid.
但并非所有类似的法律都符合宪法，比如前面要求所有驾驶员都同意抽血就无效，至少不能强制抽血，也不能判监禁，顶多判罚金。后文我们还会介绍，要求所有旅店都同意随时被无证搜查也是无效的。
截停或拦车后搜查Searches Following a Stop or Traffic Stop
We previously introduced Terry stops, frisks, and traffic stops. A frisk is a cursory search; if an officer feels a weapon or contraband with their bare hands during a frisk (plain feel), it may be seized.
我们之前介绍了Terry截停、拍身和拦车。拍身就是一种粗略的搜查，在拍身过程中如果徒手摸到（plain feel）武器或者违禁品，就可以扣押。
An officer stops and frisks a person based on reasonable suspicion, and then feels a gun. Note that at this point, the officer does not yet have probable cause, or even if he does, he has not arrested the person, so the search incident to arrest exception does not apply. The plain view exception also does not apply here because the gun is still on the suspect and has not been taken out. However, it can be seized under the Terry plain feel exception.
警察依据reasonable suspicion截停一个人并拍身，然后摸到了一把枪。注意这时警察还没有probable cause，或者，即使有，警察并没有逮捕这个人，不符合逮捕后搜查的例外。这里也不符合肉眼可见的例外，因为枪在嫌疑人身上还没有拿出来。但可以依据Terry徒手摸到的例外收缴。
Feeling for drugs with bare hands is much more difficult. For powdered drugs, it is hard to tell the difference from flour or sugar. But for small, specifically shaped granular drugs, an officer would have to feel them by squeezing, sliding, or manipulating, and these methods are not permitted by the Constitution prior to obtaining a warrant. [Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)]
徒手摸毒品则难得多。对于粉末状的毒品，很难说和面粉、白糖有什么区别。但对于有特定形状的小颗粒毒品，又不得不通过挤压、滑动等方式（squeeze, slide, manipulate）感受，而这些手法在获得搜查令之前，是宪法不允许的。[Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)]
During a traffic stop, while ordering the driver and passengers out of the vehicle, an officer may also search the areas within the suspect's reach, including the glove compartment, to ensure officer safety. This does not require probable cause, nor does it require arresting the vehicle's occupants first. By the same logic, however, if the suspect has already been secured and can no longer reach a weapon, such a search should not be conducted without probable cause. [Arizona v. Gant, supra]
在拦车、让司机和乘客下车的过程中也可以基于保障警察的安全对犯罪嫌疑人可以够着的地方进行搜索，包括副驾驶前面的储物箱。这不需要probable cause，也不需要先逮捕车上的乘客。但同理，如果犯罪嫌疑人已经被控制，不可能再够得着武器，就不应当在没有probable cause的情况下进行这样的搜查。[Arizona v. Gant, supra]
追凶或紧急情况Hot Pursuit or Exigent Circumstances
Hot pursuit, a reasonable belief that evidence is being destroyed, or other exigent circumstances allow police to conduct a search without a warrant. The standard for determination is also an objective standard of reasonableness for the police.
正在追凶（hot pursuit），有理由相信证据正在被销毁，或者其他紧急情况（exigent circumstances），允许警察不经搜查令进行搜查。判断的标准同样是警察客观的合理标准。
If an officer believes someone is injured, evidence seen while rushing into a home to assist the injured person will not be excluded [Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45 (2010)]. However, if the person is already dead, the "urgency to investigate a murder" does not in itself constitute an exigent circumstance [Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978)].
警察相信有人受伤，他冲进人们家中为了协助伤者过程中看到的证据不会被排除[Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45 (2010)]。但如果人已经死了，“急于调查凶案”本身并不属于紧急情况[Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385]。
If an officer obtains probable cause on the street, decides to arrest a suspect, and pursues the suspect into their home, the officer's entry into the home is lawful, and any evidence in plain view can be seized without a warrant. [United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976)]
警察在大街上获得了probable cause决定逮捕嫌疑人，并追捕至嫌疑人家中，警察进入嫌疑人家中是合法的，那么肉眼可见的所有证据也都是无需搜查令的。[United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976)]
After knocking on a door, police heard noises consistent with the destruction of evidence, so they broke in and found drugs. The drugs need not be excluded, as the police reasonably believed there were exigent circumstances [Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011)]. It should be noted that the police knocking and announcing their presence does not in itself violate the Fourth Amendment; otherwise, this exception would not apply.
警察敲门后听到声音，认为和毁灭证据的声音相符，于是破门而入发现了毒品。毒品不必被排除，警方合理认为有紧急情况[Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011)]。需要注意的是，警方这里敲门并宣布他们的存在本身并不违反宪法第4修正案，否则不适用该例外。
After the suspect refused to consent to the taking of a fingernail scraping, he put his hands in his pockets, and the police heard a metallic rattling sound. The police then forcibly took the fingernail scraping to preserve this highly evanescent evidence. The suspect was not arrested at the time; otherwise, the sampling would have been justified as a search incident to arrest. However, based on probable cause, the police may conduct such a minimally intrusive search in similar exigent circumstances. [Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 (1973)]
当嫌疑人拒绝同意采集指甲样本后，他把手插进口袋，警察听到金属声嘎嘎作响。警察于是强行采集了指甲样本，以保存这种非常容易流逝的证据。此时嫌疑人没有被逮捕，否则采样就适用于逮捕后的搜查。但基于probable cause，警察可以在类似紧急情况下采取这种侵害程度较小的搜查。[Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 (1973)]
特殊搜查Special Searches
行政搜查Administrative Searches
Like criminal searches, administrative searches generally require a warrant. However, if an administrative agency wishes to conduct routine administrative searches, probable cause is not required; it only needs to show the existence of a neutral enforcement plan rather than selective enforcement. Nevertheless, highly regulated industries may be searched without a warrant.
行政搜查（administrative search）和刑事搜查一样，通常也需要搜查令。但如果行政机关希望进行例行的行政搜查，不需要probable cause，只需要证明存在中立的执法计划（neutral enforcement plan），而不是选择性执法（selective enforcement）。但是，被严格监管的行业（highly regulated industries）可以任意搜查。
Inspecting all business premises within a certain area for safety hazards requires a warrant, but this warrant does not require probable cause; it can be issued as long as there is proof of a neutral enforcement plan. [Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978)].
对某个区域内所有营业场所检查是否符合安全隐患需要搜查令，但该搜查令不需要probable cause，只要证明有中立的执法计划就可以签发[Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978)]。
Highly regulated industries include liquor sales [Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States, 397 U.S. 72 (1970)], firearms sales [United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311 (1972)], mining [Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594 (1981)], and automobile junkyards [New York v. Burger, 479 U.S. 812 (1987)]; but they do not include car rentals [G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338 (1977)], general manufacturing [Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., supra], and hotels. If the government legislates to require hotel operators to pre-consent to warrantless searches, such a law is invalid on its face. [Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (2015)].
严格监管的行业包括售酒[Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States, 397 U.S. 72 (1970)]、售枪[United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311 (1972)]、采矿[Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594 (1981)]、汽车坟场[New York v. Burger, 479 U.S. 812 (1987)]；但不包括租车[G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338 (1977)]一般制造业[Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., supra]和旅馆。政府如果立法要求开设旅馆的人预先同意他们可以被无证搜查，该法律字面上违宪（invalid on its face）[Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U. S. 409 (2015)]。
学校搜查School Searches
It is emphasized again that searches by private schools are not government actions and are not governed by the Constitution.
再次强调私校的搜查不是政府行为，不归宪法调整。
Searches of students by public schools do not require probable cause; they only require reasonable grounds, a standard roughly equivalent to reasonable suspicion. However, the search must not be excessively intrusive.
公校对学生搜查不需要相当的理由（probable cause），只需要合理的理由（reasonable grounds），这个标准约等于合理的嫌疑（reasonable suspicion），然而，搜查不能太过有侵略性（excessively intrusive）。
Random, same-sex monitored urinalysis can be conducted at school on students participating in extracurricular activities or sports. [Board of Education v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002)]
可以对参加课外活动（extracurricular activities）或体育运动的学生在学校进行随机的、由同性监督下的尿检。[Board of Education v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002)]
Merely suspecting a student of possessing a few non-dangerous painkiller pills, without any particular reason to believe the pills are hidden in a female student's underwear, does not justify searching her underwear, even by someone of the same sex. [Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009)]
只是怀疑学生持有几片不危险的止疼药，也没有任何特别的理由相信药片藏在女生的内衣中，就不能去搜索女生的内衣，哪怕是同性也不行。[Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009)]
特殊需要Special Needs
If there are legitimate special needs, certain mild searches and drug tests may be conducted.
如果有正当特殊需要（special needs），可以进行一些温和的搜查和药检。
If a public employee is suspected of work-related misconduct, a reasonable search of their workspace may be conducted. [O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987)].
如果怀疑公务员有不当行为，可以对其办公区域进行合理搜查[O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987)]。
Government employees such as DEA agents and customs officials may be required to undergo routine drug testing. [National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989)]
可以要求缉毒局的员工、海关等政府员工定期进行药检。[National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989)]
Train operators involved in accidents may be required to undergo drug testing. [Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Association, 489 U.S. 602 (1989)]
可以要求涉嫌肇事的列车司机进行药检。[Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Association, 489 U.S. 602 (1989)]
出入境执法Border and Immigration Enforcement
The Fourth Amendment does not apply to enforcement actions conducted outside the United States against foreign nationals.
宪法第4修正案不适合在美国以外、针对外国人的执法。
Evidence found during a warrantless search of a Mexican citizen's home in Mexico is admissible. [United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)]
无证进入墨西哥人在墨西哥的家中搜查，找到的证据可以使用。[United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)]
The Fourth Amendment does not apply to border searches; customs officials can search the luggage of incoming travelers without any cause. Similar rules apply to incoming international mail, which can be opened based on reasonable cause, although the law prohibits reading the correspondence.
第4修正案不适用于入境检查，海关不需要有任何理由就可以搜查入境旅客的包裹。对于入境的邮件也有类似的规定，可以基于任何合理的理由打开邮件，虽然法律规定禁止阅读信件。
Within the border, border patrol agents may set up fixed checkpoints to screen for illegal immigrants, but for roving patrol stops, reasonable suspicion is required. This is no different from what we have learned previously.
在边境内，边境巡警可以设置常规检查站排查非法移民，但如果是非常规的停车，需要有reasonable suspicion. 这和我们之前学的没有任何不同之处。
The mere fact that passengers in a vehicle appear to be of Mexican descent does not constitute sufficient reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle. [United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975)]
仅仅因为车内有墨西哥裔的乘客不代表有足够的reasonable suspicion以拦停车辆。 [United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975)]
窃听Wiretapping
Wiretapping requires a warrant to be applied for in advance, and the standard is stricter than that for a general search warrant. It not only requires probable cause but also demands that the wiretap target specific suspects, conversations, and specific crimes, for a relatively short period with clear termination conditions. After it concludes, a return must be made to the court. [Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967)]
窃听必须要预先申请搜查令，而且标准以一般的搜查令严格，不仅要求probable cause，还要求对具体的嫌疑人、谈话内容、针对具体的犯罪，进行一个时间相对较短、结束条件明确的窃听。结束后，还得向法庭汇报。[Berger v. New York, 388 U. S. 41 (1967)]
However, the courts recognize two exceptions to wiretapping rules. First, the other party to a conversation is presumed to be unreliable. If one party reveals all clues over the phone and the other party turns out to be a police informant or subsequently discloses the information to the police, it does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment [United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971)]. Second, if there is no intention to keep the conversation private—such as speaking loudly in a public place or using a speakerphone for everyone to hear—the content is not protected by the Fourth Amendment [Katz v. United States, supra].
但法院承认窃听的两个例外，首先通话的对方默认是不可靠的，如果一方把线索在电话中全盘托出，结果对方就是警察的线人，或者转身就将信息披露给警方，就不属于第4修正案的搜查[United States v. White, 401 U. S. 745 (1971)]。其次如果本身没有打算让通话保密——比如在公共场合大声说话，或者开着免提让所有人听见，那么其内容也不属于第4修正案保护的内容[Katz v. United States, supra]。
供述、证词和辨认Confessions, Testimonies, and Identifications
米兰达警告Miranda Warnings
内容Content
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits compelling any person to be a witness against himself. Overwhelmed by various appeals claiming that confessions were involuntary, the Supreme Court simply interpreted the Fifth Amendment as requiring that a suspect be informed prior to a custodial interrogation:
宪法第5修正案禁止强迫任何人自证其罪，最高法院被各种声称供述不是自愿的申诉不胜其扰，于是干脆将第5修正案解释为必须在羁押审讯（custodial interrogation）前告诉嫌疑人：
[Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)]
[Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)]
This is the famous Miranda warning. The Supreme Court held that this requirement stems directly from the Fifth Amendment and applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, so neither Congress nor the states can legislate to exempt this requirement. Of course, different wording is permissible, and written warnings are acceptable if the suspect can read. Even if some minor elements are missing, it is sufficient as long as the general meaning is conveyed [California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981)].
这就是著名的米兰达警告（Miranda warning）。最高法院认为该要求直接来源于第5修正案，且通过宪法第14修正案适用于各州，所以国会和各州都不得立法豁免这个要求。当然，不同的遣词造句是允许的，如果嫌犯能看懂文字，书面告知也是可以的，甚至少了一些无足轻重的元素，但大致意思传达到了也可以[California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981)]。
羁押审讯Custodial Interrogation
The definition of custody in a custodial interrogation is slightly narrower than a seizure under the Fourth Amendment; not all seizures constitute custody [Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440 (1984)]. Although the standard for custody still considers whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would feel free to decline to answer and leave, it requires a "restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest."
羁押审讯（custodial interrogation）中custody的定义比第4修正案的seizure稍微窄一些，并非所有的seizure都是custody[Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440 (1984)]。虽然，custody的标准依然是考虑一个理性的人在当时的条件下是否认为自己可以拒绝回答并自由离开，但是要求“行动自由受到限制的程度等同于正式逮捕”（restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest）。
A suspect voluntarily goes to the police station and expresses a desire to confess to a murder he committed. The police then begin questioning. The suspect's initial statement is voluntary, but after turning himself in, a reasonable suspect would not feel free to leave, so Miranda warnings must still be given before questioning can begin.
嫌疑人自愿到警局表示希望承认自己犯下的谋杀罪行。警方于是开始问话。嫌疑人一开始的说话是自愿的，但自首后，一个合理的嫌疑人不会认为自己可以自由离开，所以依然需要先给米兰达警告才能开始问话。
Two police officers take a minor to an office, say they want to ask a few questions, close the door, and do not tell him he is free to leave. When determining whether this constitutes custody, if the police know the suspect is a minor, or if his minor status is objectively apparent, the age factor must be included in the objective standard. Even if a reasonable adult would not feel they were under arrest, a minor might be deemed to be in custody because they are more susceptible to feeling pressured. [J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011)]
两个警察将未成年带到办公室，说要问几句话，关上了门，没有告诉他可以离开。在判断是否构成羁押（Custody）时，如果警察知道嫌疑人是未成年人，或者其未成年身份是客观明显的，就必须将年龄因素纳入客观判断标准中。即使一个理性的成年人不会觉得自己被逮捕，未成年人也可能因为更容易感到压迫而被认定为处于羁押之中。[J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011)]
After an officer stops a vehicle weaving on the road and finds the driver unable to stand, he asks if the driver has been drinking. The driver's confession to drinking need not be excluded. However, when the driver is arrested and placed in the police cruiser, Miranda warnings must be read; otherwise, subsequent statements will be excluded. [Berkemer v. McCarty, supra]
警官对蛇形的车辆进行截停后，发现司机无法站立，就问他是否喝了酒，司机承认喝酒的供词不必被排除。但司机被逮捕并押上警车时必须被宣读米兰达警告，否则之后的供述要被排除。[Berkemer v. McCarty, supra]
A suspect is serving a sentence in prison. During an investigation of a crime within the prison, he is called to a conference room. The suspect is not restrained, the interrogator repeatedly emphasizes that he is free to leave the room and return to his cell at any time, and the door to the room is often left open. This is not a custodial interrogation, and even without Miranda warnings, the obtained confession need not be excluded. [Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012)]
嫌疑人在监狱中服刑，在调查监狱中一宗罪案时，他被叫到监狱的会议室。嫌疑人没有佩戴戒具，问话人一再强调他可以随时离开会议室回到监所，会议室的门也时常是开着的。这不是羁押审讯，即使没有给米兰达警告，获得的供述也不必排除。[Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012)]
Having addressed custody, let us look at what constitutes an interrogation. If the interrogation is not considered state action, Miranda warnings are not required.
解决了custody，再来看什么是审讯（interrogation）。审讯如果不认为是政府行为，就不需要米兰达警告。
Police disguised as cellmates talking to a suspect do not need to give Miranda warnings. The warnings are designed to help courts determine whether a defendant was compelled to incriminate himself, and a voluntary conversation with a cellmate clearly does not involve coercion. [Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990)]
警方伪装成狱友和嫌疑人交谈不需要米兰达警告，该警告是为了方便法院判断被告人是否被强迫自证其罪，和狱友的自愿交谈显然不属于强迫。[Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990)]
When the police assign a psychiatrist to evaluate a suspect's mental state, statements made by the suspect to the doctor cannot be used as a confession if Miranda warnings were not given first. [Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981)]
警方指派精神科医生（psychiatric）对嫌疑人的精神状况进行评估，嫌疑人对医生说的话，如果没有先进行米兰达警告，就不得作为供述使用。[Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981)]
Interrogation need not be direct questioning by the police; any conduct by the police that they should reasonably expect to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect may constitute an interrogation.
