SELECCIN DE TEXTOS.

Este trabajo de compilacin contiene los

textos que se utilizarn para el dictado de
la materia. Los textos ilustran los distintos
ejes temticos abordados para la
enseanza de las tcnicas de comprensin
lectora en lengua extranjera

LECTOCOMPRENSIN
INGLS
MATERIAL DIDCTICO
ALUMNOS
UNIDAD 5

DEPARTAMENTO DE IDIOMAS
 UNIDAD 5:

DERECHO PENAL Y PROCESAL PENAL

2
 NDICE DE CONTENIDOS

Texto 1: What Is Criminal Law?

Texto 2: What Does The Fourth Amendment Mean?

Texto 3: Criminal Procedure: An Overview

Texto 4: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Texto 5: Criminal Justice Process Flowchart

Texto 6: Famous Cases & Criminals: Al Capone

Apndice 1: Sixth Amendment Text & Activities

Apndice 2: Are 3D Printed Plastic Guns Legal?

Apndice 3: The Jury Cartoons

Apndice 4: The Enron Case FBI Files

Apndice 5: Enron Trial Exhibits & Documents

3
 Texto 1: What is Criminal Law?
What is Criminal Law?
http://www.hg.org/crime.html
Criminal law involves a system of legal rules designed to keep the
public safe and deter wrongful conduct. Those who violate the law
face incarceration, fines, and other penalties. The American criminal
justice system is both complex, and adversarial in nature. With the
exception of minor traffic violations, accused individuals will require
the assistance of an attorney.

Specific crimes and the consequences for violating them are found
in penal codes enacted by legislators at the local, state, and federal
levels. Less serious crimes are classified as misdemeanors. These
typically carry a maximum of up to one year in the county jail.
Examples include petty theft, possession of small amounts of
controlled substances, and first-offense drunk driving.

Crimes of a more serious nature are classified as felonies. These

carry punishments of a year or more in state or federal prison.
Felonies include violent crimes like murder, burglary, and rape, as
well as white collar crimes like embezzlement and money
laundering.

When questions arise as to how criminal statutes should be

interpreted, judges and lawyers turn to previously issued court
opinions dealing with the same issues. This principle is known as
stare decisis. It means that once a court issues a decision
involving a given set of circumstances, that ruling is binding
precedent for similar disputes that come before the court on a later
date.

Law enforcement agencies have the responsibility of investigating

alleged crimes. Procedural rules are in place to ensure police
officers respect the constitutional rights of the citizens they
investigate. When a defense attorney challenges the legality of a
criminal prosecution, most times the dispute is a result of procedural
violations by the police.

4
Protecting Your Rights.

Each stage of a criminal prosecution presents traps for defendants

who are not familiar with the court system. Criminal defense
attorneys are trained to prevent their clients from doing or saying
things that will increase the likelihood of conviction. But when legal
counsel has not been hired or appointed, accused individuals can
unknowingly waive their rights and harm their own interests.

For example, following an arrest, law enforcement will question a

suspect in regards to the crime. The officers will inform the suspect
of his or her Miranda rights (right to remain silent, right to an
attorney), and then attempt to elicit a confession. Without a lawyer
present, defendants can make incriminating statements that will later
be used against them in court.

In both misdemeanors and felonies, an arraignment will be held in

open court. The judge will explain the nature of the charges to the
defendant and ask for a plea. Without the assistance of an attorney,
defendants will often plead guilty at this initial stage. By doing so,
they are giving up important rights, as well as the opportunity to
negotiate the terms of their sentence beforehand.

Discovery proceedings are another critical stage in a criminal case.

This is when the defendant can demand that the prosecutor turn
over copies of all of the evidence gathered by law enforcement. In
DUI and DWI cases especially, the police reports, lab results, video
recordings, and other items will likely determine whether the case
settles or continues on to trial. To make informed decisions, the
defendant must obtain these materials.

If the state fails to offer a plea bargain the defendant is willing to

accept, the case will proceed to trial. This is the time to question
witnesses and present argument to the jury. Conducting a trial is not
for the layperson to attempt. Legal training is needed to perform
effective cross-examination, comply with the rules of evidence, and
so forth. After all, the outcome may determine whether the
defendant walks free, or goes to jail.
Copyright HG.org
5
Texto 2: What does the Fourth Amendment mean?
Fuente: http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-
activities/fourth-amendment.aspx

What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?

The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable
searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a
guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed
unreasonable under the law.

Whether a particular type of search is considered reasonable in the eyes of the law is
determined by balancing two important interests. On one side of the scale is the
intrusion on an individual's Fourth Amendment rights. On the other side of the scale are
legitimate government interests, such as public safety.

The extent to which an individual is protected by the Fourth Amendment depends, in

part, on the location of the search or seizure. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998).

Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively

unreasonable.
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).

However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:

If an officer is given consent to search; Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582
(1946)
If the search is incident to a lawful arrest; United States v. Robinson, 414
U.S. 218 (1973)
If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances; Payton v.
New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
If the items are in plain view; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).

A Person

When an officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to

conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, the officer may briefly stop the
suspicious person and make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirming or
dispelling the officer's suspicions.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)

6
Schools

School officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is
under their authority; rather, a search of a student need only be reasonable
under all the circumstances.
New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985)

Cars

Where there is probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of

a criminal activity, an officer may lawfully search any area of the vehicle in
which the evidence might be found.
Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009),
An officer may conduct a traffic stop if he has reasonable suspicion that a
traffic violation has occurred or that criminal activity is afoot.
Berekmer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984),
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002).
An officer may conduct a pat-down of the driver and passengers during a
lawful traffic stop; the police need not believe that any occupant of the
vehicle is involved in a criminal activity.
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009).
The use of a narcotics detection dog to walk around the exterior of a car
subject to a valid traffic stop does not require reasonable, explainable
suspicion.
Illinois v. Cabales, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).
Special law enforcement concerns will sometimes justify highway stops
without any individualized suspicion.
Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004).
An officer at an international border may conduct routine stops and
searches.
United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).
A state may use highway sobriety checkpoints for the purpose of combating
drunk driving.
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).
A state may set up highway checkpoints where the stops are brief and seek
voluntary cooperation in the investigation of a recent crime that has occurred
on that highway.
Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004).
However, a state may not use a highway checkpoint program whose primary
purpose is the discovery and interdiction of illegal narcotics.
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000).

7
 Texto 3: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: AN OVERVIEW
o
Criminal Procedure: An Overview
Fuente: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION (BILL OF RIGHTS)

AMENDMENT V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual
service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject
for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall
be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor
be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.

AMENDMENT VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,
and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Fuente: Coughlin, Jr., G. G. , Your Handbook of Everyday Law, 5ta ed.,
Harper Perennial, Nueva York, 1993

Criminal procedure deals with the set of rules governing the series of
proceedings through which the government enforces substantive
criminal law. Municipalities, states, and the federal government each
have their own criminal codes, defining types of conduct that constitute
crimes. Title 18 of the U.S. Code outlines all federal crimes. Typically,
federal crimes deal with activities that either extend beyond state
boundaries or directly impact federal interests.
The U.S. Supreme Court, pursuant to its authority under the Rules
Enabling Act, first promulgated the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, (F.R.Crim.Pro.) which Congress, in turn, passed. The
Federal Rules outline the procedure for conducting federal criminal
trials. Similarly, states have their own codes of criminal procedure of
8
which many closely model the Federal Rules. The Federal Rules
incorporate and expound upon all guarantees included within the U.S.
Constitution's Bill of Rights. A few of the rights guaranteed to criminal
defendants by the Constitution include the guarantees of due process
and equal protection under the laws, the right to have legal counsel
present, the right to confront witnesses, the right to a jury trial, and the
right to not testify against oneself. While state constitutions and
procedural rules may increase the protection afforded to criminal
defendants, they may not offer less protection than that guaranteed by
the U.S. Constitution.

INVESTIGATORY AND ACCUSATORY POLICE PROCEDURE

The U.S. Constitution, the Federal Rules and the federal court system's
interpretations of both provide guidance and procedural canons that
law enforcement must follow. Failure to follow such procedure may
result in the suppression of evidence or the release of an arrested
suspect.
Substantive due process requires police to make criminal defendants
aware of their rights prior to the defendant making any statements if
the government intends to use those statements as evidence against the
defendant. For example, law enforcement must ensure that the
defendant understands the right to remain silent and the right to have
an attorney present, as the Fifth and Sixth Amendments respectively
provide. The defendant must knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily
waive those rights in order for the government to use any statements as
evidence against the defendant. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
(1966).
Law enforcement also must abide by the confines of the Fourth
Amendment, which prohibits the government from performing
unreasonable searches and seizures. Courts ordinarily suppress
evidence obtained during an unreasonable search or seizure and
offered against the accused. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
In order to avoid illegally searching or seizing the property of a
suspect, law enforcement personnel typically obtain search warrants.
To obtain a search warrant, law enforcement must show probable
cause, must support the showing by oath or affirmation, and must
describe in particularity the place they will search and the items they
will seize. A judge can find probable cause only by examining the
totality of the circumstances. Exceptions to the warrant requirement
exist, however. These exceptions include searches made at or near the
border; a search following a lawful arrest; a stop-and-frisk arrest; where
9
the seized items are in plain view; where the articles are in an
automobile; where the private individual makes the search; and under
exigent circumstances, where the officer has probable cause for a search
to find a crime or evidence relating to a crime.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies all
substantive due process rights to state criminal defendants.

PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal
defendants the right to a speedy trial. Consequently, prosecutors
cannot wait an inordinate amount of time before filing charges or
proceeding with the prosecution after filing charges. To create more
precise rules for ensuring a speedy trial, Congress passed the federal
Speedy Trial Act, which requires that a trial begin within 70 days of the
prosecutor filing the indictment.
The Sixth Amendment also guarantees the right to a public trial by an
impartial jury of one's peers. The criminal justice system provides for
an impartial jury by permitting both sides to utilize peremptory
challenges during jury selection. If a party exercises a peremptory
challenge against a prospective juror, then the court must excuse that
particular juror from the panel. These challenges occur during jury voir
dire to root out bias. Neither side must explain their reasons for a
challenge; however, a party may not strike a jury purely because of the
juror's race or gender. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79(1986) (prohibiting
race-based challenges); J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127 (1994)
(prohibiting gender-based challenges).
Due Process requires that criminal defendants receive a fair trial. In
high-publicity trials, trial judges have the responsibility to minimize
effects of publicity, perhaps by implementing a gag-order on the parties
and to eliminate outside influences during the trial. An interesting
question of outside influence went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007 in
Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 (2006). After the victim's family wore
pictures of the victim on buttons during the trial, the jury convicted
Musladin of murder. The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth
Circuit's grant of post-conviction habeas relief for a lack of due process
because no clear federal rule existed regarding spectator conduct.
Due Process further commands that defendants have the right to call
their own witnesses, mount their own evidence, and present their own
theory of the facts. In order to properly mount a defense, the
prosecution must turn over all evidence that will be presented against

10
the defendant and have pre-trial access to depose all of the
prosecution's witnesses.
Pre-trial would also be the point at which the defense might raise a
defense of double jeopardy, if such a defense existed in the particular
case. The Fifth Amendment, through the Double Jeopardy Clause
prohibits states from charging the same defendant with substantially
the same crime on the same facts.

CRIMINAL TRIAL PROCEDURE

Once a trial begins, the U.S. Constitution affords further rights to
criminal defendants. Trying to avoid convicting an innocent defendant
at all costs, the law only permits the prosecution to overcome the
defendant's presumption of innocence if they can show the defendant's
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This very high burden differs
drastically from a civil trial's much lower standard in which the
plaintiff must only prove a claim by a preponderance of the evidence.
One such right includes the right to cross-examine the prosecution's
witnesses. Defendants derive this right from the Sixth Amendment's
Right to Confront Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court took up the Right to
Confront Clause in Giles v. California (07-6053)(2008). After domestic
violence resulted in a woman's murder, the Supreme Court overturned
a court's admission of a murder victim's statements under a theory of
forfeiture by wrongdoing. The Court reached this holding because the
Framers did not recognize the forfeiture exception to the Confrontation
Clause at the time of the Constitution's founding.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to assistance of
counsel during trial. If a defendant cannot afford an attorney, the
government is required to provide the defendant an attorney. Such
defendants receive legal representation from the Public Defender's
Office. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that an
accused shall have access to counsel at every stage of the proceedings,
beginning with the defendant's initial appearance. If a defendant
demands the presence of counsel during police interrogation, police
must stop the interrogation until the defendant's counsel is present.
However, if a defendant voluntarily and intelligently chooses to waive
assistance of counsel and self-represent, the defendant may do so. This
is called "pro se" representation.
The legal counseling received must also constitute "effective
counseling." Ineffective assistance of counsel may serve as grounds for
a new trial. Establishing ineffective assistance of counsel requires
establishing that the prevailing professional norms at the time of trial
11
render the actual assistance received inadequate and that the ineffective
assistance caused a fundamentally unfair result.
At all times during the trial, the defendant enjoys a right of not having
to provide self-incriminating testimony. Thus, the defendant can
choose not to take the stand, or the defendant can choose to take the
stand but not answer certain questions that would self-incriminate. The
Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides this right.

