Annotated Bibliography
You Have Been Caught, What Now?

Abstract
The police have arrived and there is nowhere to run. Even if one did, they know a crime was committed and who has done it. Where does one go from here and what is going to happen? This will give the resources to follow the procedural justice process from beginning to end under normal and under unusual procedures. Regardless of the verdict there will be options along the way that may result in different outcomes throughout the process and some are unexpected. It all depends on the individual and how each case is handled by the police, the prosecutors, and the judges. Perhaps this will shed some light on the procedural process of the criminal justice system and how it really works.

Introduction: What happens now? This annotated bibliography shows the procedural process of justice and how it progresses under normal circumstances for some and unusual circumstances for others. In the United States the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In a felony criminal case, the accused is “normally” investigated, arrested and booked, placed in a jail cell until the accused can be brought before a magistrate judge for the initial hearing called an arraignment, where the Miranda rights as well as the charges against the accused are read. Bond is discussed and granted or denied at this hearing. There is a Grand Jury hearing to discuss the merits of the case and it is “true billed” or dismissed. If it is true billed the prosecutor may offer a deal or it will proceed to District Court for a “plea hearing” and if it is dismissed then it is over. If the defendant pleads guilty or is found guilty then there will be a minimum and maximum sentence for the crime. Normally the sentence may be as small as community service, probation, or jail time may be given as well as monetary fines, and treatment programs sentenced to the accused. Here are some things that also happen when things go wrong and the power of those we trust are abused.

Bibliography
Blackwell, B. S., & Cunningham, C. D. (2004). Taking the punishment out of the process: From substantive criminal justice through procedural justice to restorative justice. Law and Contemporary Problems, 67(4), 59-86. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27592064
“When Justice is a Crime”, tells of victims of misdemeanor traffic violations sitting in jail for days longer than the maximum sentence for such a crime. These are offenses such as “Pedestrian Obstructing Traffic”, “Pedestrian in Road”, (jaywalking) and “Pedestrian Soliciting a Ride”, (hitchhiking). The newspaper reported that both the Chief Judge of Atlanta’s Traffic Court and the chief prosecutor “agreed that none of the inmates should’ve been held for more than forty-eight hours without a probable cause hearing” and that both “were aware of the problems.” “It is clear that these persons jailed for minor traffic violations received punishment far in excess of what they should have received even if they were found guilty as charged.” (Blackwell & Cunningham, 2004) The authors, Brenda Blackwell is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Georgia State University and Cunnigham is a Professor of Law at W. Lee Burge College of Law at Georgia State University. I selected this article to show that not only do prosecutors and police have the ability to abuse their power and do so at will as in the Chris Dorner case, the judges do it too.

Karimi, F. and Curnow, R. (2013, February 16). Few details, plenty of questions as Pistorius disputes murder charge. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/16/world/africa/south-africa-pistorius- questions/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews.
On the day that thousands of women gathered to stop violence against women and a few weeks after he set the world record in the 400 meters in the 2012 Paralympics, (Blade Runner), Oscar Pistorius shoots and kills his model girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day. According to the authors he claims he thought she was an intruder even though he shoots her through the bathroom door. The article shows the criminal justice process Oscar Pistorius went through up until the current date as well as his accomplishments. Prosecutors are going to charge him with premeditated murder. (Karimi and Curnow 2013) I chose this article to support my final paper because this case has an accused man with many, “out of the ordinary” accomplishments in his past due to his physical disabilities that he has overcome. The criminal justice process he is going through is the normal way a suspect should be treated.
Martinez, M. (2013, February 14). Ex-lapd cop gains sympathizers on social media. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/13/us/lapd-dorner-fans/index.html?iref=storysearch
In this article from former war correspondent for Tribune Co. and news desk editor and writer for CNN, Michael Martinez, tells of the supporters for yet another murder suspect recently in the news. He tells of the procedural process that was not awarded to Christopher Jordan Dorner, formerly a Los Angeles Police Department officer that was fired for filing a false report accusing a training officer of kicking a mentally ill man. Chris Dorner fought for his job back in court and lost his case and vowed to take revenge on those who did a poor job of representing him in his defense. In contrast to the article by Karimi, F. and Curnow, R. above, this suspect did not get a chance to see the criminal justice procedure. Chris Dorner barricaded himself in a cabin in the woods near Big Bear Lake, CA. where he committed suicide and the police proceeded to burn down the cabin around him. I chose this article to show how the discretion of police officers in the field sometimes crosses the line and suspects never see the criminal justice system at work.
Unknown. (2001). Breathing new life into prosecutorial vindictiveness doctrine. Harvard Law Review, 114(7), 2074-2097. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=5a252 82d-9e41-4a29-8b19-195a0d636830@sessionmgr113&hid=116
In this article in the Harvard Law Review, the author states that prosecutors will routinely “up the ante” and increase the severity of charges against the defendant if the attorney for the defense exercises pretrial motions. The result is the “prosecutorial vindictiveness, of punishing a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do.” (Unknown, 2001). I chose this article to support the fact that criminal procedural justice isn’t the same for everyone. This article shows that prosecutors are not always interested in doing the right thing by the defendant; they are just interested in winning the case and “being right.” In contrast to the article by Martinez, M. above that shows misconduct by police officers, this is an example of misconduct by the prosecutors that handle criminal cases. Why would a person suspected of a crime trust the due process of law theory? Aren’t people accused of a crime presumed innocent until proven guilty? Not Always!