审讯不必是警察的直接问话，任何警方合理预期会引起嫌疑人供认的行为都有可能是审讯。
Two police officers conversing about hoping a weapon would not accidentally harm nearby handicapped children successfully prompted the suspect in the back seat to reveal the weapon's location. However, the police did not know the suspect was particularly susceptible to appeals to his conscience, so it could not be said that the police acted with the intent to elicit a confession. [Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980)]
两个警察交谈说希望武器不要误伤了附近的残疾人儿童成功让坐在后座上的嫌疑人供出了武器的位置。但警方并不知道嫌疑人特别容易良心不安，所以并不能说警方这么做就是刻意让嫌疑人招供。[Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980)]
At the wife's repeated requests, the police finally agreed to let the suspect and his wife meet. If the police's agreement to let them meet was not for the purpose of obtaining more statements, what the suspect said to his wife was not the product of an interrogation. [Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (1987)]
在妻子的一再要求下，警方终于同意让犯罪嫌疑人和妻子见一面。如果警方同意他们见面并不是为了获得更多的供词，嫌疑人对妻子说的话就不是审讯所得。[Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (1987)]
回应Responses
Depending on the suspect's four types of responses to Miranda, the police have four different ways of handling the situation.
根据嫌疑人对米兰达的四种回应，警方也有四种不同的处理方法。
Miranda warnings are a Fifth Amendment right; before a suspect is formally charged, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is not violated.
米兰达警告是宪法第5修正案的权利，在嫌疑人被起诉之前，不会违反第6修正案的律师权。
After being read Miranda warnings, the suspect says, "I won't sign any papers until my lawyer gets here." The police ask, "Is it okay to talk?" and the suspect replies, "Talking is fine." The confession need not be excluded; the suspect is deemed to have waived the right to counsel for oral statements. [Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523 (1987)]
在被宣读米兰达警告后，嫌疑人说“律师来之前我不会签任何文件”，警察说“那谈话可以吗”，嫌疑人说“谈话可以”。供述不必排除，嫌疑人视为放弃了律师权。[Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523 (1987)]
After being read Miranda warnings, John Doe says, "I think I need to see a lawyer." The police ask, "Why do you think that?" and John Doe replies, "Because I just killed someone." The confession need not be excluded because the invocation of the right to counsel was not sufficiently unambiguous.
在被宣读米兰达警告后，张三说“认为我需要见律师”，警察说“你为什么这么认为呢”，张三说“因为我刚才杀了人”。供述不必排除，因为援引律师权不够明确。
John Doe says, "I won't say anything until a lawyer gets here." The police ask, "Why do you need a lawyer so badly?" John Doe replies, "Because I just killed someone." The confession must be excluded; the suspect's invocation of the right to counsel was very clear, and questioning must cease immediately.
张三说“在律师来之前我不会说任何话”，警察说“你为什么如此需要律师？”张三说“因为我刚才杀了人”。供述必须排除，嫌疑人援引律师权非常明确，问话必须立刻停止。
John Doe invokes his right to counsel, does not say a word after being arrested, and is still convicted. After serving three years in prison, the police come to the facility, read him Miranda warnings, and investigate another crime. The police's actions do not violate his right to counsel; serving a sentence is considered "returning home" (a break in custody), and after 14 days, the suspect is deemed to have had enough time to settle back into his routine.
张三援引律师权，被逮捕后没有说过一句话，依然被定罪。服刑三年后，警察来监所中宣读米兰达警告来调查另一桩犯罪。警察的行为不违反律师权，服刑视为“回家”，服刑14天后可以认为嫌疑人已经有足够的时间平复心情。
After the suspect invoked his right to counsel, the police immediately ceased questioning. Later, during transport, the suspect voluntarily asked the police, "Well, what is going to happen to me now?" The police told him he did not have to talk, and the suspect indicated he understood. The police then told him where they were going and suggested he take a polygraph test. Before the polygraph procedure began, the suspect was read his Miranda warnings again. After the polygraph, the examiner said the machine showed the suspect was lying, and the suspect then made a guilty confession. The conversation between the suspect and the police was initiated by him, so the confession need not be excluded. [Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983)]
在嫌疑人提出要见律师后，警方立即停止了问话。随后在转移过程中，嫌疑人主动问警察“现在去做什么？”警察告诉他不必说话，嫌疑人表示明白，然后警察告诉他将要去哪，并建议他配合测谎。在测谎程序开始前，嫌疑人被再次宣读了米兰达警告。测谎结束后，测谎师说仪器显示嫌疑人在说谎，嫌疑人于是作出了有罪的供述。嫌疑人和警察的交谈是他主动提起的，不必排除。[Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983)]
救济Remedies
A custodial interrogation without prior Miranda warnings violates the Fifth Amendment by default. The resulting confession cannot be used to prove the defendant's guilt in the prosecution's case-in-chief, but it can be used to impeach the defendant's credibility. However, it cannot be used to impeach other witnesses' testimony. Of course, if the defendant chooses not to testify, there is nothing to impeach.
没有事先宣读米兰达警告的羁押审讯默认违反了宪法第5修正案，获得的供述不得用来证明被告人犯罪，只能用于反驳被告人的诚信（impeach defendant’s credibility）。但不得用来反驳其他证人的证词。当然，如果被告人选择不作证，也就无从反驳。
If the prosecution cannot prove that the confession was made voluntarily, it cannot be used for any purpose, including impeachment.
如果检方不能证明供述是在自愿情况下作出的，则不得用于包括反驳在内的任何目的。
Confessions obtained through physical torture are absolutely inadmissible [Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)]. Confessions obtained through relentless mental torment of the suspect day and night, or by having a psychiatrist use highly suggestive psychological and hypnotic techniques, are also absolutely inadmissible [Leyra v. Denno, 347 U.S. 556 (1954)].
物理刑讯逼供获得的证词绝对不得使用[Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)]。精神上对嫌疑人日夜摧残，并让精神科医生用高超的心理暗示和催眠的技巧获得的供述也绝对不得使用[Leyra v. Denno, 347 U.S. 556 (1954)]。
Regarding whether a confession obtained after first getting an un-Mirandized confession, then reading Miranda warnings, and then getting a second confession can be used; or whether evidence obtained after releasing and re-arresting the suspect, or physical evidence derived from an un-Mirandized confession can be used, we apply a balancing test of social costs commonly used in the exclusionary rule, examining whether the police acted in bad faith or inadvertently.
对于先获得供述、后宣读米兰达警告然后重新获得一次供述是否可以使用，放回去然后重新抓起来的，或者通过没有宣读米兰达警告获得的供词进一步调查取证的证据能否使用，我们用证据排除常用的社会成本平衡测试，考察警察是恶意这么做的，还是无心为之。
An officer interrogated a suspect without reading Miranda warnings. After the suspect confessed, the officer paused the questioning, then read her Miranda rights, and after she waived those rights, continued questioning her, prompting her to repeat her previous confession. A plurality of four Justices held that there must be a sufficient break between the two interrogations, while a fifth Justice held that, at a minimum, the police must not have acted in bad faith. [Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004)]
警官没有宣读米兰达警告并审讯嫌疑人，在嫌疑人供认不讳后，警官暂停讯问，然后宣读她的米兰达权利，并在她放弃这些权利后继续讯问她，促使她重述她之前的供词。4名大法官认为两次讯问之间必须要有足够的休息，第5名大法官认为至少警察不得是恶意的。[Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004)]
For physical evidence derived further from a confession obtained in violation of Miranda warnings, as long as the confession was not coerced, the physical evidence is not necessarily excluded, and the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine does not apply. [United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004)]
违反米兰达警告获得的供述，进一步通过供述获得实体证据，只要供述不是被强迫作出的，实体证据并不必然会被排除，不适用毒树之果。[United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004)]
Finally, if police interrogation is prompted by an objectively reasonable concern for public safety (the public safety exception), prior Miranda warnings are not required [New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984)].
最后，如果警察的讯问是出于对公共安全的合理担忧（公共安全例外），则不必事先宣读米兰达警告[New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984)]。
After Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the main perpetrators of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, was arrested, he was not read his Miranda warnings. The prosecution intended to invoke the public safety exception, but ultimately did not obtain any valuable confession. It should be noted that the failure to read Miranda warnings does not mean his right to remain silent and right to counsel do not exist, especially the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Tsarnaev was originally sentenced to death and multiple terms of imprisonment, which was later reduced to life imprisonment by the court of appeals, but the Supreme Court overturned the circuit court's decision in 2022, so the death penalty remains a possibility [United States v. Tsarnaev, 595 U.S. ___ (2022)]. Currently, Tsarnaev's lawyers are still appealing on multiple grounds, and the federal government has halted executions. It is expected that even if the death penalty is ultimately carried out, it will take a long time.
2013年的波士顿马拉松爆炸案主犯之一Dzhokhar Tsarnaev被捕后就没有被宣读米兰达警告，检方本打算援引违反公共安全的例外，但最后并没有获得什么有价值的供述。需要注意的是，不宣读米兰达警告并不代表他的沉默权和律师权不存在，尤其是第6修正案的律师权。Tsarnaev原本被判死刑和多项监禁，随后被上诉法院改判终身监禁，但最高法院在2022年推翻了巡回法院的判决，所以死刑依然是可能的[United States v. Tsarnaev, 595 U.S. ___ (2022)]。目前，Tsarnaev的律师还在就多项理由上诉，且联邦层面已经停止了死刑的执行。预计即使最终要执行死刑，也会需要较长的时间。
禁强迫自证其罪Privilege Against Compelled Self-Incrimination
We have already seen traces of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination in the Miranda warnings; the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.
我们已经在米兰达警告中看到禁强迫自证其罪的影子，第5修正案规定任何人不得在刑事案件中成为指控自己的证人。
More generally, no natural person should be compelled to give testimony against themselves, which applies to any proceeding: civil litigation, administrative proceedings, congressional subpoenas, grand jury subpoenas, etc.
更一般地，任何自然人都不应该被强迫作出对自己不利的证词，这适用于任何程序：民事诉讼、行政程序、国会传唤、大陪审团传唤等。
Corporations do not have the constitutional privilege against compelled self-incrimination [Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85 (1974)]. As a summary and comparison, the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment do not apply to corporations [Blake v. McClung, 172 U.S. 239 (1898)], while Equal Protection and Due Process do apply to corporations [Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886); Grosjean v. Am. Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936)]. The Supreme Court has not decided whether the First Amendment's freedom of speech broadly applies to corporations, but it has ruled that corporations cannot be banned from making political speech because the public has a right to hear diverse voices [Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)].
企业没有不被强迫自证其罪的宪法权利[Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85 (1974)]。作为总结和对比，宪法第4条和第14修正案的特权与豁免不适用于企业[Jump to essay-4Blake v. McClung, 172 U.S. 239 (1898)]，平等保护和正当程序则适用于企业[Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886); Jump to essay-12Grosjean v. Am. Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936)]。最高法院没有决定第1修正案的言论保护是否适用于企业，但判令不得禁止企业发表政治言论，因为人们有权听到不同的声音[Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)]。
Self-incrimination is limited to testimonial evidence, so documents, voice prints, handwriting, etc., do not implicate self-incrimination issues. If documents are subpoenaed, the subpoenaed documents must be described with reasonable particularity. [United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000)]
自证其罪仅限于证词，所以文件、声纹、笔迹等不涉及自证其罪的问题。如果传唤（subpoena）文件，被传唤的文件必须被描述地足够具体（the government must describe the document with reasonable particularity）。[United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000)]
Requiring a high-income suspect to turn over their tax returns for the past three years does not violate the Fifth Amendment, because high-income individuals are required to file taxes annually.
要求高收入的嫌疑人交出自己过去3年的报税表格不违反第5修正案，因为高收入群体每年必须要报税。
Demanding a suspect to turn over a diary related to tax evasion based merely on the suspicion that the suspect wrote a diary violates the Fifth Amendment. This is because the suspect would have to admit the existence of the diary and indirectly admit that it contains content related to tax evasion.
仅仅怀疑嫌疑人写日记，就要求嫌疑人交出和偷税漏税有关的日记就违反了第5修正案。因为嫌疑人不得不承认日记的存在，还间接承认日记包含偷税漏税有关的内容。
However, note the issues of evidentiary privileges and work product that we will soon study in Evidence. The same theory also applies to mandatory administrative forms; if a mandatory form might require the person filling it out to reveal their own crimes, the person has the right to refuse to fill it out.
但要注意我们即将在证据法学习的保密特权和工作成果的问题。同样的理论还适用于要求填写行政表格的情况，但如果强制要求填写的表格有可能会要求填表人揭露自己的罪行，填表人有权不填写。
Requiring the reporting of income is not self-incrimination, because as long as it is filled out accurately, it does not involve any crime. But if required to report the source of funds, a taxpayer can invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to fill it out. The same applies to immigration forms and driver's license applications.
要求填写收入不是自证其罪，因为只要准确填写，并不涉及任何犯罪。但如果要求填写资金来源，纳税人可以援引第5修正案拒绝填写。移民表格、申请驾照的表格同理。
The Fifth Amendment primarily protects against the declarant being convicted by such testimony, so if the testimony is merely obtained illegally but is not used against the declarant in a criminal case, the declarant has no constitutional remedy [Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003)].
第5修正案主要保护的是免于陈述人被这类证词定罪，所以如果仅仅违法获取了证词，但并没有在刑事诉讼中对陈述人不利，陈述人并没有什么宪法救济[Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003)]。
A criminal defendant has an absolute right to remain silent at their own trial. Furthermore, the prosecutor may not imply to the jury that an adverse inference should be drawn from the defendant's silence, unless defense counsel argues that the defendant was not given an opportunity to tell their side of the story. The defendant has the right to have the judge instruct the jury not to draw an adverse inference from the defendant's silence; the judge may give such an instruction even if the defendant objects.
刑事被告人绝对有权在自己的庭审中保持沉默，不仅如此，检察官不得暗示陪审团对被告人的沉默作出不利推定，除非辩护人的论点是被告人没有机会说出自己的故事。被告人有权让法官指示陪审团不得因为被告人的沉默作不利推定，即使被告人反对，法官依然可以如此指示。
The prosecutor also may not ask the jury to consider the defendant's silence after being arrested and read Miranda warnings, because the very purpose of Miranda warnings is to allow a person to remain silent. However, the prosecutor may comment on the defendant's silence prior to the reading of Miranda warnings. [Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 178 (2013)]
检察官还不得要求陪审团考虑被告人被捕并宣读米兰达警告后的沉默，因为米兰达警告本来就是让人沉默。但检察官可以对被告人在宣读米兰达之前的沉默进行评论。[Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 178 (2013)]
A prosecutor's comment on a defendant's silence is subject to the harmless error test; if the judge cures the prejudice caused by the prosecutor through jury instructions, or if there is overwhelmingly strong evidence proving the defendant's guilt, it does not necessarily require overturning the jury's guilty verdict.
检察官对被告人沉默的评论采用harmless test，如果法官通过陪审团消除了检察官造成的偏见，或者有足够强大的证据证明被告人有罪，也不是必然要推翻陪审团的有罪裁决。
However, if the defendant decides to testify, they are deemed to have waived their Fifth Amendment privilege; the defendant cannot choose to answer only questions favorable to them and invoke the Fifth Amendment when faced with unfavorable questions.
但如果被告人决定作证，视为豁免了第5修正案的权利，被告人不能只回答对自己有利的问题，而遇到对自己不利的问题就援引第5修正案。
Whether to testify is a very crucial choice for a criminal defendant. Telling the jury in person that one did not commit the crime seems to be the most powerful evidence of innocence, but it does not mean that testifying is always the optimal choice. Even an innocent defendant may not be willing to face the pressure from the prosecutor and their own dark history. Some people can talk eloquently on the witness stand even if they are full of evil, while someone with social anxiety might make the jury feel they have a guilty conscience as soon as they open their mouth. We will learn more in the Evidence section about what kind of evidence the prosecution can use to impeach the defendant's credibility, and how the defendant can rehabilitate it.
是否作证是刑事案件被告人非常关键的选择，自己亲口告诉陪审团自己没有犯罪似乎是最有力的无罪证据，但并不意味着自己作证总是最优的。即使是无辜的被告人，也不一定就会愿意直面检察官的压力和自己的黑历史。有的人即使恶贯满盈也能在证人席上侃侃而谈，但有的社恐可能一开口就让陪审团觉得她心虚。我们会在证据篇更多地学到检方会用什么样的证据来反驳被告人的诚信，以及被告人又怎样弥补。
Since the intent of the Fifth Amendment is to prevent compelled testimony from being used to convict the defendant, testimony can still be compelled as long as the judge or prosecutor grants sufficient immunity. Immunity includes transactional immunity and use and derivative use immunity. The former means the witness cannot be prosecuted for any transaction relating to their testimony. The latter means the witness's testimony and any other evidence derived from it cannot be used against the witness, but evidence obtained from other independent sources can still be used to prosecute the witness. The former is obviously more favorable to the witness, but the Supreme Court has held that the latter is sufficient to compel a witness to testify, because the constitutional protection provided by use and derivative use immunity is adequate [Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972)].
既然第5修正案的意图是为了避免强迫获得的证词用来给被告人定罪，只要法官或检察官给其足够的豁免，就可以继续获得证词。豁免包括绝对豁免（transactional immunity）和衍生豁免（use and derivative use immunity），前者是指证人不可以因为作证相关的事项被起诉，后者是指证人的证词，和证词衍生使用获得的其他证据不可以被用作对证人不利，但从其他独立渠道获得的证据依然可以用来起诉证人。前者显然对证人更有利一些，但最高法院认为后者就可以用来强迫证人作证，因为衍生豁免给的宪法保护已经足够[Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972)]。
If the witness has no risk of prosecution—for example, the statute of limitations has expired, or they have already voluntarily disclosed some information and further information would not further incriminate them—they are deemed to no longer have Fifth Amendment protection and can be compelled to provide further testimony.
如果证人没有被起诉的风险，比如已经过了诉讼时效，或者他已经自愿说出了一些信息，而更多的信息不会导致他的罪行更加严重，视为已经没有了第5修正案的保护，可以被强迫说出更多的证词。
辨认Identification
Live line-ups and photo identifications are limited by Due Process and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Under the Due Process Clause, the identification process must not be unnecessarily suggestive and create a substantial likelihood of misidentification; however, if the identification is still deemed reliable under the totality of the circumstances, it will not be excluded. On the other hand, if the Sixth Amendment is violated (e.g., a post-indictment line-up without counsel present), the victim generally cannot identify the defendant in court unless the prosecution can prove that the in-court identification has an independent source—that is, the victim's identification is based on observations of the defendant at the time of the crime, rather than on the improper police identification procedure [United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967)]. Otherwise, if an independent source cannot be proven, the in-court identification will be excluded.