STAGES OF THE CRIMINAL TRIAL

After law enforcement arrests a suspect, a judge will set the suspect's
initial bail, which is a specified amount of cash that allows the
defendant to get out of jail after the initial arrest. If the defendant shows
up for the proper court dates, the court refunds the bail, but if the
defendant skips the date, then the court keeps the bail and issues a
warrant for the individual's arrest.
The arraignment comes next. During an arraignment, a judge calls the
person charged and takes the following actions: reading the criminal
charges against the accused, asking the accused whether the accused
has access to an attorney or needs the assistance of a court-appointed
attorney, asking the accused to plead, deciding whether to amend the
initial bail amount, and setting the dates of future proceedings.
The preliminary hearing follows the arraignment. At the preliminary
hearing, the judge determines whether enough evidence exists for the
prosecution to meet its burden of persuasion. The burden of persuasion
refers to whether the prosecution even has enough evidence to make
the defendant stand trial. The defense has the right to cross examine the
government witnesses during this proceeding. Under federal law, a
grand jury, rather than a judge, makes this determination when the
defendant faces "capital or infamous crimes" pursuant to the U.S.
Constitution's Fifth Amendment. Unlike the other rights afforded to
criminal defendants, the U.S. Supreme Court has not found the Fifth
Amendment grand jury right incorporated into state law through the
Fourteenth Amendment.
A pre-trial hearing is the next step in the process. The prosecution and
the defense team use the pre-trial to file motions before a judge. These
motions usually concern whether the court should suppress certain
evidence, whether certain individuals can testify, or whether the judge
should dismiss all charges for lack of evidence.
After all these preliminary stages, the defendant stands trial. Both sides
offer opening statements first, although the defense can reserve their
opening statement until the prosecution rests. The prosecution presents
12
its witnesses and evidence first. Then, the defense presents its witnesses
and evidence. After the defense rests, the defense offers a closing
argument, and then the Prosecution offers the final closing argument.
After closing arguments, the trier of fact deliberates and returns a
verdict.

SENTENCING
Sentencing usually occurs immediately for infractions and
misdemeanors. For such minor infractions, penalties may include
probation; fines; short-term incarceration; long-term incarceration;
suspended sentence, which only takes effect if the convict fails to meet
certain conditions; payment of restitution to the victim; community
service; or drug and alcohol rehabilitation.
More serious crimes result in the trier of fact hearing evidence and
arguments from both the prosecution and the defense regarding the
appropriate sentence. Some jurisdictions allow the judge, alone, to
determine the sentence; others will have a separate sentencing phase
trial, complete with a new jury, to determine the sentence for certain
crimes.
During a sentencing trial, the prosecution presents evidence of
aggravating factors, and the defense presents evidence of mitigating
factors. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the U.S. Constitution
to protect the right to a jury sentencing trial for all defendants facing
the death penalty.
Before the judge announces the sentence, a defendant is entitled to
allocution. Allocution is the right of the defendant to directly address
the judge without the help of counsel. During this direct address, the
defendant may offer a personal explanation of any unknown facts, may
ask for mercy, or may offer an apology for the criminal behavior. This
opportunity for defendants to show remorse or to offer the motivations
behind their criminal acts may influence whether the judge grants some
leniency.

13
 TEXTO 4: FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Fuente: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

(As amended to December 1, 2012)
TITLE I. APPLICABILITY
o Rule 1. Scope; Definitions
o Rule 2. Interpretation
TITLE II. PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS
o Rule 3. The Complaint
o Rule 4. Arrest Warrant or Summons on a Complaint
o Rule 4.1 Complaint, Warrant, or Summons by Telephone or
Other Reliable Electronic Means
o Rule 5. Initial Appearance
o Rule 5.1 Preliminary Hearing
TITLE III. THE GRAND JURY, THE INDICTMENT,
AND THE INFORMATION
o Rule 6. The Grand Jury
o Rule 7. The Indictment and the Information
o Rule 8. Joinder of Offenses or Defendants
o Rule 9. Arrest Warrant or Summons on an Indictment or
Information
TITLE IV. ARRAIGNMENT AND PREPARATION FOR
TRIAL
o Rule 10. Arraignment
o Rule 11. Pleas
o Rule 12. Pleadings and Pretrial Motions
o Rule 12.1 Notice of an Alibi Defense
o Rule 12.2 Notice of an Insanity Defense; Mental Examination
o Rule 12.3 Notice of a Public-Authority Defense
o Rule 12.4 Disclosure Statement
o Rule 13. Joint Trial of Separate Cases
o Rule 14. Relief from Prejudicial Joinder
o Rule 15. Depositions
o Rule 16. Discovery and Inspection
o Rule 17. Subpoena
14
o Rule 17.1 Pretrial Conference
TITLE V. VENUE
o Rule 18. Place of Prosecution and Trial
o Rule 19. [Reserved]
o Rule 20. Transfer for Plea and Sentence
o Rule 21. Transfer for Trial
o Rule 22. [Transferred]
TITLE VI. TRIAL
o Rule 23. Jury or Nonjury Trial
o Rule 24. Trial Jurors
o Rule 25. Judge's Disability
o Rule 26. Taking Testimony
o Rule 26.1 Foreign Law Determination
o Rule 26.2 Producing a Witness's Statement
o Rule 26.3 Mistrial
o Rule 27. Proving an Official Record
o Rule 28. Interpreters
o Rule 29. Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal
o Rule 29.1 Closing Argument
o Rule 30. Jury Instructions
o Rule 31. Jury Verdict
TITLE VII. POST-CONVICTION PROCEDURES
o Rule 32. Sentencing and Judgment
o Rule 32.1 Revoking or Modifying Probation or Supervised
Release
o Rule 32.2 Criminal Forfeiture
o Rule 33. New Trial
o Rule 34. Arresting Judgment
o Rule 35. Correcting or Reducing a Sentence
o Rule 36. Clerical Error
o Rule 37. Indicative Ruling on a Motion for Relief That Is Barred
by a Pending Appeal
o Rule 38. Staying a Sentence or a Disability
o Rule 39. [Reserved]
TITLE VIII. SUPPLEMENTARY AND SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS

15
o Rule 40. Arrest for Failing to Appear in Another District or for
Violating Conditions of Release Set in Another District
o Rule 41. Search and Seizure
o Rule 42. Criminal Contempt
TITLE IX. GENERAL PROVISIONS
o Rule 43. Defendant's Presence
o Rule 44. Right to and Appointment of Counsel
o Rule 45. Computing and Extending Time
o Rule 46. Release from Custody; Supervising Detention
o Rule 47. Motions and Supporting Affidavits
o Rule 48. Dismissal
o Rule 49. Serving and Filing Papers
o Rule 49.1 Privacy Protection For Filings Made with the Court
o Rule 50. Prompt Disposition
o Rule 51. Preserving Claimed Error
o Rule 52. Harmless and Plain Error
o Rule 53. Courtroom Photographing and Broadcasting Prohibited
o Rule 54. [Transferred] 1
o Rule 55. Records
o Rule 56. When Court Is Open
o Rule 57. District Court Rules
o Rule 58. Petty Offenses and Other Misdemeanors
o Rule 59. Matters Before a Magistrate Judge
o Rule 60. Victim's Rights
o Rule 61. Title

16
 TEXTO 5: CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS FLOWCHART

Criminal Justice Process

Fuente: http://www.pcao.pima.gov/criminaljusticeprocess.aspx

The criminal justice system can appear complex and overwhelming to those who
encounter it for the first time. The following may help you understand how the
system is organized, how a typical felony case proceeds, and what role our Office
plays in the process.

17
 Texto 6: FAMOUS CASES & CRIMINALS: AL CAPONE
Fuente:http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/al-capone

FAMOUS CASES & CRIMINALS: AL CAPONE

Born of an immigrant family in Brooklyn, New York in 1899, Al Capone
quit school after the sixth grade and associated with a notorious street
gang, becoming accepted as a member. Johnny Torrio was the street gang
leader and among the other members was Lucky Luciano, who would
later attain his own notoriety.
About 1920, at Torrios invitation, Capone joined Torrio in Chicago where
he had become an influential lieutenant in the Colosimo mob. The rackets
spawned by enactment of the Prohibition Amendment, illegal brewing,
distilling and distribution of beer and liquor, were viewed as growth
industries. Torrio, abetted by Al Capone, intended to take full
advantage of opportunities. The mob also developed interests in
legitimate businesses in the cleaning and dyeing field and cultivated
influence with receptive public officials, labor unions, and employees
associations.
Torrio soon succeeded to full leadership of the gang with the violent
demise of Big Jim Colosimo, and Capone gained experience and expertise
as his strong right arm.
In 1925, Capone became boss when Torrio, seriously wounded in an
assassination attempt, surrendered control and retired to Brooklyn.
Capone had built a fearsome reputation in the ruthless gang rivalries of
the period, struggling to acquire and retain racketeering rights to
several areas of Chicago. That reputation grew as rival gangs were
eliminated or nullified, and the suburb of Cicero became, in effect, a
fiefdom of the Capone mob.
The St. Valentines Day Massacre on February 14, 1929, might be
regarded as the culminating violence of the Chicago gang era, as seven
members or associates of the Bugs Moran mob were machine-gunned
against a garage wall by rivals posing as police. The massacre was
generally ascribed to the Capone mob, although Al himself was in
Florida.
The investigative jurisdiction of the Bureau of Investigation during the
1920s and early 1930s was more limited than it is now, and the gang
warfare and depredations of the period were not within the Bureaus
investigative authority.
The Bureaus investigation of Al Capone arose from his reluctance to
appear before a federal grand jury on March 12, 1929 in response to a
subpoena. On March 11, his lawyers formally filed for postponement of
his appearance, submitting a physicians affidavit dated March 5, which

