Alford Hearing:  A hearing to determine the validity of an Alfred Plea. An Alfred Plea is where a defendant pleads guilty in order to avoid being found guilty at trial and receiving a more substantial sentence, but at the same time, asserts his or her innocence. Henry Alford had been charged with First Degree Murder. The prosecution had a strong case. If convicted after trial Mr. Alford faced the death penalty. In light of the strong case against him, and the likely sentence he would receive upon conviction, Mr. Alford chose to plead guilty, while at the same time declaring his innocence. Alford appealed his conviction and requested a new trial. He argued that he was forced into pleading guilty because he was afraid of receiving a death sentence. Eventually the case made it way to the Supreme Court of the United States that determined that plea was acceptable. The Court ruled that the defendant can enter into such a plea "when he or she concludes that his interests require a guilty plea and the record strongly indicates guilt" and the defendant is properly advised by his attorney.

 

Brady Motion: Prosecutors must disclose information or evidence that is favorable or exculpates a defendant, or that would enable the defense to more effectively impeach the credibility of government witnesses. Evidence that would also help reduce a defendant’s sentence upon conviction must also be disclosed to the defense.  In the case Brady v Maryland, the United States Supreme Court held that the prosecutions failure to disclose evidence or information favorable to a defendant who has requested it, violated due process

 

Clayton Hearing: A hearing to determine whether to dismiss a case in the interest of justice. The request is often presented in the form of a motion, rather than an actual hearing. In the case of People v Clayton, Robert Clayton had served 19 years for a charge that upon retrial, he could only serve a total of 20 years on. The court dismissed the indictment and at the same time established several factors to be considered when determining whether a charge should be dismissed in the interest of justice. Among the considerations are the nature of the crime, the available evidence of guilt, the prior record of the defendant, the punishment already suffered by the defendant, the purpose and effect of further punishment, any prejudice resulting to the defendant by the passage of time and the impact on the public interest of a dismissal of the indictment.

Competency Hearing: Also known as a 730 hearing, is a hearing to determine if a defendant understands the charges against him or her and can assist in his/her own defense.

 

 

Darden Hearing: (People v Darden) An in camera hearing with a judge and confidential informant, without disclosing the informants identity, to determine whether sufficient information was given by the informer to justify the search warrant that had been issued, and or whether the identity of the confidential informant should be revealed to the defense.

 

Dunaway Hearing: (Dunaway v New York)  A hearing to determine if police had “probable cause” to detain and arrest a defendant. A Dunaway hearing is always held in conjunction with a Mapp, Huntley, or Wade hearing. The Dunaway hearing is used to determine whether there was probable cause to conduct the search that resulted in the seizure evidence. If there lacked probable cause for the search, the evidence must be suppressed and cannot be used against the defendant. If the court holds that the search and or arrest were illegal, any statements, property, and/or identification evidence taken from the defendant will also be suppressed and cannot be used against him or her.

 

Einhorn Hearing: (People v Einhorn)   To determine if illegal eavesdropping evidence is the basis of a question asked a witness before a Grand Jury.

 

Felony Hearing: Also known as a Felony Exam, is a hearing to determine if  there is reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed a felony and should be held in jail for ann additional amount of time pending an indictment

 

Forman Hearing: A hearing to determine if the ex parte Order of Protection should be continued.

 

Frye Hearing: A hearing to determine whether a scientific procedure used during the course of an investigation is accepted and sufficiently reliable to be admissible at trial.

 

Gelbard Hearing: (U.S. v Gelbard)  A hearing to determine whether questions asked before a Federal Grand Jury were derived from an electronic means of surveillance.

 

Huntley Hearing: (People v Huntley)   A hearing to determine the voluntariness of a confession and / or whether the statement or statements allegedly made by the defendant were obtained legally pursuant to the defendants Miranda rights. The Huntley hearing is about statements that prosecutors claim the defendant made. At the Huntley hearing, the defense challenges the way the police obtained the statements. The defendant can argue that the statements were obtained as a result of physical violence, or, the defendant may argue that the statements obtained, were obtained without the defendant having been warned of his or her right Miranda rights. The defendant can also argue that the statement was obtained as a result of an illegal arrest. If the prosecutors do not claim the accused made any statements, or do not intend to introduce any statements allegedly made by the defendant, then there is no need to conduct a Huntley hearing.

Ingle Hearing: This hearing is conducted to determine whether a stop of a vehicle by a police officer was legal. This t of hearing is common in driving while intoxicated cases where the accused is stopped at a road block or sobriety check point.

 

Luck Hearing: (U.S. v Luck)   To determine if defendant’s prior conviction may be used for impeachment purposes.

 

Mapp Hearing: (Mapp v Ohio)   A hearing to determine whether evidence should be suppressed because it has been obtained during an illegal search in violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Mapp hearing involves  physical evidence recovered by the police. At a Mapp hearing, the defense challenges the way the police came into possession of the evidence. If a court finds that the evidence was illegally found, the prosecutor will not be allowed to use it as evidence. 

 

 

Miranda Hearing: (Miranda v Arizona)  To determine whether defendant was properly advised of his or her rights at the time of arrest. (Also known as Miranda rights)

 

Montgomery Hearing: (People v Montgomery)  To determine whether defendant received adequate notice of his right to appeal his or her conviction.

 

Payton Hearing: A hearing to determine whether there was an emergency circumstance to justify an arrest in the defendant’s home without a warrant.

 

Sandoval Hearing: (People v Sandoval)   A hearing to determine which portions of a defendant’s prior record can be brought out by the prosecution a trial if the defendant testifies. 

 

Simmons Hearing: (Simmons v U.S.)   To determine the use of police photographs to establish identity. 

 

Townsend Hearing: (People v Townsend)   A hearing to determine whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial have been violated.

 

Wade Haring: (U.S. v Wade)   To determine the Propriety of pre-trial identification (line-up). A Wade hearing is a hearing to determine the admissibility of an out of court, police arranged identification such as a police lineup. At the Wade hearing, the accused challenges the fairness of the identification. For example, if the police put the 6 foot tall white defendant in a lineup with five  -4 feet tall black men, the accused might argue that the lineup was unfair. If the prosecutors do not intend to use identification evidence at trial, then there is no reason to have a Wade hearing.

 

Ventimiglia Hearing:  Often conducted at the same time as a Sandoval hearing, this is a hearing to determine whether the prosecution can use any uncharged crimes of the defendant during the government's case.