真人辨认（line-up）和照片辨认（photo identification）受到正当程序（Due Process）和第六修正案律师权的限制。根据正当程序条款，辨认过程不能具有不必要的暗示性（unnecessarily suggestive）且导致极大的误认可能（substantial likelihood of misidentification）；但如果综合考量（totality of circumstances）认为辨认依然可靠，则不予排除。另一方面，如果违反了第六修正案（如起诉后列队辨认无律师在场），被害人通常不能在法庭上指认被告人，除非检方能证明该指认具有独立来源（independent source），即被害人的指认是基于案发时对被告人的观察，而非基于警方不当的辨认程序 [United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967)]。否则，如果无法证明独立来源，庭审中的指认将被排除。
The victim stated that the killer was bald, so the police showed the victim 11 photos of people with hair and only one photo of a bald person, Zhang San. The victim identified Zhang San from the photos. Not only is the pre-trial identification inadmissible as evidence, but the victim's in-court identification of Zhang San must also be excluded. The victim's impression of Zhang San was tainted during the prior identification due to the police's obviously unnecessary suggestiveness and misconduct.
被害人说凶手是光头，于是警察将11张有头发的人和唯一的光头张三的照片给被害人看，被害人在其中指认了张三。不仅庭前的辨认无法作为证据使用，庭审中被害人对张三的指认也必须被排除。被害人对张三的印象在之前的辨认中被污染了，起因是警方明显不必要的暗示和不当行为。
However, if there is no police misconduct—for example, a witness spontaneously identifies a suspect at the scene but cannot recognize them a month later—the identification is not necessarily excluded [Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012)].
但是，如果没有警方的不当行为，比如，证人自发在现场指认了嫌疑人，但一个月之后又认不出来了，其指认并非必然要被排除[Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012)]。
Having a victim select from a six-photo array does not violate the Constitution [Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)]. Even a direct identification of whether the suspect is the person in a single photograph two days after the crime does not violate the Constitution, especially when the observer is a trained police officer [Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977)].
让被害人从6张照片中选一个不违反宪法 [Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)]。甚至在案发后两天后直接辨认嫌疑人是不是照片中的人也不违反宪法，尤其是当观察者是一名训练有素的警官时[Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977)]。
For post-indictment live line-ups, the defendant has the right to have counsel present to observe whether there are any suggestive actions, but the attorney cannot interfere with the identification process and can only move to exclude it later in court. However, for pre-indictment live line-ups, as well as pre- and post-indictment photo identifications, blood draws, and the collection of voice and handwriting samples, the defendant has no right to have counsel present.
对于起诉后的真人辨认，被告人有权让律师在场观察是否有暗示性的举动，但律师不能干涉辨认的过程，只能之后去法庭上申请排除。而起诉之前的真人辨认，和起诉之前、之后的照片辨认、抽血、声纹和笔迹的采集，被告人无权让律师在场。
起诉和庭审Charging and Trial
大陪审团Grand Jury
The Fifth Amendment requires that capital and infamous crimes be indicted by a grand jury after investigation. This requirement is one of the few provisions that has not been incorporated to apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment; many states allow prosecutors to charge directly if they believe there is probable cause. This outline translates both a grand jury's "indict" and a prosecutor's "charge" as "起诉" (prosecution/charge).
宪法第5修正案规定死罪（capital）和让人声名狼藉（infamous）的罪名必须由大陪审团（grand jury）调查后起诉（indict）。该要求是为数不多没有通过宪法第14修正案适用于各州的条款，很多州可以在检察官认为有probable cause的情况下直接起诉（charge）。本讲义将大陪审团的indict和检察官的charge都翻译成起诉。
Crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or hard labor are considered infamous crimes [Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165 (1958)].
可能被判超过一年的监禁和拘役的罪名都是让人声名狼藉的罪名[Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165 (1958)]。
Grand jury investigative proceedings are conducted by a prosecutor rather than a judge, and are secret rather than public. Overall, the process is not very adversarial and lacks many elements of fairness. The rationale is that the grand jury merely decides whether to indict; if there is any unfairness, such as illegal searches, inadmissible evidence, or improper questioning methods, relief can be sought during the post-indictment trial.
大陪审团的调查程序由检察官而不是法官主持，是秘密的而不是公开的。整体而言，该程序没有太多对抗性，也没有太多公平可言。其思路是，大陪审团决定的仅仅是起诉，如果有任何不公，比如非法搜查、不得采纳的证据、不合适的提问方法，可以在起诉后的审判中寻求救济。
A federal grand jury consists of 16 to 23 members. If, after deliberation, more than 12 members believe there is probable cause, they return a bill of indictment.
联邦大陪审团由16-23人组成，在合议后如果有超过12人认为有probable cause，则带回起诉书（return a bill of indictment）。
The reason it is said that the jury or judge "returns" a decision is that they typically go to a separate room to deliberate, and when they return to the courtroom, it is the moment the result is announced. Another potentially confusing verb collocation is "enter a judgment"; this verb is used because, traditionally, all court proceedings had to be recorded in a thick book (the docket), and judgments were no exception.
之所以说陪审团和法官带回（return）了决定，是因为他们一般要去专门的小屋里深思熟虑（deliberate），当他们回到庭上时，就是出结果的时刻。同样不容易理解的动词搭配还有判决的签发（enter a judgement），之所以用这个动词是因为传统上所有的法庭程序都要被录入在厚厚的一大本（docket）上，判决也不例外。
A grand jury may subpoena witnesses and evidence without having to prove their relevance, unless the subpoenaed party can prove there is absolutely no reasonable possibility of relevance [United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292 (1991)]. Even if the witness is the suspect the grand jury intends to indict, there is no need to give the witness Miranda warnings, or even inform the witness of their status as a target [United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181 (1977)]. The witness has no right to have counsel present inside the grand jury room, but may step outside to consult with counsel at any time. A witness may not refuse to testify on the grounds that the grand jury's information was obtained illegally [United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974)], but may invoke the Fifth Amendment constitutional right against self-incrimination. A suspect has almost no way to have any evidence excluded during the grand jury process, even if it violates the rules of evidence or was obtained unconstitutionally. More often than not, the suspect does not even know the grand jury is investigating them, as they have no right to know. The prosecutor is also not required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury [United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992)]. On the MBE, be cautious about selecting options that directly dismiss a grand jury indictment, because an indictment can only be dismissed if the defendant proves a severe procedural error that substantially affected the grand jury's decision to indict. Note that introducing evidence that would be inadmissible in a regular trial is not even considered a procedural error for a grand jury, unless a specific statute prohibits the prosecutor from doing so. If a judge feels that there is no probable cause after excluding illegally obtained evidence, they may dismiss the case after indictment, rather than dismiss the indictment itself. In a few rare cases, where the prosecutor deliberately excluded minorities from the pool of grand jury candidates, the court dismissed the grand jury indictment [Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986)].
大陪审团可以传唤（subpoena）证人和证据，不必证明证人和证据是相关的，除非被传唤人能证明完全没有任何可能相关[United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292 (1991)]。即使证人就是大陪审团拟起诉的嫌疑人，也不必给证人米兰达警告，甚至不必让证人知情[United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181 (1977)]。证人无权让律师在场，但可以随时去门外咨询律师。证人不得因为陪审团的信息来源是违法获得的就拒绝作证[United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974)]，但可以援引第5修正案不得自证其罪的宪法权利。嫌疑人几乎没有办法让任何证据在大陪审团过程中被排除，即使他们不符合证据规则，或者是违反宪法获得的。更多的时候，嫌疑人甚至不知道大陪审团在调查他，因为嫌疑人无权知道。检察官也不必将无罪和罪轻的证据一并展示给大陪审团[United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992)]。在MBE考试中，要慎选直接撤销大陪审团起诉的选项，因为只有被告人证明大陪审团有严重的程序错误，且该错误会实质性影响起诉，才有机会撤销起诉。注意引入了在常规庭审中不得引入的证据甚至都不算是大陪审团的程序错误，除非有明确的法条禁止大陪审团的检察官这么做。法官如果觉得排除非法获得的证据后没有probable cause，可以在起诉后驳回起诉（dismiss the case），而不是撤销起诉（dismiss the indictment）。在为数不多的案件中，检察官刻意排除了大陪审员候选人中的少数族裔，法院撤销了大陪审团的起诉 [Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986)]。
The effect of "dismissing the case" is similar to "returning the case to the People's Procuratorate" or "ruling to permit withdrawal of prosecution" under the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. Whether the case can be prosecuted again depends on whether the dismissal is with prejudice; generally, "with prejudice" means it cannot be prosecuted again, which we will study later. "Dismissing the indictment" is similar to "non-prosecution" under the Criminal Procedure Law, except that it is made directly by the judge, bypassing the prosecutor and the grand jury.
“驳回起诉”的效果类似于《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法>的解释》中的“退回人民检察院”或者“裁定准予撤诉”。是否能再次起诉要看驳回是否带偏见，通常认为with prejudice意味着不得再次起诉，我们将在后文学习。“撤销起诉”类似于《刑事诉讼法》中的“不起诉”，只是改由法官绕过检察官、大陪审团直接作出。
迅速审判Speedy Trial
After an indictment by a grand jury, the grand jury does not preside over the formal trial proceedings; the subsequent prosecution is handed over to the prosecutor.
大陪审团后起诉后，并不主持正式的审判程序，后续的起诉交由给检察官。
The defendant has the right to a speedy trial. The standard focuses on whether the defendant suffered prejudice from the delayed trial, but the longer the delay, the more likely the court is to directly presume that prejudice exists. The remedy for a speedy trial violation is dismissal of the charges with prejudice.
被告人享有迅速审判（speedy trial）的权利，其标准是看被告人是否从延迟审判中受到了偏见或损害（prejudice），但时间越长，法院越有可能直接认定损害是存在的。违反迅速审判的救济是驳回起诉且不得再次起诉（dismiss with prejudice）。
The defendant was indicted on drug charges, but the proceedings were suspended because the defendant was abroad. After the defendant returned to the country, the prosecutor failed to notice. For 8 years, the defendant lived openly under his real name, married, earned a degree, and found stable employment, until the police discovered his arrest warrant during a credit check. The 8-year delay was presumed to be prejudicial to the defendant, and the prosecutor was barred from prosecuting him again [Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992)].
被告人因毒品罪名被起诉，但因被告人在国外暂停了程序。被告人回国后检察官也没有发现，8年间，被告人用原来的名字公开生活，结婚，获得了一个学位，还找到了稳定的工作，直到警察在一次信用检查中发现了他的拘捕令。8年的拖延默认是对被告人有损害的，检察官不得再次起诉[Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992)]。
The jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict, and the prosecutor requested the court to suspend the trial indefinitely while allowing the prosecutor to reinstate the prosecution at any time. This violated the requirements of a speedy trial and due process [Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967)].
陪审团无法达成一致判决，检察官要求法院无限期暂停审理，但允许检察官随时重新起诉，这违反了迅速审判和正当程序的要求 [Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967)]。
If the suspect's crime remains undiscovered, or if the suspect is not arrested and charged, such issues are governed by the statute of limitations rather than the right to a speedy trial. As soon as there is a formal indictment, the right to a speedy trial is triggered; even without an arrest, an unreasonable long-term delay may still be presumed to cause prejudice.
如果嫌疑人的罪名没有被发现，或者嫌疑人没有被逮捕和起诉，由追溯时效（statute of limitations）来处理这类问题，而不是迅速审判。只要正式起诉（indictment），迅速审判的权利即被触发，即使没有逮捕，不合理的长期拖延依然可能被推定为存在损害。
初步开庭和保释Preliminary Hearings and Bail
Unlike in China, where courts intervene in criminal proceedings at a much later stage, U.S. criminal proceedings involve court intervention very early on. This is especially true when a suspect is in custody, as a neutral party must quickly determine whether continued detention is necessary; otherwise, the suspect's liberty is not guaranteed. Before the formal trial, numerous preliminary hearings may have already taken place.
和中国的法院在大后期才介入刑事诉讼不一样，美国的刑事诉讼很早就会由法庭介入，尤其是在犯人被羁押的时候，需要迅速由中立角色决定是否还有必要羁押，否则嫌疑人的自由得不到保障。在正式的庭审之前，可能已经提前开了非常多的小庭。
If a suspect is detained solely because the police or prosecutor believes there is probable cause, the suspect has the right to a preliminary hearing (often called a Gerstein hearing) within a reasonable time, allowing a neutral party to determine whether there is probable cause to justify continued detention [Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975)].
如果嫌疑人仅因为警方、检察官认为有probable cause就被羁押，他有权在合理时间内通过首次初步开庭（preliminary hearing）让中立角色决定是否有probable cause让他继续羁押[Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975)]。
An arrest warrant is issued upon a neutral magistrate's finding of probable cause, and a grand jury indictment is also based on a neutral body's finding of probable cause. In these two situations, a Gerstein hearing is not required.
逮捕令是在有中立官员认为有probable cause的条件下签发的，大陪审程序也是在中立方认为有probable cause后才会起诉。在这两种情况下，不需要召开Gerstein hearing.
Holding a Gerstein hearing within 48 hours of detention is presumptively reasonable [Riverside County v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991)].
羁押后48小时内召开Gerstein hearing默认是合理的 [Riverside County v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991)]。
An initial appearance, on the other hand, applies to all criminal suspects. For minor offenses, this appearance may also serve as the trial. For other offenses, this hearing primarily accomplishes the following:
首次出庭（initial appearance）则适用于所有刑事犯罪嫌疑人。对不严重的犯罪来说，这次出庭也就是庭审。对于其他犯罪，这次庭审主要做以下几件事情：
The initial appearance may concurrently address the Gerstein hearing's concern of whether there is probable cause for continued detention. If probable cause exists, bail becomes the primary concern for the vast majority of criminal suspects.
首次出庭可以一并处理Gerstein hearing关注的是否有probable cause继续羁押的问题，如果存在probable cause，保释则是绝大多数犯罪嫌疑人最关心的问题。
The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution provides that excessive bail shall not be required. Similar to China, release on personal recognizance and cash bonds are both within the scope of bail conditions that can be considered.
宪法第8修正案规定，不得设定过于严格的保释条款（excessive bail）。和中国一样，保证人（personal recognizance）和保释金（cash bond）都是保释条款可以考虑的范围。
The prohibition against excessive bail does not mean that bail must be granted; at least at the federal level, there is no constitutional right to bail for criminal suspects. However, under common law, bail is the rule for all criminal cases, and denial of bail is the exception. If the court determines that bail is permissible, the suspect can go home after posting the bail amount (or fulfilling other bail conditions).
不得设定过严格的保释条款不代表就必须保释，至少联邦层面没有规定犯罪嫌疑人有保释的权利。不过，普通法所有刑事案件都以保释为原则，不保释为例外。如果法庭认为可以保释，交完保释金（或者履行完其他保释条款）就可以回家。
After several security companies testified that their equipment could prevent Meng Wanzhou from leaving Canada, the court set bail conditions that included a 10 million CAD bail bond, several sureties, a curfew, travel restrictions limited to the Greater Vancouver area with mandatory reporting, close monitoring by one company, and GPS and electronic ankle bracelet monitoring by another company, as well as the surrender of all travel documents and the obligation to appear whenever required by the court [United States v. Meng, 2018 BCSC 2255]. Meng Wanzhou was detained on December 1, 2018, and released on bail on December 11; even the bail hearing itself lasted for 3 days.
在数个安保公司出庭证明他们的设备能防止孟晚舟离开加拿大后，法庭设置的保释条款包括1000万加元保释金、若干担保人、宵禁、出行范围限制在大温哥华地区且必须报告、接受一家公司的密切监控和另外一家公司的GPS和电子脚镣监控、上交所有旅行证件并在法庭要求的时候随时出现等[United States v. Meng, 2018 BCSC 2255]。孟晚舟在2018年12月1日被关押，12月11日被保释，就连保释听证会都开了3天。
Bail is solely intended to ensure the criminal suspect's appearance at subsequent trial proceedings. As long as the suspect appears on time, the bail money will be refunded regardless of whether the final verdict is guilty or not guilty. Therefore, when referring specifically to bail amounts, the Eighth Amendment means that the amount is limited to what is reasonably necessary to ensure the suspect's appearance as scheduled. Of course, this absolutely does not mean that a suspect can simply choose to forfeit the bail money and fail to appear.
保释金只是为了保证犯罪嫌疑人出庭参加后续庭审，只要嫌疑人按时出庭，无论最后是有罪还是无罪，保释金都会返还。所以，如果单指保释金，第8修正案指的是以保证嫌疑人如期出庭的必要金额为限。当然，绝对不是说嫌疑人只要愿意放弃保释金，就可以不出庭。
The Constitution itself does not grant suspects the right to bail; it only prohibits excessive bail conditions. Brendt Christensen, the defendant who murdered Chinese student Zhang Yingying, was denied bail after his arrest in June 2017 and remained in custody until he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole two years later [United States v. Christensen, Case No. 17-cr-20037-JES-JEH]. However, if bail is arbitrarily denied—for example, by not allowing the suspect to make a statement at the hearing or to submit evidence favorable to bail—it would violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. Conversely, as long as there are sufficient procedural safeguards, if the court ultimately determines that the suspect lacks strong ties, poses a high flight risk, or presents a danger to the community and thus denies bail, the Constitution does not provide sufficient grounds to interfere with the court's decision [United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987)].
宪法本身没有规定嫌疑人有权获得保释，只规定了不得设立过于严格的保释条款。杀害中国留学生章莹颖的被告人Brendt Christensen在2017年6月被逮捕后就一直未能获得保释，直到他2年后被判终身监禁、不得假释之前，都一直被关押[United States v. Christensen, Case No. 17-cr-20037-JES-JEH]。但是，如果武断地拒绝保释，比如不让嫌疑人在听证会上陈述申辩，或者不让提交有利于保释的证据，那么会违反宪法的程序正当条款。但如果反过来只要有足够的程序保障，最后法庭认为嫌疑人约束力不强，跑路的可能性高，或者社会危害性大而裁定不得保释，宪法并没有足够的工具干涉法庭的决定[United States v. Salerno, 479 U.S. 1026 (1987)]。
A bail decision can be appealed immediately. If it is a state court decision, the suspect may also petition a federal court for a writ of habeas corpus.