18
attested that Capone had been suffering from bronchial pneumonia in
Miami, had been confined to bed from January 13 to February 23, and
that it would be dangerous to Capones health to travel to Chicago. His
appearance date before the grand jury was re-set for March 20.
On request of the U.S. Attorneys Office, Bureau of Investigation agents
obtained statements to the effect that Capone had attended race tracks in
the Miami area, that he had made a plane trip to Bimini and a cruise to
Nassau, that he had been interviewed at the office of the Dade County
Solicitor, and that he had appeared in good health on each of those
occasions.
Capone appeared before the federal grand jury in Chicago on March 20,
1929 and completed his testimony on March 27. As he left the courtroom,
he was arrested by agents for contempt of court, an offense for which the
penalty could be one year in prison and a $1,000 fine. He posted $5,000
bond and was released.
On May 17, 1929, Al Capone and his bodyguard were arrested in
Philadelphia for carrying concealed deadly weapons. Within 16 hours
they had been sentenced to terms of one year each. Capone served his
time and was released in nine months for good behavior on March 17,
1930.
On February 28, 1931, Capone was
found guilty in federal court on the
contempt of court charge and was
sentenced to six months in Cook
County Jail. His appeal on that
charge was subsequently dismissed.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Treasury
Department had been developing
evidence on tax evasion chargesin
addition to Al Capone, his brother
Ralph Bottles Capone, Jake Greasy
Thumb Guzik, Frank Nitti, and other
mobsters were subjects of tax evasion
charges.
On June 16, 1931, Al Capone pled Al Capones criminal record and
guilty to tax evasion and prohibition fingerprint card
charges. He then boasted to the press
that he had struck a deal for a two-and-a-half year sentence, but the
presiding judge informed him he, the judge, was not bound by any deal.
Capone then changed his plea to not guilty.
On October 18, 1931, Capone was convicted after trial and on November
24, was sentenced to eleven years in federal prison, fined $50,000 and
charged $7,692 for court costs, in addition to $215,000 plus interest due

19
on back taxes. The six-month contempt of court sentence was to be served
concurrently.
While awaiting the results of appeals, Capone was confined to the Cook
County Jail. Upon denial of appeals, he entered the U.S. Penitentiary in
Atlanta, serving his sentence there and at Alcatraz.
On November 16, 1939, Al Capone was released after having served seven
years, six months and fifteen days, and having paid all fines and back
taxes.
Suffering from paresis derived from syphilis, he had deteriorated greatly
during his confinement. Immediately on release he entered a Baltimore
hospital for brain treatment and then went on to his Florida home, an
estate on Palm Island in Biscayne Bay near Miami, which he had
purchased in 1928.
Following his release, he never publicly returned to Chicago. He had
become mentally incapable of returning to gangland politics. In 1946, his
physician and a Baltimore psychiatrist, after examination, both concluded
Capone then had the mentality of a 12-year-old child. Capone resided on
Palm Island with his wife and immediate family, in a secluded
atmosphere, until his death due to a stroke and pneumonia on January 25,
1947.

20
 UNIDAD: 5

DERECHO PENAL Y PROCESAL

PENAL

MATERIAL ADICIONAL

21
APNDICE 1: SIXTH AMENDMENT TEXT & ACTIVITIES
Fuente: http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/sixth-
amendment/right-counsel/facts-case-summary-gideon.aspx

SIXTH AMENDMENT ACTIVITIES

All the activities in this section are based on the Sixth Amendment.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public
trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been
committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." Sixth Amendment,
U.S. Constitution

Sixth Amendment Activities

Cases That Opened the Jury box

Right to Counsel
Fair Trial v. Free Speech
Facts and Case Summary: Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963)

FACTS:
Clarence Earl Gideon was an unlikely hero. He was a man with an
eighth-grade education who ran away from home when he was in
middle school. He spent much of his early adult life as a drifter,
spending time in and out of prisons for nonviolent crimes.

Gideon was charged with breaking and entering with the intent to
commit a misdemeanor, which is a felony under Florida law. At trial,
Gideon appeared in court without an attorney. In open court, he
asked the judge to appoint counsel for him because he could not
afford an attorney. The trial judge denied Gideons request because

22
 Florida law only permitted appointment of counsel for poor
defendants charged with capital offenses.

At trial, Gideon represented himself he made an opening

statement to the jury, cross-examined the prosecutions witnesses,
presented witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify himself,
and made arguments emphasizing his innocence. Despite his
efforts, the jury found Gideon guilty and he was sentenced to five
years imprisonment.

Gideon sought relief from his conviction by filing a petition for writ of
habeas corpus in the Florida Supreme Court. In his petition, Gideon
challenged his conviction and sentence on the ground that the trial
judges refusal to appoint counsel violated Gideons constitutional
rights. The Florida Supreme Court denied Gideons petition.

Gideon next filed a handwritten petition in the Supreme Court of the

United States. The Court agreed to hear the case to resolve the
question of whether the right to counsel guaranteed under the Sixth
Amendment of the Constitution applies to defendants in state court.