保释的决定可以立刻上诉，如果是州法院的决定，也可以向联邦法院申请人身保护令（habeas corpus）。
The preliminary hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to prosecute is the third type of preliminary proceeding we introduce. To distinguish them, we usually refer to this proceeding simply as a preliminary hearing, while the earlier one is called a Gerstein hearing. A suspect is only entitled to a Gerstein hearing if they are detained without a neutral party's determination of probable cause, whereas a preliminary hearing is generally held in most cases, and the suspect has the right to have counsel present [Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (1970)].
决定是否有probable cause起诉的preliminary hearing是我们介绍的第三种初步开庭。为了区分，我们通常直接将本次开庭称作preliminary hearing，而更早的一次叫做Gerstein hearing. Gerstein hearing只有在没有中立的角色决定probable cause就被羁押的情况下才有权开，但preliminary hearing则通常都要开，且有权让律师在场[Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (1970)]。
At a preliminary hearing, the suspect has the right to present and subpoena certain evidence and witnesses that might not be suitable for presentation or subpoena at a formal trial. We will study the rules of evidence in detail in the Evidence section.
Preliminary hearing上，嫌疑人有权出示、传唤一些不适合在正式庭审时被出示和传唤的证据、证人。我们会到证据篇再详细学习证据规则。
The distinction between judgments and orders is a notoriously difficult topic in the Chinese bar exam, and similar concepts exist in the U.S.: a final decision is a 'judgment,' while various interim rulings are 'orders.' The U.S. also has the term 'verdict,' which usually refers to a jury's decision, though sometimes a judge can bypass the jury and issue a verdict directly. Fortunately, the MBE will never test the distinctions between judgment, order, and verdict in isolation, nor will it use them as traps in the answer choices. In my lectures, I usually translate 'order' as '裁定' (ruling/order) and 'judgment' as '判决' (judgment), but sometimes the boundary between them is blurred, so do not get bogged down by my translations. Because the MBE rarely tests arbitration, I translate 'verdict' as '裁决' (verdict), which should not be confused with an arbitration award.
判决和裁定的区别是中国司考的魔鬼考点，在美国也有类似的说法，最终判决用judgement，中途的各种裁定用order. 美国甚至还多了一个verdict，通常指陪审团的决定，不过有时候法官也可以绕过陪审团直接给verdict. 好在MBE绝对不会出题单独考judgement, order和verdict的区别，也不会把这个作为选项中的陷阱。在我的讲义中，通常将order翻译为裁定，judgement翻译成判决，但有时候它们的界限并不明确，所以不要纠结在我的翻译上。因为MBE几乎不考仲裁，我将verdict翻译成裁决，请不要和仲裁的裁决（arbitration award）混淆。
As we will learn in the Evidence section, a defendant's spouse should not testify if they do not consent. If the defendant does not consent, their attorney likely cannot provide any valuable testimony either. These are two examples of "witnesses who refuse to testify based on privilege." If the prosecution's only evidence consists of testimony from the spouse and the attorney, even if they used this evidence to obtain an arrest warrant or a grand jury indictment, the case will be dismissed at the preliminary hearing for lack of probable cause.
我们会在证据篇学到，被告人的配偶如果不同意，不应当出庭。被告人自己如果不同意，其律师大概率也没有任何有价值的证词可以提供。这就是“享有特权而拒绝作证的证人”的两个例子。如果检方的证据只有配偶和律师的证词，即使他可以用这些证据申请到了拘捕令，或者获得了大陪审团的起诉，案件也会在preliminary hearing中因为没有probable cause而被驳回起诉。
There are also frequent evidentiary suppression hearings before and during the trial, where both parties determine, outside the presence of the jury, whether certain evidence or testimony can be used at trial and whether a witness is competent to testify. Even if the court decides that certain evidence is admissible, it does not prevent the defendant from informing the jury about how the evidence was obtained to cast doubt on its credibility.
庭前和庭中还经常会有排除证据的听证会，双方在陪审团不在的情况下决定某项证据、证词是否能在庭审时使用，以及证人是否有资格出庭。即使法庭决定某项证据可以采纳，也并不影响被告人告诉陪审团证据获取的方式，让陪审团怀疑其可信度。
Where a trial court refused to allow a defendant to introduce testimony regarding the specific circumstances under which evidence was obtained, the Supreme Court held that this deprived the defendant of the right to present a defense, violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986)]
初审法庭拒绝被告人引入关于取证时的具体情形的证词，最高法院认为这剥夺了被告人的辩护权，违反宪法第14修正案的正当程序。[Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986)]
过堂和答辩Arraignment and Pleas
Criminal proceedings must include an arraignment and a plea, which are generally scheduled at the initial appearance or possibly later. This is a unique stage in common law criminal procedure, during which the judge or clerk reads the charges against the defendant. The defendant may:
刑事诉讼一定要进行过堂（arraignment）和答辩（plea），一般安排在initial appearance，也可能更晚一些。这是普通法刑事诉讼的特有环节，在这个环节中，法官或书记员宣读对被告人的指控。被告人可以：
Under negotiations between the prosecution and defense, for every charge against Trump, he was swiftly arraigned, entered a plea, and released on bail after a brief detention, which did not affect his ability to continue traveling between states and campaigning. Trump has currently pleaded not guilty to all charges.
在控辩双方的协商下，特朗普被起诉的每一个罪名都在短暂的羁押后迅速过堂、答辩、保释，丝毫没有影响他继续在各州之间穿梭和竞选。特朗普目前对所有罪名作无罪答辩。
Before a defendant pleads guilty, they must understand:
在被告人认罪之前，他应该明白：
It is best for the court to ensure the defendant understands these points during the arraignment; if not, it is also acceptable for the defendant's own attorney to explain them clearly [Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (2005)]. Otherwise, the guilty plea may be deemed involuntary.
法院最好在过堂的时候就让被告人明白这些，如果没有的话，由被告人自己的律师说清楚也是可以的[Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (2005)]。否则有可能被认为不是自愿认罪的。
If no one explains to the defendant that second-degree murder includes the intent to kill someone, the defendant's guilty plea may not be voluntary [Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (1976)].
如果没有人向被告人解释二级谋杀包含故意杀人的意图（intent to kill someone），被告人的认罪可能就不是自愿的[Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (1976)]。
There are very few grounds to withdraw a guilty plea, such as an involuntary plea, the court's lack of jurisdiction to accept the plea, or ineffective assistance of counsel that misled the plea.
只有很少的理由可以撤销被告人的认罪，比如非自愿认罪、法院无权（lack of jurisdiction）接受被告人的认罪、律师误导了他的认罪。
If the defendant can prove that, but for counsel's incompetence, they likely would not have pleaded guilty, the plea can be withdrawn [Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985)]. The same applies if an attorney incorrectly tells a defendant that they will not be deported if convicted; if the defendant likely would not have pleaded guilty had they known they would be deported, the plea must be withdrawn even if the defendant's chances of winning at trial were slim [Lee v. United States, 582 U.S. 357 (2017)].
如果被告人能证明如果不是律师的无能（incompetence），他大概率不会认罪，那么认罪可以被撤销[Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985)]。同样的情形适用于律师告诉被告人他如果被判有罪也不会被遣返，但却是错误的，如果被告人知道自己会被遣返，大概率不会认罪。那么即使被告人胜诉机会渺茫，认罪也必须撤销。[Lee v. United States, 582 U.S. 357 (2017)]。
Fear of the death penalty, fear that illegally obtained evidence will be used, the prosecution's withholding of exculpatory or mitigating evidence, or indeed any procedural or substantive errors other than those in the plea process itself are insufficient to withdraw a guilty plea. Since the defendant is fully aware of the existence of these errors, they should plead not guilty and raise procedural or substantive defenses; by choosing to plead guilty instead of defending the case, it is considered a deliberate choice made by the defendant in their best interest [Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973)].
害怕死刑、害怕非法获得的证据会被使用，检方隐瞒无罪或罪轻的证据，甚至除了认罪过程本身以外任何程序和实体错误都不足以撤销认罪。既然被告人充分知晓这些错误的存在，他应该不认罪然后进行程序或实体的抗辩，既然不抗辩而是选择认罪，会被认为是被告人深思熟虑后认为最符合自己利益的选择[Tollett v. Henderson, 41 1 U.S. 258 (1973)]。
A guilty plea can be used directly as an admission of fact in subsequent litigation, including civil lawsuits. However, pleading guilty does not mean the defendant admits the search was lawful, so it does not preclude them from filing a civil lawsuit against the police for an illegal search [Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306 (1983)].
认罪可以在之后的诉讼中直接当事实用，包括民事诉讼。但认罪不代表被告人承认搜查是合法的，所以不影响他对警察提出非法搜查的民事诉讼[Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306 (1983)]。
辩诉交易Plea Bargaining
Modern courts generally treat plea bargains through the lens of contract law, meaning the agreement is binding on both the prosecution and the defense.
现代法院通常用合同的观点来处理辩诉交易（plea bargain），也就是该协议对控辩双方都有效。
If the prosecution withdraws an offer and proposes a new one before the defendant has accepted the old offer, and the defendant accepts the new offer, the defendant naturally cannot attempt to accept the previous offer. [Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504 (1984)]
在被告人还没有接受旧的要约之前，检方撤回了要约并提出了新的要约，被告人接受了新的要约后，当然不能尝试再去接受先前的要约。[Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504 (1984)]
However, the judge is not bound by the plea agreement. If the judge finds it unfair, they may refuse to enforce it and proceed with a jury trial. But the judge must generally consider that the defendant's guilty plea is based on the agreement, so they cannot simply bypass the agreement and impose a harsher sentence. If the prosecutor reneges, the court may consider specifically enforcing the plea agreement or allowing the defendant to withdraw their guilty plea.
但法官不受辩诉协议的约束。如果法官认为不公平，可以不予执行、继续由陪审团审判。但法官通常要考虑被告人的认罪是基于协议的，所以不能直接绕过协议加重刑法。如果检察官反悔，法院可以考虑强制执行辩诉协议，或者撤销被告人的认罪。
After compensating the victim over 1.6 million RMB, the defendant received a probation sentencing recommendation from the prosecutor, but the trial court still sentenced him to 2 years of actual imprisonment. When the defendant appealed and the procuratorate protested on the grounds that the sentence was too heavy, the appellate court further increased the sentence to 3 years and 6 months. It is widely acknowledged that courts indeed do not have to follow the prosecutor's sentencing recommendations, but doing so will affect future negotiations regarding compensation among prosecutors, defendants, and victims. [(2019) Jing 0109 Xing Chu No. 138, (2019) Jing 01 Xing Zhong No. 628]
在赔偿了被害人160余万元后，被告人获得了检察官缓刑了量刑建议，但初审法院依然判了2年实刑。在被告人上诉、检察院以量刑过重为由抗诉的情况下，二审法院将刑期进一步提高到3年6个月。普遍认为法院的确不用听从检察官的量刑建议，但这么做会影响之后检察官与被告人、被害人协商赔偿事宜。【（2019）京0109刑初138号，（2019）京01刑终628号】
Defense counsel has a duty to communicate prosecutorial offers to the defendant. If counsel fails to do so, and the defendant can prove a reasonable probability that they would have accepted the offer within its validity period had counsel communicated it timely, the defendant may request that the prosecution reoffer the plea, subject to the court's discretion to accept it. [Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012)]
律师有义务将检察官的要约告诉被告人，如果律师没有这么做，而被告人能证明如果律师及时沟通，被告人很有可能在要约有效期内接受，也可以要求检方重新提出该要约，并由法院裁量是否接受。[Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012)]
If the defendant fails to act in accordance with the requirements of the plea agreement after signing it (typically testifying against a co-defendant), the plea agreement may be rescinded. [Ricketts v. Adamson, 483 U.S. 1 (1987)]
如果被告人签署认罪协议后不按照协议内的要求行事（通常是作证指控另一个被告人），认罪协议可以被撤销[Ricketts v. Adamson, 483 U.S. 1 (1987)]。
During plea negotiations, the prosecution may threaten to bring more serious charges in exchange for the defendant pleading guilty, waiving constitutional rights, or forgoing a lengthy trial. Similarly, although the prosecution must disclose exculpatory or mitigating evidence to the defendant, failing to do so during the plea negotiation process does not necessarily render the defendant's guilty plea involuntary.
在认罪协商时，检方可以威胁使用更重的罪名来换取被告人认罪、放弃宪法权利、放弃冗长的诉讼等。同理，检方虽然应当将无罪或罪轻的证据提供给被告人，但如果没有在认罪协商的过程中这么做，也并不能说被告人的认罪就不是自愿的。
适格和精神失常Competency and Insanity
Generally, standing refers to whether a plaintiff in a civil or administrative lawsuit is qualified to bring a claim. Previously, we also learned that an applicant for the exclusionary rule must have standing. If illegal evidence is obtained by violating a third party's constitutional rights, the defendant lacks standing to seek its exclusion.
通常适格（standing）是指在民事或行政诉讼中的原告是否有资格提出诉讼。在前面，我们还学习了非法证据排除的申请人必须适格。如果一个非法证据是通过侵犯第三人的宪法权利获得的，被告人就没有资格（standing）申请排除。
Competence in a criminal trial refers to whether the defendant is fit to stand trial. If the defendant's mental state renders them unable to understand the trial proceedings, they cannot mount an effective defense, and such a trial violates due process. The difference between competence and insanity in criminal law is that insanity refers to the mental state at the time of the offense, which negates culpability; whereas competence refers to the mental state at the time of trial, and if incompetent, the defendant cannot be subjected to trial.
刑事审判中的适格（competence）是指被告人是否能够被审判。如果被告人的精神状态导致他无法理解庭审的内容，他就无法提出有效的辩护，这样的审判是违反正当程序的。它和刑法中精神失常（insanity）的区别是，精神失常指的是案发时的精神状态，不可罚；而适格是庭审时的状态，如果不适格，被告人不可以被接受审判。
If the judge observes that the defendant exhibits obvious signs of mental abnormality, the judge must sua sponte hold a competency hearing; continuing the trial would be unconstitutional. [Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966)]. If the defense counsel raises the issue of the defendant's incompetency, state law may require the defense to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is mentally unfit to stand trial, but no higher standard is permitted. [Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996)].
如果法官观察到被告人有明显精神不正常的举动，他必须主动进行适格听证会，继续审判是违反宪法的[Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966)]。如果被告人的律师主动提出被告人不适格，州法最高可以要求律师提供大于对半开的证据（preponderance of the evidence）证明被告人精神上不能接受审判的[Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996)]。
An incompetent defendant may be briefly committed for treatment, but if a decision is made to commit them indefinitely, a separate civil commitment hearing must be held beforehand.
不适格的被告人可以被短暂关押治疗，但如果决定无限期关押治疗，必须事先开一个单独的听证会。
A defendant acquitted by reason of insanity may be committed for treatment, and the duration of the commitment may even exceed the maximum possible sentence for the offense. However, once the defendant regains their sanity, sufficient procedural safeguards must be provided to determine whether continued commitment is necessary.
以精神失常为抗辩的被告人如果被判无罪，可以被要求关押治疗，治疗的期限甚至可以超过最长的刑期。但是在被告人精神恢复之后，要给足够的程序保障决定是否有必要继续关押治疗。
正式庭审和被告人权利Formal Trial and Defendant's Rights
A formal trial is generally divided into three parts: opening statements (opening argument), presentation of evidence, and closing arguments. The order for opening statements and presentation of evidence is prosecution, then defense. The order for closing arguments is prosecution, defense, and prosecution rebuttal. By comparison, civil litigation generally follows the same order (plaintiff, then defendant).
正式的庭审一般分为三个部分：开场陈词（opening argument），证据展示和结案陈词（closing argument）。开场陈词和证据展示的顺序是检方-辩方，结案陈词的顺序是检方-辩方-检方反驳。作为对比，民诉基本也是这个顺序（原告-被告）。
After the prosecution rests its case, and before the defense presents any evidence, if the judge determines that no reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt—in other words, there is no legally sufficient evidence (or substantial evidence) to support a guilty verdict—the judge may bypass the jury and directly enter a judgment of acquittal.
检方证据展示完毕后，辩护人尚未展示任何证据。法官认为，一个合理的陪审团不会在排除一切合理怀疑之后裁决被告人有罪，换句话说，没有法律上足够的证据（legally sufficient evidence, substantial evidence）支持被告人有罪。法官此时可以直接绕过陪审团判决无罪。
The defendant has the right to an unbiased judge. This includes the recusal of a judge who has actual malice against the defendant, has a financial interest in the case, or previously served as a prosecutor who made an adverse decision in the same case.
被告人有权让有偏见的法官回避。包括对被告人有恶意（malice）、利益相关（financial interest）或者曾经担任过对该案作出不利决定的检察官。
The defendant has the right to stand trial without wearing prison attire, provided they make a timely objection. The defendant also has the right to stand trial without visible shackles or restraints, unless the judge determines they pose a danger to the courtroom or a flight risk.
被告人有权不穿囚服受审，但他需要及时提出。被告人有权不穿戴戒具受审，除非法官认为他会对法庭造成危险，或者有逃跑的风险。
If a judge, prior to taking the bench, served as a prosecutor and approved seeking the death penalty against the defendant, the judge must recuse themselves from the case. [Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. 1 (2016)]
法官在上任之前担任检察官，且批准过对被告人以寻求死刑，他必须在该案中回避。[Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. 1 (2016)]
The defendant has the right to a public trial. In fact, trials must generally be open to the public; even if both parties agree to a closed trial, the court will usually not permit it. Therefore, proceedings including preliminary hearings, suppression hearings, and jury selection (voir dire) must be open. Closing a trial to the public is subject to the strict scrutiny standard learned in Constitutional Law: it must serve a compelling interest, restrict information with the least intrusive means, and the court must consider reasonable alternatives to closure. [Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984)]
被告人有权让庭审公开。事实上，庭审必须公开，即使双方都同意不公开审理，法院通常也不会同意。所以，包括preliminary hearing、证据排除听证、陪审团选取（voir dire）在内的程序都要公开。拒绝公开庭审需要用宪法中学过的严格标准审查，为了服务紧迫的利益、用最小的侵害屏蔽信息，且法庭必须考虑不公开审理的合理替代方案。[Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984)]
During jury selection, the judge did not allow the defendant's uncle to attend because numerous prospective jurors needed to be seated. The defense demonstrated that reasonable accommodations could have been made—for example, seating 14 prospective jurors in the jury box and the rest in the gallery, which would have freed up at least 14 seats, enough for the uncle to attend. The trial judge believed he had the discretion to determine appropriate arrangements, including preventing the uncle from hearing the jurors' discussions. The Supreme Court held that the case should be retried; regardless of whether there was a compelling interest to close the proceeding, the judge was required to consider reasonable alternatives. [Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010)]
在陪审团选取过程中，法官不允许被告人的叔叔旁听，因为有众多候选陪审员要就座。辩护人证明了当时明明可以有合理的安排——比如让14个候选人坐到陪审员席，让剩下的候选人坐旁听席，这样就空出了至少14个座位，足够安排叔叔旁听。初审法官认为自己有权决定怎样的安排是合适的，包括不要让叔叔听到陪审员的讨论。最高法院认为案件应该重新审理，且不说这里有没有紧迫的利益不公开庭审，即使有，法官也要作出合适的替代安排。[Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010)]
However, prohibiting photography, video recording, or live broadcasting does not violate the Constitution; this is governed by state law and the trial judge's discretion. Conversely, if photography, recording, and broadcasting are so intrusive that they encourage witnesses to exaggerate and prevent the judge and jury from acting impartially, a mistrial may be declared [Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965)]. Extensive media coverage during a trial that jurors inevitably encounter can also deprive the defendant of a fair trial [Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966)]. Today, with the ubiquity and miniaturization of photography and recording equipment, an increasing number of state courts permit live broadcasting of trials, provided that media coverage does not influence the jurors' views on the case. Federal criminal proceedings prohibit photography and video recording. Prohibiting photography and recording does not mean reporters can be barred from attending and reporting on the trial. Allowing reporters to cover the trial through text and sketches is not only an important component of a public trial but also implicates important First Amendment rights.
但是，不允许拍照、录像、直播并不违反宪法，由州法和庭审法官说了算。反而，如果拍照、录像和直播过于声势壮大，让证人倾向于夸大其词，法官和陪审员不能秉公办事，庭审可能被判无效[Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965)]；在庭审过程中大量的媒体报告让陪审员不可避免地接触，也会导致被告人无法接受公证的审判[Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966)]。现在，随着拍照和摄影的设备普遍化和小型化，越来越多的州法院开始庭审直播，但始终注意媒体的报导以不能影响到陪审员对案件的观点为限。联邦层面的刑事诉讼是禁止拍照和录像的。不允许拍照、录像不代表可以不允许记者进入报道庭审。允许记者用文字、素描画报道庭审不仅是庭审公开的重要组成部分，还涉及宪法第1修正案的重要权利。
The defendant has the right to have the prosecution disclose exculpatory or mitigating evidence [Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)]. If it can ultimately be proven that the evidence the prosecutor failed to disclose—whether intentionally concealed or inadvertently omitted—had a reasonable probability of changing the outcome of the trial, the conviction must be overturned [Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73 (2012)]. However, the defendant does not have the right to require the police to preserve all evidence, unless the defendant can prove that the police acted in bad faith in destroying potentially exculpatory evidence.
被告人有权让检察官提供关于被告人无罪、罪轻的证据[Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)]。如果最后能证明检察官没能披露的证据——无论是有意隐瞒的还是无意疏漏——有合理可能性改变判决结果时，定罪必须被推翻[Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73 (2012)]。但是，被告人无权让警方保留所有证据，除非被告人能证明警方是恶意销毁了对他有利的证据。
The police lost physical evidence that might have exonerated the defendant, but the defendant could neither prove that the evidence would have actually helped him nor that the police acted in bad faith; thus, there was no constitutional violation [Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988)]. Of course, the defendant may raise this significant doubt to the jury during the trial.
警方弄丢了可能证明被告人无罪的证物，但被告人一不能证明证物的确对被告人有帮助，二不能证明警方是恶意的，所以并没有宪法问题[Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988)]。当然，被告人可以在庭审时对陪审团提出这个重要的疑点。
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant the right to confront witnesses against them. This includes the right of the defendant and the jury to observe the witness's demeanor while testifying, and the right to cross-examine adverse testimonial statements. We will study the Confrontation Clause in detail in the Evidence section. In Criminal Procedure, we must grasp that the right to confrontation includes the defendant's right to be present, at least starting from jury selection [Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370 (1892)].
宪法第6修正案规定被告人有和证人对质的权利，这包括他和陪审团有权观察证人在作证时的语气神态，并交叉盘问对他不利的指控（testimonial statement）。我们将在证据篇详细学习对质条款（Confrontation Clause）。在刑诉篇，我们要掌握对质权包括至少从选择陪审团时，被告人就有权在场[Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370 (1892)]。
Because the courtroom was too hot, the prosecutor and defense attorney finalized the jury selection in the judge's chambers; this violated the defendant's right to be present.
因为法庭太热，所以检察官和辩护人在法官办公室敲定了陪审团的人选，这侵犯了被告人的在场权。
However, if the defendant disrupts the courtroom proceedings, they may be deemed to have waived their right to be present.
但被告人如果破坏法庭秩序，可以视为放弃了在场权。
A defendant who harasses witnesses or disrupts courtroom order may be denied the right to confrontation [Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970)]. The same applies to a defendant who voluntarily leaves the courtroom and is tried in absentia [Taylor v. United States, 414 U.S. 17 (1974)].
可以不允许纠缠证人或者破坏法庭秩序的被告人对质[Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970)]，自愿离开法庭而被缺席审判同理[Taylor v. United States, 414 U.S. 17 (1974)]。
During closing arguments, the prosecutor stated that because the defendant testified last, he had the opportunity to observe the testimony of previous witnesses and tailor his own testimony accordingly. The defendant argued that this closing argument violated his constitutional rights to be present at his criminal trial and to confront witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the central purpose of a trial is to discover the truth, and allowing the prosecutor to comment on the defendant's credibility is necessary. [Portuondo v. Agard, 529 U.S. 61 (2000)]
检察官在结案陈词时说，被告人最后作证，所以他有机会观察前面证人的证词，并根据前面的证词调整自己的证词。被告人争辩说，检察官如此结辩，侵犯了他出席自己刑事审判和与证人对质的宪法权利。最高法院认为法庭的核心目的是发掘真相，允许检察官对被告人的诚信进行评论是必要的。[Portuondo v. Agard, 529 U.S. 61 (2000)]
陪审团Jury
A defendant has the right to a jury trial for serious offenses. An offense for which the authorized penalty is more than six months' imprisonment must be tried by a jury. An offense with an authorized penalty of six months or less is presumptively non-serious (petty), but considering additional penalties, a jury trial may be required. We will further compare grand juries, criminal juries, and civil juries in the Civil Procedure section.
被告人有权要求严重（serious）的犯罪由陪审团审理。可能被判处6个月以上监禁的刑罚必须由陪审团审理。可能被判处6个月以下（包括6个月）则默认不严重，但考虑到附加刑则可能需要陪审团审理。我们会在民诉篇进一步对比大陪审团、刑事陪审团和民事陪审团。
An offense punishable only by a fine is not necessarily a non-serious (petty) offense. If storing hazardous waste carries a fine of $50,000 per day of violation, the number of days of violation must be determined by a jury, rather than a judge determining that the violation lasted 762 days and imposing a $38.1 million fine. [Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (2012)]
仅处以罚金刑也不一定是不严重的犯罪。如果放置危险物品每天都要罚5万美金，那么放置的天数就必须由陪审团来决定，而不是由法官来决定放置了762天、处3810万美元罚金。[Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (2012)]
Driving under the influence carries a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment and a $5,000 fine, along with a possible probation term of up to five years. The defendant was sentenced to one year of probation and a fine. An offense with a maximum penalty of six months is presumptively non-serious; although an additional fine provision is included, considering that probation is commonly applied, a jury trial is not required. [United States v. Nachtigal, 507 U.S. 1 (1993)]
酒后驾车最高可判处6个月监禁和5000美元罚金，同时可以适用不超过五年的缓刑。被告人被判处1年缓刑和罚金。最高判处6个月的罪行默认是不严重的，虽然额外加了罚金条款，到考虑到通常会适用缓刑，所以不需要陪审团审理。[United States v. Nachtigal, 507 U.S. 1 (1993)]
When multiple non-serious (petty) offenses are tried together, the aggregate potential sentence may exceed six months, but a jury trial is still not required. [Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322 (1996)]
多个不严重的犯罪合并审理后刑期可能超过6个月，但依然不需要陪审团审理。[Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322 (1996)]
Civil contempt does not require a jury trial; even if the confinement exceeds six months, it is constitutionally permissible as long as it is a reasonable means to coerce the party to comply with a court order. However, for post-trial criminal contempt, the actual sentence imposed (rather than the potential sentence) is considered. If the actual sentence exceeds six months, a jury trial is required. An appellate court may reduce the sentence to exactly six months to avoid the constitutional issue. [Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488 (1974)].
民事的藐视法庭不需要陪审团审理，即使关押超过6个月，只要是让当事人履行法庭义务的合理手段，宪法也是允许的。但是庭后的、刑事的藐视法庭罪则考虑实际的刑期（而不是可能被判处的刑期）。如果超过6个月，需要由陪审团审理。上诉法院可以将刑期调整为刚好6个月回避宪法问题[Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488 (1974)]。
A jury typically consists of 12 members, but the minimum can be 6 members. [Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978)]. Jury verdicts must be unanimous; at least for guilty verdicts, if any juror dissents from the other 11, the case must be retried. [Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___ (2020)].
陪审团通常由12人组成，最少可以是6个人[Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978)]。陪审团的裁决必须一致，至少在有罪裁决中，任何人有和其他11个人不同的意见，案件都必须重新审理[Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___ (2020)]。
The jury pool (venire facias) must be selected from a fair cross-section of the local community. Although a defendant cannot demand that the demographic proportions of the jury pool perfectly match the community [Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474 (1990)], they can challenge the significant underrepresentation of a distinct group, such as women [Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975)]. As we learned in the Constitutional Law section, both the prosecution and the defense have the right to a specific number of peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors without stating a reason. However, these challenges cannot be based on race or gender, because the final decision to exclude a prospective juror is made by the court, and considerations based on race and gender violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
陪审团候选人（venire facias）应当从当地的社区中选取，虽然被告人不能要求候选人中各人群的比例完全和社区一致[Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474 (1990)]，但可以提出某个人群的人数显然不足，比如女性[Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975)]。我们在宪法篇学过，控辩双方都有权利不附理由排除特定数量的候选陪审员，但不能是基于种族和性别，因为最终决定排除候选人的决定是法院作出的，而基于种族和性别的考量违反了宪法的平等保护原则。
In addition to peremptory challenges, both the prosecution and the defense can exclude prospective jurors for cause based on reasons such as bias. Challenges for cause are unlimited in number.
除了不附理由的排除，控辩双方还可以基于偏见（bias）等原因附理由（for cause）排除候选陪审员，这种排除是不占名额的。
In capital cases, if a prospective juror states that they would never vote to impose the death penalty under any circumstances, they may be excluded for cause by the prosecution because they cannot fulfill their duties as a juror. Similarly, a juror who would automatically vote for the death penalty upon a guilty verdict may be excluded for cause by the defense. If a prospective juror merely expresses qualms about the death penalty but can follow the judge's instructions and fulfill their duties as a juror, they cannot be excluded for cause. [Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648 (1987)].
在死刑案件中，如果候选人表示他无论如何都不会同意死刑，可以被检方附理由排除，因为他无法履行陪审员的职责。同理，一个无论如何都会在有罪判决之后支持死刑的陪审员也可以被辩方附理由排除。如果候选人仅仅表示他对死刑有顾忌，但是可以遵循法官指示履行陪审员的职责，就不可以附理由排除[Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648 (1987)]。
In a capital case involving an interracial crime (e.g., a Black defendant accused of murdering a white victim), the defendant must be permitted to question prospective jurors about racial bias. In non-capital cases, such questioning is not mandatorily required. [Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28 (1986)]
死刑案件如果本身涉及种族问题（黑人枪杀白人），必须允许被告人询问陪审员是否有种族偏见，非死刑案件不强制要求允许这种询问。[Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28 (1986)]
If a judge erroneously denies a defendant's peremptory challenge, it does not necessarily result in the reversal of the conviction, as long as the jury ultimately seated is impartial. [Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (2009)]
如果法官错误地拒绝被告人无理由排除某个陪审员(peremptory challenges)，但只要最后组成的陪审团是没有偏见的，并不必然导致判决被推翻。[Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (2009)]
If the defendant receives excessive pre-trial media exposure locally, affecting the selection of an impartial jury, they may request a change of venue. However, the judge may ask appropriate questions during jury selection (voir dire) to exclude biased jurors.
如果在庭审前被告人被当地的媒体过度曝光，影响公证陪审员的选取时，可以要求改变管辖地（change of venue），但法官可以在选取陪审团时预先询问适当的问题来排除有偏见的陪审团。
However, some biases cannot be cured. If a juror has watched a televised interview of the defendant before the trial—in which the defendant confessed to the crime—the juror must be excluded, even if they claim during selection that they can judge impartially. [Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963)]. If a substantial majority of the local population has watched the defendant's televised confession, constitutional due process requires a change of venue.
但有的偏见是无法消除的。如果陪审员在庭审前看过被告人的电视采访——在电视上被告人承认犯下了该罪行——陪审员就必须被排除，即使他在被选中时说自己会公正裁判也无济于事[Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963)]。如果当地大多数民众都观看了被告人的电视认罪，宪法正当程序就要求必须改变管辖地（change of venue）。
Aggravating factors for sentencing must be found by a jury; a judge cannot independently impose a sentence based on aggravating factors they found themselves.
量刑的加重情节必须由陪审团作出，法官不能自己按照加重的情节量刑。
Armed robbery carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years, but if a firearm is brandished during the robbery, the mandatory minimum is 7 years. The jury only convicts the defendant of armed robbery but does not find that a firearm was brandished. The judge may sentence the defendant to 7 years or more within the statutory sentencing range based solely on the armed robbery conviction. However, the judge cannot independently find the fact of brandishing a firearm during sentencing and use it to mandate a sentence of 7 years or more. Brandishing a firearm, as an aggravating factor that increases the mandatory minimum penalty, must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; otherwise, it violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. [Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013)]
持枪抢劫起刑5年，但是如果在抢劫的过程中挥舞枪支起刑7年。陪审团只认定被告人持枪抢劫，但没有认定挥舞枪支。法官可以仅根据持枪的情节，在量裁范围内判7年以上。但法官不能在说理的时候自主认定挥霍枪支的行为，并直接在7年以上量刑。挥舞枪支作为刑罚的加重情节，必须由陪审团，在排除一切合理怀疑后，作出事实认定，否则就是违反了被告人宪法第6修正案由陪审团审理的权利。[Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013)]
If the defendant pleads guilty, similarly, the sentence can only be imposed within the sentencing range of the offense to which the defendant admitted guilt.
如果被告人作有罪答辩，同理只能在被告人承认有罪的罪名的刑期范围内量刑。
The facts admitted by the defendant carried a maximum sentence of 53 months under the sentencing guidelines. The judge found that the defendant acted with deliberate cruelty during the kidnapping, an aggravating factor that could increase the maximum sentence for kidnapping to 10 years. The Supreme Court held that because the fact of deliberate cruelty was neither admitted by the defendant nor found by a jury, the judge's direct consideration of this factor in sentencing violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. [Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)]
被告人承认的事实根据量刑指南最高只能判53个月，法官发现被告人在劫持时有蓄意的残忍，该情节可以将劫持罪加重至最长10年。最高法院认为，蓄意残忍的情节既没有被被告人承认，也没有被陪审团认定，法官径直将该情节考虑进量刑违反了被告人宪法第6修正案的权利。[Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)]
The jury convicted the defendant of "second-degree assault" and also found that the defendant was "armed with a deadly weapon" during the assault. The only possible deadly weapon involved was a firearm, and if the court had instructed the jury to consider whether the defendant was "armed with a firearm," the jury would have returned the same verdict. If state law prescribes different sentencing ranges for a "deadly weapon" and a "firearm," the court may impose the heavier sentence for a "firearm." [Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (2006)]
陪审团认为“二级袭击”成立，陪审团同时还认为被告人在袭击时“携带了致命武器”。唯一可能的致命武器是枪支，如果法院指示陪审团考虑被告人袭击时是否“携带了枪支”，陪审团会带来一样的裁决。如果州法规定“致命武器”和“枪支”量刑幅度是不同的，法院可以在更重的“枪支”量刑。[Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (2006)]
The Constitution does not have specific requirements for jury instructions. Generally, the judge must instruct the jury that the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A judge must absolutely never direct a guilty verdict. In fact, a judge cannot direct the jury to find any specific fact against the defendant.
宪法没有对陪审团指示有具体的要求，通常来说，法官要告诉陪审团被告人在证明有罪之前是无辜的（innocent until proven guilty）和需要排除一切合理怀疑才能给被告人定罪。法官绝对不可以给有罪的陪审团指示。事实上，法官不可以给陪审团任何确定的事实。
Even for a fact like "June 15 of this year was a Tuesday," the judge cannot directly instruct the jury that they must accept it as conclusive; the judge can only instruct the jury that they "may or may not accept the noticed fact as conclusive."
哪怕“今年6月15日是星期二”这种事实，法官都不可以直接要求陪审团必须采纳，只能指示陪审团“可以，但不是必须采纳”。
量刑Sentencing
After a jury's guilty verdict, sentencing is generally determined by the judge. When necessary, a separate hearing should be held to hear mitigating or aggravating factors and evidence. Such hearings do not need to strictly adhere to the rules of evidence; for example, hearsay may be admissible (which we will study in detail in the Evidence section), and there are no strict exclusionary rules. If there are new aggravating circumstances, the defendant still has the right to confrontation.