PROCEDURE:
Lower Courts: Bay County Circuit Court, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit
of Florida
Lower Court Ruling: The trial judge denied Gideons request for a
court-appointed attorney because, under Florida law, counsel could
only be appointed for a poor defendant charged with a capital
offense. The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the trial court and
denied all relief.

ISSUE:
A prior decision of the Courts, Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942),
held that the refusal to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant
charged with a felony in state court did not necessarily violate the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court
granted Gideons petition for a writ of certiorari that is, agreed to
hear Gideons case and review the decision of the lower court in

23
 order to determine whether Betts should be reconsidered.

RULING:
Reversed and remanded. In its opinion, the Court unanimously
overruled Betts v. Brady.

Argued: January 15, 1963

Decided: March 18, 1963

Unanimous Decision: Justice Black (who dissented in Betts) wrote

the opinion of the court. Justices Douglas, Clark, and Harlan each
wrote concurring opinions.

REASONING:
The Court held that the Sixth Amendments guarantee of counsel is
a fundamental right essential to a fair trial and, as such, applies the
states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. In overturning Betts, Justice Black stated that reason
and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system
of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to
hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is
provided for him. He further wrote that the noble ideal of fair trials
before impartial tribunals in which ever defendant stands equal
before the law . . . cannot be realized if the poor man charged with
crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.

Fictional Scenario
A Story of How Someone Like You Might Need a Public Defender

Tim Jones is a 17-year-old who just completed his junior year. He has a reputation
for hard work in academics and athletics and is widely admired as an inclusive
school leader. Tim has been accepted into the early admissions program at his first-
choice college. When he is not studying or working out with teammates, he is at his
part-time job. Tim has earned his parents trust as a responsible son who never
misses a curfew.

24
To reward him for his maturity and hard work, Tims parents allow him to take the
family van to go camping with three friends over the Fourth of July weekend at a
national park where the family traditionally spends the holiday together. On the way,
Tim decides to buy fireworks. He drives his friends across the state line to Evergreen
State where they buy fireworks at the same roadside stand that Tims Uncle John
has taken him to every year.

At the entrance to the federal park where they have reserved a campsite, a sign
reads: No Fireworks Allowed. Tim says that, every year after his parents were
asleep in their camper, his Uncle John set off fireworks at this campground with no
problems.

By the time the boys set up camp and build a fire, darkness has fallen, so they set off
a quick series of fireworks. After the first round, the boys notice a small fire in the
direction they have been launching the fireworks. They try unsuccessfully to put out
the fire, which grows quickly and forces them to leave the campground. As Tim
drives the van, his friend Terry calls Tims dad, who tells them they have to report the
fire immediately. Terry calls the nearest fire department and directs the fire chief to
the location of the fire.

When the fire fighters, forest ranger, and sheriff arrive, the fire is out of control. As
the firefighters battle the blaze, Tim gives consent to the park ranger and the sheriff
to search the van. They find the remaining fireworks and a receipt from the fireworks
stand across the state line.

By the next morning, three acres of trees in this popular recreation area are
destroyed, and a U.S. Forest Service building is burned to the ground. The initial
damage assessment includes more than $200,000 to extinguish the blaze and more
than $300,000 to replace the U.S. Forest Service property.

The United States Attorneys Office for Evergreen is charging Tim with misdemeanor
federal crimes of starting a wildfire on federal land and possession of illegal fireworks
on federal land. Tim faces penalties of up to six months in jail, probation supervision,
and restitution for the property damage as ordered by the Court. The fire attracts
widespread media coverage. The nearby community and national environmental
groups stage protests, demanding the maximum penalties.

25
Suggested General Questions

1. What factors that you read in the scenario would bring this case into
federal court?

2. If Tim Jones decides to plead guilty, and you are representing him
as a Federal Public Defender, list the weaknesses in your case that
an Assistant U.S. Attorney might argue before the sentencing
Judge.

3. If Tim Jones decides to plead guilty, as his Federal Public Defender,

make a list of the strengths of your case that you would argue
before the sentencing Judge.

26
APNDICE 2: ARE 3D PRINTED PLASTIC GUNS LEGAL?

Are 3D Printed Plastic Guns Legal?

Fuente: http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31762
The arrival of 3D printing technology has led to some amazing new
possibilities for things like replicating broken parts, creating
amazing works of 3D art, and manufacturing entire items from
patters found online. But, as is usually the case with any new
technology, someone finds a way to use it for something sinister.
Several creators invented 3D printed plastic guns and made plans
available online. But, are these 3D printed plastic guns legal?

The problems with the 3D printed plastic guns are several fold. First,
they are highly dangerous to the user. Most degrade after only one or
two firings and can explode in the user's hand causing serious injury.
Second, because they are able to be printed at home, they lack things
like serial numbers, background checks, or waiting periods. And, third,
because they are made out of plastic, these guns can be carried through
security checkpoints, often without detection.