在陪审团裁决有罪后。量刑一般来说由法官决定，必要时应当单独开庭听取从轻或从重的因素和证据。这类听证会不用完全顾及证据规则，比如hearsay就可以使用（我们会在证据篇详细学习），也没有严格的证据排除规则。如果有新的加重情节，被告人依然有对质的权利。
We have learned that aggravating factors such as 'possession of a weapon' or 'malice aforethought' must be determined by a jury. However, aggravating factors that are unrelated to the crime itself and do not increase the penalty beyond the statutory maximum, such as being a 'repeat offender,' showing a 'lack of remorse,' or posing a 'danger to the public,' do not need to be determined by a jury. However, when the judge considers evidence of these aggravating factors, the defendant must be given the right to confrontation [Specht v. Patterson, 386 U.S. 605 (1966)]. This right is particularly prominent in capital cases [Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (1977)].
我们学习过“持有武器”，“事前恶意”这类加重情节必须要由陪审团作出，但“累犯”、“无心悔过”，“对公众有危害”这类和犯罪本身无关也不超过法定最高量刑的加重情节不需要由陪审团作出。只是法官在考虑这些加重情节的证据时，要给被告人对质的权利[Specht v. Patterson, 386 U.S. 605 (1966)]。这种权利在死刑案件中尤为突出[Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (1977)]。
If the defendant is convicted of multiple charges, the judge may decide whether the sentences are to be served consecutively or concurrently [Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009)].
如果被告人被控多项罪名，可以由法官决定这些刑期是累计服刑还是同时服刑（consecutively or concurrently） [Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009)]。
If Zhang San is sentenced to 3 years for Crime A and 3 years for Crime B, serving them consecutively means 6 years, while concurrently means 3 years. Where permitted by sentencing guidelines, the judge may also determine a sentence between 3 and 6 years.
张三因甲罪被判3年，乙罪被判3年，consecutively就是6年，concurrently就是3年。在量刑指南允许的情况下，法官也可以在3到6年之间决定一个刑期。
The U.S. also has a principle against increasing sentences on appeal, but the rationale is not that the appellant might be afraid to appeal due to the risk of an increased sentence, but rather that they cannot be retaliated against by the judge or prosecutor for appealing. If there is no risk of vindictiveness, the sentence can be increased.
美国也有上诉不加刑，但考虑的不是上诉人怕被加刑而不敢上诉，而是不能因上诉被法官或检察官报复，如果没有被报复的危险，可以加刑。
The vast majority of appeals only consider the arguments raised by the appellant, and upon a successful appeal, the trial judge corrects the errors and retries the case. However, some states adopt a de novo review system similar to China's comprehensive review, meaning the second instance is almost equivalent to repeating the first-instance procedure. Under this system, the second-instance judge has no motive to retaliate against the appellant, so an increased sentence is permitted [Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972)]. However, the prosecutor cannot increase the charges during the second instance, as this implies retaliation for the appeal itself [Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (1974)].
绝大多数上诉只考虑上诉人提出的论点，上诉成功后由一审法官更正错误后重新审理。但也有的州采取和中国一样的全面审查（de novo）制度，也就是二审几乎等于将一审程序重新走一遍。在这种制度下，二审法官没有动机报复上诉人，所以允许加刑[Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972)]。但是，检察官不能在二审时加重起诉的罪名，因为这涉嫌对上诉本身的报复[Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (1974)]。
If a successful appeal is remanded to the trial court, and the trial judge wishes to impose a harsher sentence, they must specify what conduct by the defendant after the first sentencing justifies it. If there is no new bad conduct after the first sentencing, the second sentence may not exceed the first. [North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969)]
上诉成功后打回一审法院，如果初审法官想要加刑，必须明确是被告人在第一次量刑之后的何种行为导致的。如果第一次量刑之后没有新的不良行为，第二次量刑不得超过第一次。[North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969)]
If the sentence is determined by a jury, the sentence can be increased on appeal or upon retrial after remand, because a jury obviously has no motive to retaliate against the defendant. [Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17 (1973)]
如果由陪审团决定刑期，二审或者打回后的重审都可以加刑，因为陪审团显然不会报复被告人。[Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17 (1973)]
Judges typically compare similar cases to impose an appropriate sentence; if no similar cases have occurred within the state, they may also compare cases from other states. However, the defendant has no right to demand that the judge must conduct a proportionality review comparing sentences in similar cases [Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37 (1984)].
法官通常会比照类似的案件来给一个适当的刑罚，如果本州还没有出现过类似的案件，还可以对比外州。但被告人无权要求法官必须要对比类似案件判罚[Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37 (1984)]。
The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments. The Supreme Court interprets this to mean that the punishment must be proportionate to the crime.
宪法第8修正禁止过高的罚金和过于严厉的刑罚，最高法院对此的解释是罪刑要相适应（proportionate）。
Sentences found to be disproportionate include: 20 years' imprisonment for falsifying a public document [Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910)], and life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a repeat offender convicted of a seventh nonviolent felony of passing a bad check [Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983)].
被认定罪刑不相适应的有：篡改公共文件被判20年监禁[Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910)]，第七次使用假支票的累犯被判不得假释的终身监禁[Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983)]。
Sentences found to be proportionate include: life imprisonment for possessing 650 grams of cocaine [Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991)], and a sentence of 25 years to life for a third-strike theft offense, even though the defendant only stole three golf clubs [Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003)]. The important distinction between this case and Solem v. Helm, supra, is that the repeat offender who stole the golf clubs had two prior violent felony convictions, and he would be eligible for parole after 25 years.
被认定罪刑相适应的有：运输650克可卡因被判终身监禁[Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991)]，第三次盗窃就被判25年后才能假释的终生监禁，即使只盗窃了三个高尔夫球杆[Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003)]。这个案件和Solem v. Helm, supra的重要区别是，盗窃高尔夫球杆的累犯之前两次都是暴力犯罪，而且他在25年后就可以假释。
The Constitution prohibits punishing a person for a mere status, such as defining being an alcoholic or being naked as a crime. Of course, it is permissible to prohibit appearing drunk or naked in public, because this does not prohibit the status, but rather the act of going out in public.
宪法禁止惩罚状态犯，比如将醉酒、裸体定义为犯罪。当然，可以禁止醉酒或裸体出现在大街上，因为这不是禁止状态，而是禁止上街的行为。
Specific penalties cannot be reserved solely for defendants who exercise their constitutional rights.
不能为被告人行使宪法权利保留特定的刑罚。
A statute providing that only a jury can impose the death penalty, and that a defendant can avoid the death penalty by waiving a jury trial, is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the defendant's right to demand a jury trial. The effect of invalidating this provision is that the jury cannot impose the death penalty either, but plea bargains reached out of fear of the death penalty remain valid [United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (1968)]. In practice, many death penalty cases must be decided by a jury; the correct statutory approach is that the defendant cannot waive a jury trial in such cases.
只有陪审团才能判死刑，如果不想判死刑可以豁免陪审团：这样的法条是违宪的，它侵犯了被告人要求陪审团审理案件的权利。这个法条的效果是要求陪审团也不能判死刑，但因为害怕死刑达成的辩诉交易是有效的[United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (1968)]。实务上很多死刑案件必须由陪审团作出，正确的法条是被告人不能在这样的案件中豁免陪审团。
The Constitution prohibits imprisoning a defendant solely because of their indigency and inability to pay a fine.
宪法禁止因为被告人贫穷无法交罚金而被监禁。
The Constitution does not prohibit the death penalty. In fact, the term 'capital' or references to the death penalty appear in several clauses of the Bill of Rights, indicating that from the original intent of the amendments, the death penalty is not unconstitutional. Even so, most states and the federal government have currently abolished or suspended the execution of the death penalty. The death penalty is reserved for extremely serious crimes, and the Supreme Court no longer supports imposing the death penalty in cases where no victim has died.
宪法并没有禁止死刑。事实上，权利法案的很多条款出现了死刑字样，说明光从修正案原意来看，死刑是不违宪的。即便如此，目前大多数州和联邦层面都已经废除或不再执行死刑。死刑只适用于极其严重的犯罪，最高法院已经不再支持在没有被害人死亡的案件中判死刑。
Therefore, economic crimes and drug offenses cannot be punished by the death penalty, nor can non-fatal rape cases, even the rape of a child [Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008)].
所以经济类犯罪和毒品类犯罪不能判死刑，非致命强奸案也不能判死刑，即使是强奸幼童[Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008)]。
Similar to China, defendants who were minors at the time of the crime cannot be sentenced to death [Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)]. Insane persons cannot be executed, even if they became insane after the crime or conviction [Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986)]. Although the definition of intellectual disability is left to the states, states may not arbitrarily set conditions for intellectual disability; for example, a rule requiring an IQ of 70 or below just to present evidence of intellectual disability is unconstitutional [Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014)].
和中国一样，犯罪时未成年的被告人不能判死刑[Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)]。精神病人不能执行死刑，即使是在犯罪或者定罪后疯的[Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986)]，虽然智力障碍（intellectual disability）的定义归州所有，但州不得武断地为智力障碍设定条件，比如规定智商至少在70以下才能提交智力障碍材料是违宪的[Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014)]。
Being insane at the time of the crime (insanity) is a criminal defense, rendering the defendant not punishable; being insane at the time of trial renders the defendant incompetent to stand trial, meaning they cannot be tried; becoming insane after trial means the defendant cannot be executed.
犯罪时疯了（insanity）是刑法的抗辩，不可罚；审判时疯了是不适格（incompetent to stand trial），不可以接受审判；审判后疯了不可以被执行死刑。
In addition to the very rare substantive application of the death penalty, sufficient procedural safeguards must also be provided to death row inmates. Theoretically, it is not unconstitutional for a judge to directly sentence a defendant to death based on a jury's guilty verdict and the statute itself, but in practice, the federal government and the vast majority of states that still have the death penalty require the jury to make a separate death penalty determination after the guilty verdict before the defendant can be sentenced to death. The death penalty must allow for the consideration of mitigating factors; a mandatory death penalty statute that completely precludes the judge or jury from considering mitigating factors is unconstitutional. If the offender also committed a lesser included offense, the judge must provide the jury with an instruction on at least one lesser included offense (if supported by the evidence) to avoid forcing the jury to choose only between the death penalty and acquittal [Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980)]. If the law provides that a certain crime, if not punished by death, carries at least a sentence of life imprisonment without parole, the defendant has the right to inform the jury of this fact, so the jury will not worry about the danger of the offender returning to society if they do not impose the death penalty [Lynch v. Arizona, 578 U.S. 613 (2016)]. Conversely, the prosecutor may not tell the jury that their decision can be overturned on appeal, which would diminish the jury's sense of responsibility when imposing the death penalty [Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985)].
除了实体上适用死刑的情况非常少，程序上也必须要给死刑犯足够的保障。理论上法官根据陪审团的有罪裁决和法条本身的规定直接判被告人死刑不违反宪法，但实务上联邦和绝大多数死刑依然存在的州都要求陪审团在有罪裁决之后再次作出死刑裁决才能判被告人死刑。死刑必须要能考虑减轻的因素，只能判死刑、完全不允许法官或陪审团考虑从轻处罚因素的罪名是违宪的。如果罪犯同时犯有更轻的罪名，法官必须向陪审团提供至少一个较轻罪名的指示（如果证据支持的话），避免陪审团只能在死刑和无罪释放之间二选一[Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980)]。如果法律规定某个罪名不判死刑，也至少是不得假释的终身监禁，被告人有权告诉陪审团这个事实，让陪审团即使不判死刑，也不用担心罪犯回归社会带来的危险[Lynch v. Arizona, 578 U.S. 613 (2016)]。反过来，检察官不得告诉陪审团他们的决定还可以被上诉推翻，这样陪审团在定死刑的时候就不会有所顾忌[Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985)]。
However, not all practices unfavorable to a death row inmate can overturn a death sentence. Allowing victim impact statements does not violate the defendant's constitutional rights, but is a natural counterweight to the defendant's right to present mitigating evidence, as established by long-standing judicial practice [Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991)]. The high proportion of Black individuals among death row inmates is not in itself a ground for claiming racial discrimination [McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987)]. If the method of execution causes the inmate to experience pain, it does not automatically invalidate the death penalty, unless there is clearly a more humane alternative that is deliberately not adopted [Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008)].
但不是所有对死刑犯不利的做法都能推翻死刑判决。允许被害人卖惨就不侵犯被告人的宪法权利，而是长期司法实践以来对被告人有权提交从轻处罚证据的天然对抗[Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991)]。死刑犯中黑人的比例较高也不是种族歧视的理由[McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987)]。如果执行死刑的方式会让犯人感受到痛苦，并不会当然撤销死刑，除非明明有更人道的方式却偏偏不采用[Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008)]。
辩护人Defense Counsel
第5修正案律师权Fifth Amendment Right to Counsel
In my lecture notes, defense counsel, defense attorney, and all lawyers mentioned in the criminal procedure section mean the same thing (counsel); non-lawyer advocates are not tested. The earliest time for counsel's intervention is also not tested, because the best criminal defense is preventing the client from committing a crime. For the MBE, a client being subjected to custodial interrogation triggers the Fifth Amendment right to counsel, while a client being formally charged triggers the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
我的讲义中提到的辩护人、辩护律师，包括刑诉篇中提到的所有律师都是同一个意思（counsel），非律师的辩护人不是考点。辩护人最早的介入时间也不是考点，因为最好的刑事辩护是避免客户犯罪。对MBE考试来说，客户被羁押审讯（custodial interrogation）会触发第5修正案的律师权，而客户被正式起诉后会触发第6修正案的律师权。
As introduced in the Miranda warnings section, the police must inform the suspect of the right to have an attorney present after custody and before interrogation; this is the Fifth Amendment right to counsel. Because this is very important, let's review its main testable points:
我们在米兰达警告一节介绍过警察必须在羁押后审讯之前告诉犯罪嫌疑人有让律师在场的权利，这就是第5修正案的律师权。因为这非常重要，我们再复习一下其中主要考点：
第6修正案律师权Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches only after formal charges have been filed. It requires that defendants facing felony charges or misdemeanor charges that actually result in imprisonment must have the assistance of counsel at all critical stages of the criminal prosecution. [Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972)]
第6修正案律师权只在正式起诉之后生效，它要求重罪和实际上被判监禁的轻罪的被告人在整个刑事诉讼的关键阶段（critical stages）必须要有律师在场。[Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972)]
For crimes posing a threat to public safety, Miranda warnings are not required. However, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has no such exception; after the defendant is formally charged, they must be informed of their right to retain counsel, and if the defendant is indigent, counsel must be appointed by the government.
如果是危害公共安全的犯罪不用宣读米兰达警告。而第6修正案的律师权没有这个例外，在被告人被正式起诉后，必须告知其有请律师的权利，并在被告人无法支付时由政府安排。
Critical stages include:
关键阶段包括：
If the initial appearance merely informs the defendant of the charges, allows them to consider how to plead, and explains how to obtain the assistance of counsel, it is not considered an arraignment, because an arraignment necessarily involves entering a plea. Even if the arraignment process is completed without counsel, but the defendant enters a not-guilty plea, this has no substantial impact on the defendant's rights, and a subsequent conviction need not be overturned. Unless the court attempts to enhance the sentence because the defendant did not plead guilty at the first opportunity, in which case the defendant could argue that counsel was not present during the plea.
如果第一次出庭（initial appearance）仅仅告知罪名，让被告人思考怎么答辩，以及如何获得律师帮助，这不算是过堂（arraignment），因为过堂必有答辩。甚至，就在没有律师的情况下走完了过堂流程，但被告人作的无罪答辩，这对被告人权利没有实质性影响，随后的定罪不必推翻。除非，法院要因为被告人没有第一时间认罪加刑，就可以辩称答辩的时候没有律师在场。
Non-critical stages where the presence of counsel is not required include:
那么不需要律师在场的非关键的阶段包括：
If the defendant was not represented by counsel at the initial conviction, the court cannot impose a suspended sentence that may result in actual incarceration. [Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002)]
如果在最初定罪时没有律师代理，法院就不能判处可能导致实际监禁的缓刑。[Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002)]
Unlike the Fifth Amendment right to counsel, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific.
和第5修正案的律师在场权不同，第6修正案的律师权是针对特定起诉的（charge specific）。
Police arranging for an informant to pose as a cellmate to elicit information from the defendant is permissible before formal charges are filed, because the defendant does not feel they are being interrogated. However, after formal charges are filed, this violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, because interrogation is a critical stage post-indictment [United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 (1980)], unless: 1. Counsel is present, which is of course impossible; 2. The defendant waives the right to counsel—although a defendant's willingness to speak after being read Miranda warnings can be considered a waiver of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel [Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009)], in the cellmate scenario, if the defendant is unaware of the other party's undercover police identity, it cannot be considered a voluntary waiver of the right to counsel; 3. The informant merely listens to the defendant and does not elicit statements [Kuhlman v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436 (1986)]; or 4. The conversation concerns a new, uncharged crime, because the defendant has not been formally charged with the new crime, so the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has not yet attached to it [Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990)].
警察安排线人装作狱友和被告人套话，在起诉之前这没有问题，因为被告人没有感受到被审讯。但是在起诉后这就违反了被告人第6修正案的权利，因为审讯是起诉之后的关键阶段[United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 (1980)]，除非1. 律师在场，这当然是不可能的，2. 被告人豁免了律师权，虽然对被告人宣读米兰达警告后依然愿意说话可以被视为豁免了第6修正案的律师权[Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009)]，但是在狱友情景中，如果不知道对方的卧底警察身份，不可以被视为自愿放弃了律师权，3. 该线人只是听被告人说，而不挑起问话[Kuhlman v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436 (1986)]，4. 该对话是针对新的犯罪，因为被告人没有就新的犯罪被起诉，所以第6修正案的律师权还没有生效[Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990)]。
律师费Attorney's Fees
If a suspect cannot afford attorney's fees, the government will appoint a free attorney. If the government discovers that the defendant is not indigent, or if the defendant later acquires funds, it may require the defendant to provide reimbursement. Courts are obviously reluctant to deny appointed counsel simply because a defendant might have money, as such a conviction would almost certainly be overturned on appeal.
如果犯罪嫌疑人付不起律师费，政府会指派免费的律师。政府如果发现被告人并不穷，或者之后有钱了，可以要求被告人报销（reimbursement）。法庭显然并不愿意仅仅因为被告人有钱就不安排律师辩护，这样判决几乎一定会在上诉时推翻。
A court may freeze crime-related funds, even if those funds are intended to pay attorney's fees [Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989)]. However, a court cannot freeze untainted funds that are unrelated to the crime and intended for attorney's fees, even if the court is concerned that there will not be sufficient funds available for execution if a conviction is secured [Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. 5 (2016)].
法庭可以冻结和犯罪有关的资金，即使这些资金是用来支付律师费的[Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989)]。但法庭不能冻结和犯罪无关的、用来支付律师费的资金，即使法庭担心如果判决下来没有足够的款项可供执行[Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. 5 (2016)]。
自行辩护Self-Representation
Waiver of counsel at any stage of a criminal proceeding is rare. Let us review two situations we have already covered:
在刑事诉讼的任何阶段豁免律师都是很少发生的，我们复习一下学过的两种情况：
Other than these, the right to counsel almost always requires an express waiver by the defendant, and even then, it may not necessarily be successful:
除此之外律师权几乎一定要被告人明示放弃，甚至即使这样也不一定成功：
律师和客户的关系Attorney-Client Relationship
We will further elaborate on the attorney-client relationship in the MPRE section. In the criminal procedure section, we must strictly distinguish which decisions an attorney cannot make on behalf of the client. If an attorney overrides the client's wishes and makes such decisions, the conviction will be overturned, and it is not even subject to the harmless error test. [McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414 (2018)]
我们会在职业道德考试（MPRE）中进一步阐述律师和客户的关系。在刑诉篇中，我们要严格区分什么决定是律师不能代替客户做的。如果律师违反客户的意愿越俎代庖，案件会被推翻，甚至都不用通过harmless test. [McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)]
Decisions that must be made by the client themselves include:
必须由客户自己决定的事项包括：
If Zhang San insists he is innocent, the defense attorney must assert an innocence defense; conceding guilt violates Zhang San's right to counsel, and the case will be retried.
如果张三坚持自己是无罪的，辩护律师必须要提出无罪辩护，仅进行有罪辩护属于侵犯了张三的辩护权，案件会被重审。
救济Remedies
(For felonies and misdemeanors that may result in imprisonment) the failure to provide counsel at a formal trial will automatically result in the reversal of the conviction. This includes erroneously denying the defendant the right to be represented by their retained counsel, which also requires a retrial [United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006)]. However, if counsel is merely absent during other proceedings, the harmless error test applies, considering whether the absence of counsel would have led to a different verdict or ruling.
（重罪和可能判处监禁的轻罪）在正式庭审时如果不给被告人提供律师是一定会被推翻判决的，包括错误地不允许被告人自己请的律师继续代理被告人的，也是必须重审[United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006)]。但是如果仅仅是其他程序没有提供律师，采用harmless test，考虑律师的缺席是否会导致判决、裁决的不同。
Confessions obtained in violation of the right to counsel may not be used to prove the defendant's guilt, but they may be used to impeach the defendant's credibility. This applies to violations of the right to counsel under both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
违反律师权获得的供词不得用于证明被告人有罪，但可以用来弹劾被告人的诚信。这同时适用于违反第5和第6修正案律师权的情形。
有效辩护Effective Assistance of Counsel
The constitutional right to counsel and the Due Process Clause not only guarantee the defendant the right to be represented by an attorney, but also require effective assistance of counsel. In other words, if the defendant is convicted or receives a harsher sentence due to the attorney's incompetence, the conviction may be overturned. Of course, counsel is presumed to be competent; the mere fact that a different strategy might have yielded a better result does not necessarily lead to a reversal, especially when such a strategy was based on the attorney's own experience and judgment.
宪法的律师权和正当权利条款不仅保证被告人得到律师的辩护，还要求得到律师有效的辩护（effective assistant of counsel）。换句话说，如果因为律师不胜任（incompetence）导致被告人被判有罪或更严重的罪行，判决可能会被推翻。当然，律师默认是胜任的，仅仅因为不同的策略可能导致更好的结果并不会必然导致判决被推翻，尤其是当这种策略是律师根据自己经验和判断作出的时候。
An attorney concedes the client's guilt during the trial, believing that doing so might garner the jury's sympathy and be more favorable for sentencing. Although the client did not explicitly consent, they also did not object. This is considered a trial strategy that should be accorded substantial deference; even if the client is ultimately sentenced to death, it does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. [Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004)]
律师在庭审中直接承认客户有罪，因为觉得庭审可以博得陪审团同情，对量刑更有利。客户虽然没有同意，但也没有提出反对。这属于律师的开庭策略，应当给予充分的尊重，即使客户最后被判了死刑，也不是无效辩护。[Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004)]
However, if the attorney's performance was deficient, and but for this deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different, the defendant may be granted a retrial due to ineffective assistance of counsel [Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)].
但如果律师明显表现拙劣（deficient performance），并且如果不是因为律师的拙劣表现，被告人可能会得到不同的判决（the result would have been different），被告人可以因为无效辩护获得重审[Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)]。
Failing to move to suppress evidence that is clearly inadmissible, or failing to timely file a notice of appeal after being instructed to do so by the defendant, constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. The defendant is entitled to a retrial or an extension of the appeal period. The Supreme Court has held that while a state is not required to guarantee a defendant's right to appeal, once it grants the right to appeal, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the defendant effective assistance of counsel at least on their first appeal as of right. [Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985); Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986)]
明显要排除的证据不申请排除，被告人指示上诉，律师却没有按时递交notice of appeal，属于无效辩护。被告人有权重审或者延长上诉期。最高法院认为，虽然州不是一定要确保被告人的上诉权，但一旦规定了被告人有权上诉，第14修正案就保障他至少在第一次上诉时获得有效的辩护。[Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985); Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986)]
Capital cases impose higher demands for effective assistance of counsel. An attorney's failure to investigate potential mitigating factors [Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003)], failure to examine whether the aggravating factors presented by the prosecutor are tenable [Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005)], or erroneously submitting to the jury a psychologist's report stating that Black individuals pose a greater danger to society [Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100 (2017)] have all led to retrials or the vacatur of death sentences.
死刑案件对律师的有效辩护要求更高。律师没有去找可能从轻处罚的因素[Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003)]，没有调研检察官提供从重处罚的因素是否站得住脚[Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005)]，以及错误地将心理学家关于黑人对社会危害更大的报告提交给陪审团[Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100 (2017)]都导致了案件的重审或者死刑的撤销。
As previously introduced, if an attorney fails to timely communicate a plea bargain offer to the defendant, the court may enforce the plea agreement, even if the defendant received a harsher sentence after a fair trial. The enforcement of a plea bargain also applies where an attorney erroneously advises a defendant to reject a plea offer.
我们之前介绍过如果律师没有将辩诉交易的内容及时传达给被告人，法院可能会强制执行辩诉交易，即使被告人在公正审判之后得到了一个更重的刑期。强制执行辩诉交易还适用于律师错误地建议被告人拒绝辩诉交易的情形。
The prosecutor offered a sentence of 51 to 85 months, but the attorney erroneously told the defendant that shooting below the waist could not establish an intent to murder. The attorney's advice was incorrect, and the defendant was ultimately sentenced to 185 to 360 months. The Supreme Court ordered the prosecution to reoffer the plea agreement and then proceed with the plea bargaining process. [Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012)]
检察官提出了51-85个月的刑期，律师错误地告诉被告人在射击腰部以下无法证明杀人意图。律师的建议是错误的，被告人最后至少要判185-360个月。最高法院判令检察官重新提出要约然后进入辩诉交易流程。[Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012)]
Attorneys are generally advised against representing multiple co-defendants because there is almost always a conflict of interest among them. If the court is aware of a conflict of interest but fails to appoint separate counsel for the conflicted defendants, or if the court is unaware of the conflict but the attorney's conflict of interest actually adversely affected their performance, the conviction will be overturned. [Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980); Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776 (1987)]
律师通常不建议代理多名被告人，因为被告人之间几乎总有利益冲突。如果法院注意到了利益冲突，却没有给被冲突的被告人另行指派律师，或者虽然法院没有注意到利益冲突，但律师的利益冲突实际上对律师的辩护表现产生了不利影响，案件都会被推翻。[Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980); Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776 (1987)]
判决的生效和执行Effect and Enforcement of Judgments
初审程序救济Trial Court Relief
Some of the tools we will learn in Civil Procedure are equally effective in Criminal Procedure, such as directly pointing out trial errors to the trial judge and moving for a new trial, or bypassing the jury verdict for an acquittal (judgment of acquittal, directed verdict). However, we rarely see these in MBE Criminal Procedure questions. Criminal Procedure topics lean more towards constitutional law, whereas Civil Procedure is slightly more procedural. When I discuss specific procedures in the Civil Procedure section, I will incidentally introduce how similar procedures apply in Criminal Procedure.
我们将在民诉中学习到的一些工具在刑诉中同样有效，比如直接对初审法官指出审判中的错误指出并要求重审（move for a new trial），又比如绕过陪审团裁决无罪（judgement of acquittal, directed verdict），但我们在很少见到MBE的刑诉题中见到这些。刑诉的考点是偏宪法的，民诉才稍微偏程序一点。我民诉篇具体程序的时候，会附带介绍刑诉中类似的程序应当如何适用。
上诉Appeals
If the defendant is dissatisfied with the trial court's judgment and rulings in a criminal case, there are two paths to take. One path is appealing within the state court system. States typically provide the defendant with a right to appeal to the state appellate court (appeal as of right), and, with the permission of the appellate court or the state supreme court (leave to appeal), to appeal to the state supreme court (discretionary review). If the state court's decision is not based on adequate and independent state grounds, the U.S. Supreme Court serves as the final checkpoint (refer to the Constitutional Law section). It should be noted that the Constitution does not require states to guarantee a right to appeal; theoretically, a state could provide no appellate relief for a criminal conviction at the trial level.
如果被告人不服初审法院关于刑事诉讼的判决和裁定，有两条线可以走。一条走州内法院的上诉，州通常规定被告人有权上诉到州上诉法院（appeal as of right），并在上诉法院或者州最高法院同意的情况下（leave to appeal），上诉至州最高法院（discretionary）。如果州法院的决定不是根据足够且独立（adequate and independent）的州法作出的，联邦最高法院还有最后一道关卡（参考宪法篇知识点）。需要注意的是，宪法没有规定州必须保障州内的上诉权，理论上州可以不为一审定罪的刑事案件提供任何救济。
Unless otherwise specified, both civil and criminal cases in the U.S. follow the Final Judgment Rule. The appellate court generally only considers the arguments raised by the appellant, and an appeal does not necessarily stay the execution of the trial court's judgment. Of course, for good cause, the trial or appellate court may order continued bail pending appeal.
在没有特别说明的情况下，美国的民事和刑事案件都遵循最终判决规则（Final Judgment Rule），上诉法院只考虑上诉人提出的论点，且上诉并不必然影响一审判决的执行。当然，如果有正当原因，一审或上诉法院可以裁定在上诉的过程中继续保释。
Civil appeals in China also typically only consider the arguments raised by the appellant, which contrasts with the comprehensive review (de novo) in Chinese criminal appeals. The U.S. Constitution's requirement for criminal appeals falls somewhere between civil appeals and comprehensive review; it requires the attorney to at least thoroughly review the record once to discover potential flaws, essentially delegating the duty of comprehensive review to the attorney.
中国的民事上诉通常也只考虑上诉人提出的论点，于此相对的是刑事上诉的全面审查（de novo）。美国宪法对刑事上诉的要求介于民事上诉和全面审查之间，它要求律师至少要全面看一次案卷并发现可能的瑕疵，也就是将全面审查的义务交给了律师。
In Civil Procedure, typically only a final judgment can be appealed, and this applies equally to criminal cases. However, as we learned earlier, due to the severity of pretrial detention rulings, immediate appeals of such rulings are permitted.
民诉通常只有最终的判决（final judgement）才可以上诉，这对刑事案件也同样适用。但是我们之前学过，因为羁押必要性裁定的严重性，允许对该类裁定立刻上诉。
Although a state is not required to provide a right to appeal, if it does, the first appeal as of right must guarantee the defendant's right to counsel, whereas subsequent discretionary appeals do not carry this right. For indigent defendants, the court must not only appoint counsel but also waive the fees for obtaining trial transcripts [Roberts v. LaValle, 389 U.S. 40 (1968)]. If, after reviewing the record, the attorney believes an appeal is frivolous, the Constitution does not allow the attorney to withdraw simply by swearing that there were no flaws in the trial; it must at least be ensured that the attorney has reviewed the record in detail.
虽然州不必提供上诉权，但如果提供了上诉权，第一次有权上诉的情形必须保障被告人的律师权，而之后的可选上诉没有律师权。对于贫穷的被告人，法院不仅要指派律师，还要豁免获取一审庭审笔录（transcripts）的费用[Roberts v. LaValle, 389 U.S. 40 (1968)]。律师如果在阅卷之后认为上诉没有必要（appeal frivolous），宪法不能允许律师仅宣誓说一审没有瑕疵就可以撤回上诉，至少要确保律师详细看过案卷。
Methods to ensure the attorney has thoroughly reviewed the record include pointing out potential flaws in the record [Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)], or summarizing the procedural and factual history [Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000)]. Withdrawal is only permitted after the appellate court reviews the case and agrees that the appeal is indeed frivolous.
确保律师详细看过案卷的方式包括指出卷宗中可能有瑕疵的地方[Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)]，或者综述其程序和实体历史（summarize the procedural and factual history）[Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000)]，在上诉法院审核后认为确实没有必要上诉再准予撤回。
人身保护令Habeas Corpus
Another avenue for challenging a judgment or ruling is to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a federal district court. However, this only applies when the defendant's personal liberty is restricted, which includes not only custody and imprisonment but also bail, probation, and parole.
不服判决、裁定的另外一条路是向联邦地区法院申请人身保护令（habeas corpus），但只适用于被告人的人身权利受到限制的情况，这不仅包括羁押、监禁，还包括保释、缓刑、假释。
If the punishment is only a fine, or if the term of imprisonment has already been fully served, the defendant cannot petition a federal court for a writ of habeas corpus.
仅处罚金，或者监禁已经被执行完毕，被告人就不能向联邦法院申请人身保护令。
Although habeas corpus is not subject to the final judgment rule for appeals, the petitioner must prove that state remedies have been exhausted.
人身保护令虽然不受最终判决才能上诉的限制，但要证明州内的救济渠道已经用尽。
Even if unlawfully detained by a state, as long as the detention decision can still be appealed within the state, the defendant cannot petition a federal court for a writ of habeas corpus. If the appeal period has expired, the petitioner must demonstrate "Cause and Prejudice" or "Actual Innocence" to bypass the state appellate mechanism and petition the federal court for habeas corpus.
即使是被州非法羁押，只要州内还可以就羁押决定上诉，就不可以向联邦法院申请人身保护令。如果上诉期已经经过，要能证明“正当理由及实际损害”（Cause and Prejudice）或“实际无辜”（Actual Innocence）才能绕过州内上诉的机制向联邦法院申请人身保护令。
Unlike the standard burden of proof in criminal proceedings, applying for a writ of habeas corpus requires the petitioner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the state government's actions were unlawful. If the federal district court denies the habeas corpus petition, the petitioner may appeal to the federal court of appeals and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. For a further understanding of the federal court structure, please refer to the Civil Procedure section.
和通常刑诉的举证责任不同，申请人身保护令需要申请人提交大于对半开的证据证明州政府的行为是违法的。联邦地区法院如果拒绝人身保护令，可以再向联邦上诉法院、联邦最高法院上诉。对联邦法院结构更进一步的了解，请参考民诉篇。
上诉至最高法院Appeals to the Supreme Court
We learned about the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction in the Constitutional Law section, and we know that its appellate jurisdiction is regulated by congressional legislation. Theoretically, a federal court of appeals can certify a question that determines the outcome of a case (certification) and ask the Supreme Court to answer it, but this has not been done for a long time. In the Criminal Procedure and Civil Procedure sections of the MBE, we consider that the Supreme Court has the discretion to decide whether to grant certiorari for any case appealed to it, which is practically the only way the Supreme Court exercises its appellate jurisdiction.
我们在宪法篇学习过最高法院的初审管辖权，并了解到最高法院的上诉管辖权由国会立法规定。理论上，联邦上诉法院可以认证一个决定案件走向的问题（certification），并要求最高法院回答这个问题，但目前已经很久没有这么操作过。在MBE的刑诉和民诉篇中，我们认为最高法院有权决定是否提审（grant certiorari）被上诉到该院的任何案子，这也是最高法院行使上诉管辖权的唯一方式。
Even if the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction (for example, if the case is supported by independent and adequate state grounds, or if the case is not ripe, or if it is moot, etc.), it may first grant certiorari and subsequently rule that it lacks jurisdiction and dismiss the case, just as we learned in Marbury v. Madison in the Constitutional Law section.
即使最高法院没有管辖权（比如案件由独立的、足够的州法支撑，或案件不够成熟，诉由消失等），它也可以先批准开庭，随后裁定自己没有管辖权而驳回案子，正如宪法篇学过的Marbury v. Madison一样。
After the defendant was convicted at trial, he appealed to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the judgment. The defendant then appealed to the California Supreme Court, which simply denied review. The defendant continued to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Although the California Supreme Court did not conduct a substantive review, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the focus of the case was the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and it could not only grant certiorari but also render a substantive judgment. [Ewing v. California, supra]
被告人一审被定罪后，上诉到加州上诉法院，上诉法院维持判决。被告人又上诉到加州最高法院，该法院直接拒绝开庭。被告人继续上诉到联邦最高法院，虽然加州最高法院没有进行实体审理，但联邦最高法院认为该案件焦点是联邦宪法第8修正案，不仅可以批准开庭（grant certiorari），还可以作出实质性的判决。[Ewing v. California, supra]
In common law, a refusal to hear a case is treated as a dismissal of the appellant's or petitioner's claims, although substantively it does not mean that the higher court agrees with the opposing party's views; it may simply consider the case not important enough.