The third issue had been of most concern to federal lawmakers who on
December 9, 2013 signed a 10-year extension to a law banning guns
that were undetectable to metal detectors, X-ray machines, and other
security devices. To comply with the law, any gun, whether printed via
3D printer or manufactured and purchased in a store, must contain a
metal piece that would render it detectable.

Some have suggested the law does not go far enough, in that the metal
piece could be removable and still comply with the federal law. Similarly,
the ban does not address the other concerns regarding gun registration
and the risk to the user. This law illustrates the often difficult balancing
act between regulating new and emerging technology while holding true
to the framework of the U.S. Constitution including the Second
Amendment right to bear arms. Although the law does not go as far as
some feel it should, it does help to protect some security interests while
attempting to remain as nonrestrictive of citizens' gun rights as possible.

So, to answer the question posed by the article, yes, 3D printed plastic

27
guns are legal provided they include the metal pieces designed to render
them detectable by security devices. Otherwise, they are not legal.

From a different perspective, however, 3D printed guns may present

unique issues for civil liability. Given the guns' propensity for early
failure, the chances of injury when using one are extremely high. The
question then is who will be responsible for that injury? The creator of
the 3D plans, the person who printed and assembled the gun, or the
manufacturer of the materials used to print the gun? The issue has not
yet been put to the test in court, but it is likely that some litigation will
undoubtedly arise related to these devices at some point. While the
liability of manufacturers for the printers and materials used in them
would be highly attenuated in such cases, meaning there will likely be
little or no liability on their parts, the gun designer may be a different
matter. Their designs, when used for their intended purpose, created an
actual, firing gun that failed and injured the user, so they may actually
have some liability. The best way to ensure that your liability is as limited
as possible: do not participate in designing or manufacturing 3D
printable guns.

If you have questions about your rights under the ban on undetectable
guns you may wish to speak to an attorney with experience in civil rights
and/or criminal matters. With regard to the question of potential liability
related to 3D printed guns, you may want to speak to an attorney
experienced in product liability. In either case, you can find an attorney
in your area by visiting the Law Firms page of our website at HG.org.

Copyright HG.org

Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of
this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual
situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or
lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided
and related topics, please contact the author.

28
APNDICE 3: THE JURY CARTOONS
Cartoon 1

Cartoon 2:
Fuente:http://www.timothysykes.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/jury.jpg

29
APNDICE 4: The Enron Case FBI Files
Fuente: https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/enron

Enron

More than 3,000 boxes of evidence and more

than four terabytes of digitized data were
collected by agents in the weeks after Enron
declared bankruptcy Dec. 2, 2001.

The collapse of energy company in December 2001 precipitated what would become the
most complex white-collar crime investigation in the FBIs history.

Top officials at the Houston-based company cheated investors and enriched themselves
through complex accounting gimmicks like overvaluing assets to boost cash flow and
earnings statements, which made the company even more appealing to investors. When
the company declared bankruptcy in December 2001, investors lost millions, prompting
the FBI and other federal agencies to investigate.

The sheer magnitude of the case

prompted creation of the multi- agency
Enron Task Force, a unique blend of
investigators and analysts from the FBI, the
Internal Handcuffed Ex-Enron CEO being led
away by FBI agents (Reuters Photo) Revenue
Service-Criminal Investigation Division, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and
prosecutors from the Department of Justice.

Agents conducted more than 1,800 interviews and collected more than 3,000 boxes of
evidence and more than four terabytes of digitized data. More than $164 million was
seized; to date about $90 million has been forfeited to help compensate victims. Twenty-
two people have been convicted for their actions related to the fraud, including Enrons

30
chief executive officer, the president/chief operating officer, the chief financial officer, the
chief accounting officer, and others.

The Enron Task Forces efforts resulted in the convictions of nearly all of Enrons
executive management team, said Michael E. Anderson, assistant special agent in
charge of the FBIs Houston Division, who led the FBIs Enron Task Force in Houston.
The task force represented a model task forcethe participating agencies selflessly and
effectively worked together in accomplishing significant results. The case demonstrated to
Wall Street and the business community that they will be held accountable.

Resources:
- A Look Back at the Enron Case
- Enron trial exhibits and documents

Cases:
- Former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling Resentenced
- Federal Jury Convicts Former Enron Chief Executives Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling
- Former Enron Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow Pleads Guilty
- Former Enron Broadband Co-Chief Executive Officer Sentenced for Wire Fraud
- Former Enron Assistant Treasurer Pleads Guilty
- Former Enron Executive Pleads Guilty to Insider Trading

31
APNDICE 5: Enron Trial Exhibits and Documents

32
33