在普通法中，不开庭审理（refuse to hear a case）视为驳回上诉人、申请人的主张，虽然实体上并不代表上级法院同意对方当事人的观点，有可能仅仅认为不够重要。
In 2011, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, in its judgment in Democratic Republic of the Congo and Others v. FG Hemisphere Associates LLC, Final Appeal Nos 5, 6 and 7 of 2010 (Civil), sought an interpretation of Article 13 of the Basic Law from the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC), and the NPCSC subsequently issued an interpretation supporting the appellant. This is the only time so far that the Court has referred a matter to the NPCSC for interpretation. It seems that common law courts are not very fond of certification.
2011年，香港终审法院在判决Democratic Republic of the Congo and Others v. FG Hemisphere Associates LLC, Final Appeal Nos 5, 6 and 7 of 2010 (Civil)中希望全国人大常委会就基本法第13条作出解释，人大常委会随即作出了支持上诉人的解释。这是该院迄今为止唯一一次提请人大常委会释法。看来普通法的法院都不是很喜欢certification.
禁双重危险Double Jeopardy
A person may not be tried twice for the same offense; this is the prohibition against double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment. When a jury returns a verdict of not guilty, the trial usually ends, and the defendant is released in court. Compared to a guilty verdict, where the defendant has various remedies such as appeal, habeas corpus, retrial, and asking the judge to set aside the jury verdict, the prosecutor has almost no remedies against an acquittal. By comparison, Chinese criminal procedure allows for the correction of erroneous acquittals through procedures such as prosecutorial protests and retrials, with almost no restrictions.
不得因同一个犯罪被审判两次，这是宪法第5修正案禁止的双重危险（double jeopardy）。当陪审团作出无罪裁决的时候，审判通常就结束了，被告人会被当庭释放。相比有罪裁决下被告人有上诉、人身保护令、重审、要求法官忽视陪审团裁决等多种救济手段，检察官对于无罪裁决几乎没有任何救济手段。作为比较，中国的刑事诉讼可以通过抗诉、重审等程序纠正错误的无罪判决，且几乎没有限制。
However, double jeopardy does not mean that the prosecutor cannot appeal at all. The prosecutor may appeal rulings and judgments made by the judge. If the judge bypasses a jury's guilty verdict and enters a judgment of acquittal, or orders a new trial, the prosecutor may appeal, and the appellate court may reverse the trial judge's ruling and reinstate the jury's verdict. The prosecutor may also appeal if they believe the judge's sentence is too lenient. Furthermore, before the jury returns an acquittal, the prosecutor may ask the judge to declare a mistrial and order a retrial due to manifest errors during the trial, especially those caused by the defendant.
但双重危险不代表检察官完全不可以上诉。检察官可以对法官作出的裁定、判决进行上诉。如果法官如果绕过陪审团的有罪裁决判被告人无罪，或者裁定重审，检察官上诉后，上诉法院可以撤销初审法官的裁定而恢复陪审团的裁决。检察官也可以认为法官量刑过轻进行上诉。检察官还可以，在陪审团作出无罪裁决之前，要求法官因为庭审中明显的错误，尤其是被告人造成的错误宣布无效审判（mistrial）和重审。
During the trial, Zhang San bribed the jurors to go abroad, and the judge declared a mistrial due to an insufficient number of jurors. Obviously, this does not prevent the court from empaneling a new jury to try the case again.
张三庭审过程中贿赂陪审员让他们去了国外，法官因陪审员数量不够宣布无效审判，显然这不影响法庭组成新的陪审团再次审理。
The specific time when double jeopardy attaches is:
双重危险开始附着（jeopardy attaches）的具体时间是：
Although frustrating, some people still have not distinguished between a grand jury and a petit jury at this point. A grand jury is only responsible for determining whether there is probable cause and whether the defendant can be indicted, but it does not try the case. The grand jury is dismissed regardless of what decision it returns, and double jeopardy does not attach at this stage—whether the grand jury decides not to indict, or decides to indict (but the indictment is dismissed for various reasons before the criminal trial jury is sworn in, or the prosecutor is dissatisfied with the terms of the indictment), it does not prevent the prosecutor from convening another grand jury to indict the same suspect for the same charge.
虽然很沮丧，但有人到这里居然还没有分清楚大陪审团和陪审团的区别。大陪审团只负责判断是否有probable cause，是否可以起诉被告，但不对案子进行审理。大陪审团无论带回什么决定后都解散了，此时不会附着双重危险——无论是大陪审团决定不起诉，还是决定起诉（但在正式庭审的刑事陪审团宣誓就职之前因为各种原因被撤销，或者检察官对indictment的条款不满意），都不影响检察官继续针对同一个嫌疑人的同一个罪名再次召集大陪审团起诉。
In the MBE, we default to the jury as the fact-finder, but do not forget that bench trials (where the judge decides the facts) also frequently occur in criminal and civil procedures. First, petty offenses (punishable by 6 months or less in prison) do not require a jury by law. Second, the defendant can waive the right to a jury and have the judge decide the facts instead. Unless the law prohibits waiving a jury (such as in some capital cases), judges are often happy to agree to a defendant's waiver of a jury trial, because a jury trial requires wasting the time of at least 12 innocent people for a day, several days, or even longer (the O.J. Simpson trial lasted nearly 9 months). It is generally believed that a bench trial offers more certainty and focuses more on evidence rather than emotion. If the defendant is confident that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction, or worries that the jury might not like him, waiving a jury trial seems to be a more rational choice. In recent years, an increasing number of criminal cases have seen jury waivers.
我们在MBE中默认事实审理者是陪审团，但不要忘了法官审理事实（bench trial）也是刑诉和民诉中经常发生的事情。首先依法不严重的犯罪（可能被判6个月或以下监禁）依法不需要陪审团，其次被告人可以豁免陪审团，改由法官审理事实。除非依法不能豁免陪审团的情况（比如一些死刑案件），法官也很乐于同意被告人豁免陪审团审理，因为陪审团需要浪费至少12个无辜的人一天、几天甚至更长的时间（O. J. 辛普森的案件审理了将近9个月）。普遍认为法官审理更有确定性，更加注重证据而不是感情。如果被告人有信心证据不足以支持自己犯罪，或者担心陪审团不喜欢他，豁免陪审团审理似乎是更理性的选择。近年来，越来越多的刑事案件被豁免了陪审团审理。
In MBE questions, "be tried to the court" means the same as "bench trial," which is a trial where the judge decides the facts (without a jury). Be careful to distinguish this.
在MBE考题中，“be tried to the court”和“bench trial”一样，都是由法官审理事实（没有陪审团）的意思，要小心分辨。
How to define the "same offense" is another issue in double jeopardy. First, it prohibits subsequent prosecution for a lesser included offense.
怎么定义同一个犯罪是双重危险的另外一个问题，首先禁止的是再次就更轻但是包含在内的罪名（less included crime）起诉。
The defendant was convicted of felony murder. He cannot subsequently be prosecuted for robbery, because felony murder includes the elements of the underlying robbery. [Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682 (1977)]
被告人被控犯重罪时杀人（felony murder）后定罪。他不可以再被起诉抢劫罪，因为犯重罪时杀人包含了抢劫的要素。[Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682 (1977)]
Generally, a person also cannot be prosecuted for a greater offense. This includes offenses for which there was an acquittal, as well as convictions that were overturned on appeal. An exception exists if the elements of the greater offense had not occurred or were not discovered until after the trial began.
一般也不可以就更重的罪名起诉，这包括无罪裁决中被起诉的罪名，和有罪裁决但被上诉推翻的罪名。除非更重的情节在庭审开始之后才发现、发生。
Zhang San was indicted for robbery but was only convicted of larceny, and the larceny conviction was overturned on appeal. Zhang San was re-indicted for robbery, and this time he was again convicted of larceny. The conviction must be overturned again because he cannot be prosecuted for an offense more serious than larceny. This is not a harmless error, because if he had not been indicted for robbery, the jury might not have convicted him of larceny.
张三被起诉抢劫，但是只被定盗窃，盗窃的定罪在上诉时被推翻。张三重新被起诉抢劫，这次又定了盗窃。定罪必须再次被推翻，因为不得以比盗窃更严重的罪名起诉。这不是harmless error，因为如果不是被起诉抢劫，陪审团可能不会定盗窃。
A defendant prosecuted for battery may subsequently be prosecuted for murder if the victim dies during or after the trial. [Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773 (1985)].
以伤害罪被起诉的被告人，在庭审过程中被害人死亡的，可以改为起诉谋杀[Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773 (1985)]。
For overlapping offenses committed simultaneously, we must consider whether each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not. [Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932)]
对于同时犯下的交叉的罪名，我们要考虑是否每一个罪名都有其他罪名不需要的要素。[Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932)]
Zhang San hallucinated after taking drugs and caused a person's death. He can be separately prosecuted for manslaughter and illegal drug use, because the former only requires the result of causing death and does not require illegal drug use, while the latter only requires proving illegal drug use and does not require the result of causing death. Armed robbery and illegal possession of a firearm can be prosecuted separately because they protect different legal interests.
张三吸毒后产生幻觉致人死亡，可以分别被起诉致人死亡（manslaughter）和非法吸食毒品，因为前者只要求致人死亡的结果，不要求非法吸食毒品；而后者只要求证明非法吸食毒品，不要求产生致人死亡的结果。持枪抢劫和非法持枪可以分别起诉，因为侵犯的是不同的法益。
The inchoate offense of conspiracy and the substantive offense can be prosecuted separately. [United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378 (1992)]
雏形罪共谋（conspiracy）和主罪可以分开起诉。[United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378 (1992)]
Finally, there are exceptions to double jeopardy, the most typical being a hung jury. Other necessary mistrials not caused by the judge or prosecutor are also usually included as exceptions to double jeopardy, unless the mistrial actually implies the defendant's innocence.
最后是双重危险的例外，最典型的是无法作出决定的陪审团（hang jury）。其他必要的、非法官和检察官造成的无效审判（mistrial）通常也列入双重危险的例外，除非该无效审判实际上意味着被告人无罪。
The defendant was simultaneously charged with murder and manslaughter. The jury agreed that the defendant was definitely not guilty of murder but could not reach a verdict on manslaughter, ultimately returning no verdict (a hung jury). The judge declared a mistrial. Upon retrial, the defendant could be prosecuted and convicted of murder. The Court held that the jury's conclusion that the defendant was not guilty of murder was not a formal verdict but merely a report of progress to the court, and thus had no binding effect. [Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599 (2012)]
被告人被同时起诉谋杀（murder）和致人死亡（manslaughter），陪审团认为谋杀肯定不成立，但对于致人死亡无法达成一致意见，最终没有带回任何裁决（hang jury），法官裁定无效审判（mistrial）。重新审判时，可以按照谋杀起诉和定罪。法院认为，不构成谋杀不是陪审团的裁决，只是陪审团向法庭汇报的进展，没有约束力。[Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599 (2012)]
After Zhang San's trial began, the judge's mother-in-law suddenly passed away. Overcome with grief, the judge declared a mistrial. The prosecutor may not prosecute Zhang San again. There was no manifest necessity for this mistrial; the judge should have at least considered whether another judge could take over and continue presiding over the trial. Similar logic applies to mistrials caused by prosecutorial misconduct.
张三的庭审开始后，法官的丈母娘突然去世，法官过于悲痛宣布无效审判。检察官不得再次起诉。该无效审判并没有明显的必要（manifest necessity），法官至少要考虑是否有可能让另外一名法官代替他继续主持庭审。类似的逻辑还适用于检察官造成的无效审判。
Double jeopardy does not prohibit enhanced sentences for repeat offenders (recidivism). Although it may seem like punishing the defendant twice for past crimes, enhancing penalties for recidivism is a long-standing judicial practice.
双重危险不禁止因累犯而加重刑罚，虽然看起来是对之前的犯罪进行双重评价，但累犯可以加重处罚是长期以来的司法实践。
Double jeopardy does not prohibit the state and federal governments from trying a defendant separately (the dual sovereignty doctrine), nor does it prohibit different states from trying a defendant multiple times. However, different municipalities within the same state are not permitted to try a defendant multiple times.
双重危险不禁止州和联邦分别对被告人进行审判，也不禁止不同的州对被告人进行多次审判。但是，不允许州内的不同市政府对被告人进行多次审判。
For example, after Zhang San is acquitted in State A, the federal government or State B can prosecute him again for the same offense without violating double jeopardy. If he is convicted in State A, the federal government or State B can likewise prosecute him again, though sentencing will obviously take into account the punishment already imposed in State A.
张三在甲州获得无罪裁决后，联邦或者乙州可以再次以同样的罪名起诉他，不违反双重危险。在甲州被定罪后，联邦或者乙州同样可以再次起诉他，但量刑的时候显然要考虑已经在甲州被判处的刑罚。
监禁Incarceration
Correctional facilities have broad discretion in managing inmates. For example, they can arbitrarily search inmates, inspect incoming mail for contraband, and restrict access to pornographic materials. However, they cannot restrict outgoing mail, nor can they completely deny inmates access to legal resources, especially communication with the courts (for appeals, habeas corpus, or parole applications). They cannot completely prohibit inmates from meeting with law students or paralegals, and certainly cannot restrict inmates from meeting with their attorneys.
监所对犯人的管理自由度很大，比如可以任意搜查犯人，可以搜查信件中是否有夹带，可以限制色情读物的进入。但是不能限制信件的发出，不能完全禁止犯人接触法律资源，尤其是和法庭沟通（上诉、人身保护令、假释申请），不能完全禁止犯人和法学生、法律助理见面，当然更不能限制犯人和律师见面。
特别程序Special Proceedings
少年法庭Juvenile Court
The primary purpose of juvenile proceedings is education and rehabilitation, not punishment. However, this does not mean minors have no rights in juvenile court. Minors in juvenile court share the following rights with adults in criminal proceedings: the right to written notice of charges, the right to counsel (with government-appointed counsel if indigent), the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and the privilege against self-incrimination (the right to remain silent). The standard of proof in juvenile court is also beyond a reasonable doubt.
少年法庭（juvenile proceedings）的主要目的不是为了惩罚未成年，而是为了教育和改造。但这并不意味着未成年人在少年法庭没有任何权利。以下成年人诉讼有的权利，少年法庭的未成年也同样有：宣读起诉，辩护，律师权（如果未成年贫穷，政府指定律师），与证人对质，出庭作证的权利，不自证其罪的权利（沉默权）。少年法庭的证据标准同样是排除一切合理怀疑。
Juvenile courts do not afford the right to a jury trial. If a minor poses a serious danger to society, the juvenile court may also order preventive detention. Many states do not have a strict age boundary between juvenile and adult (ordinary) courts, but rather make a comprehensive determination based on age, malicious intent, and the severity of the offense. Therefore, transferring a case to adult court before evidence is formally heard in juvenile court does not constitute double jeopardy.
少年法庭没有权利必须由陪审团审判，如果未成年人对社会有严重危险，少年法庭同样可以决定羁押未成年人。很多州对少年法庭和成年人法庭（普通法庭）并没有明确的年龄界限，而是根据年龄、主观恶意、罪行严重程度综合决定，所以如果在少年法庭正式听取证据之前决定移送到普通法庭并不算双重危险。
没收Forfeiture
The seizure of personal property does not require a prior hearing, but the owner must be given an opportunity for a hearing before final forfeiture. The seizure and forfeiture of real property require a prior hearing for the property owner. Criminal forfeiture must be proportionate to the offense; otherwise, it violates the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause.
扣押动产不需要提前给听证会，但是最终决定没收时需要给所有权人听证的机会。扣押和没收不动产需要提前给权利人听证会。刑事没收需要与罪行合乎比例，否则违反宪法第8修正案不得处以过重罚金的条款。
假释、缓刑听证会Parole and Probation Hearings
Finally, let us distinguish among bail, probation, and parole. In fact, they are quite easy to distinguish once translated into Chinese: Bail is simply the pre-conviction release of a suspect without detention. Probation refers to a period of supervision granted to a defendant after conviction, during which incarceration is suspended as long as the defendant maintains good behavior. Parole refers to early release after serving a portion of a prison sentence. Similar to probation, if the defendant behaves poorly during the original sentence period, they can be re-incarcerated to serve the remainder of their sentence.
最后我们区分一下保释（bail），缓刑（probation）和假释（parole）。其实在我们翻译成中文后还是很容易区分的：保释只是在定罪之前不羁押嫌疑人，即取保候审。缓刑是指在定罪后，给被告人一定的考察期，表现良好即可不执行监禁。假释是指在监禁一段时间后提前释放。和缓刑一样，如果在原本的刑期内被告人表现不好，可以收监关押至刑期完毕。
This involves three types of hearings. The hearing to determine whether to grant probation is the sentencing hearing, where the defendant has the right to have an attorney present. However, the situation is less favorable for parole, parole revocation, and probation revocation. Even if a defendant has the right to a parole release hearing after being incarcerated for some time, there is no constitutional right to have an attorney present at such a hearing.
这里就涉及三个听证会，决定是否缓刑的听证会就是量刑庭（sentencing），被告人有权利让律师在场。但假释和取消假释、取消缓刑就没那么幸运了。被告人关押一段时间后即使有权利召开决定是否假释的听证会，也没有让律师在场的宪法权利。
However, when a prosecutor or community corrections officer believes the defendant has behaved poorly, a hearing is necessary to determine whether to revoke the defendant's probation or parole and re-incarcerate them. In such proceedings, the defendant generally does not have an absolute right to counsel, unless a heavier sentence than the original judgment is imposed [Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128 (1967)]. If the probation revocation hearing also serves as a sentencing hearing (i.e., sentencing was deferred at the time of the prior conviction), the defendant enjoys the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. But if the defendant denies the misconduct and proceeding without appointed counsel would be fundamentally unfair to the defendant, the right to counsel may be necessary; at the very least, if the right to counsel is denied, explicit reasons for the denial must be provided [Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973)].
但是当检察官或者负责社区矫正的官员认为被告人表现不好时，有必要召开听证会决定是不是要取消被告人的缓刑或假释重新收押。在这样的程序中，被告人一般没有律师权，除非被施加比原判决更重的刑罚[Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128 (1967)]。如果缓刑撤销听证会同时也是量刑听证会（即之前定罪时推迟了量刑，deferred sentencing），则被告人享有第六修正案的律师权。但如果被告人否认自己的行为不当，且不指派律师会对被告人不公时，律师权可能是必要的，至少，如果被告人的律师权被拒绝，要给出拒绝的明确原因[Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973)]。