Crime and justice — C2

At B2 you learned the everyday vocabulary of crime — arrest, charge, trial, verdict. At C1 you handled the Miranda warning, the right to counsel, plea bargaining, and the institutional architecture (the AG, the DA, the public defender, federal vs state). C2 is the lawyer’s-vocabulary level: the Latin tags that organize criminal liability, the procedural concepts that drive evidentiary rulings, the constitutional doctrines that shape what police can and cannot do, and the policy register of qualified immunity, prosecutorial discretion, plea bargaining as coercion, and mass incarceration.

A C2 reader handles Slate’s legal commentary, Lawfare, Volokh Conspiracy, Above the Law, the Cardozo Law Review, and Supreme Court opinions in unfamiliar areas. You can read Riley v. California (cellphone-search doctrine, 2014), follow Sotomayor’s qualified-immunity dissents, and parse the procedural posture of a criminal appeal. The lexicon below covers the working vocabulary of US criminal law commentary in 2026.

This lesson is not a law-school substitute. It is a vocabulary map for fluent participation in US legal discourse — for reading op-eds and amicus briefs, for understanding podcasts like Serial or Slate’s Amicus, for following a Supreme Court term.

The Latin core — mens rea, actus reus, and friends

US criminal law inherits its conceptual structure from common-law Latin tags. These are not optional vocabulary; they are how lawyers think.

• mens rea (lit. “guilty mind”) — the mental state required for a crime: intent, knowledge, recklessness, negligence.
• actus reus (lit. “guilty act”) — the physical act (or omission) of the crime.
• the elements of an offense — the components the prosecution must prove (typically: mens rea + actus reus + causation + result + attendant circumstances).
• the MPC (Model Penal Code) — the 1962 attempt to systematize US criminal law; widely adopted as a teaching framework.
• the four mental states (MPC):
  • purposely — conscious objective to cause the result.
  • knowingly — aware that result is practically certain.
  • recklessly — conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
  • negligently — should have been aware of the risk.
• specific intent vs general intent — older common-law distinction; specific intent requires a particular purpose (burglary requires intent to commit a felony inside), general intent requires only the act knowingly.
• strict liability — no mens rea required (statutory rape, some traffic offenses).
• transferred intent — mens rea against intended victim “transfers” when wrong person is hit.
• concurrence — mens rea and actus reus must align in time.
• causation — but-for cause + proximate cause; the chain from act to harm.
• but-for causation — without the act, the result would not have occurred.
• proximate cause — legally cognizable link (the foreseeability test).
• intervening cause — something between act and harm that may break causation.
• superseding cause — sufficient to relieve the defendant of liability.

Other essential Latin tags:

• prima facie (lit. “at first face”) — on its face; the case as presented appears sufficient.
• a prima facie case — the prosecution has presented enough evidence to go to the jury.
• stare decisis — “let the decision stand”; the doctrine of precedent.
• res judicata — “the thing has been decided”; bars relitigation.
• collateral estoppel — issue-preclusion (a narrower form).
• habeas corpus (lit. “you have the body”) — petition challenging unlawful detention.
• in camera — in chambers; privately, before the judge.
• in limine — at the threshold; motions to exclude evidence before trial.
• subpoena — court order to appear or produce documents.
• subpoena duces tecum — subpoena requiring documents.
• voir dire (lit. “to speak the truth”) — jury selection questioning.
• inter alia — among other things.
• ex parte — from one party; without the other party present.
• nolo contendere — “I do not contest”; plea equivalent to guilty for sentencing but not admissible as admission in civil suit.

The burden-of-proof ladder

US law has a graduated set of evidentiary standards. C2 readers must distinguish them precisely.

Common formulations:

• proof beyond a reasonable doubt — the criminal standard; In re Winship (1970) made it constitutional.
• a reasonable doubt is not a mere possibility — the standard jury instruction phrasing.
• the preponderance standard — civil default.
• the clear and convincing standard — middle tier.
• shifting the burden — when a defense (insanity, affirmative defense) puts the burden on the defendant.
• the prosecution bears the burden — default rule in criminal cases.
• the burden of production vs the burden of persuasion — coming forward with evidence vs convincing the factfinder.
• the factfinder — the jury, or the judge in a bench trial.

“The prosecution’s burden is not to eliminate every doubt; it is to eliminate every reasonable doubt. The defense’s strategy is therefore not to prove innocence but to nurture doubt into reasonableness.” — Slate, 2023.

Constitutional criminal procedure — the doctrinal map

US criminal procedure is largely constitutional law, organized by amendment.

Fourth Amendment — search and seizure

• a search — government intrusion on a reasonable expectation of privacy.
• a seizure — meaningful interference with possessory interest, or restraint of a person’s freedom.
• reasonable expectation of privacy (Katz test) — the doctrinal touchstone.
• probable cause — warrant requirement.
• the warrant requirement — searches presumptively require a warrant.
• the warrant exceptions — many: exigent circumstances, plain view, automobile, search incident to arrest, consent, stop and frisk, border, administrative.
• stop and frisk (Terry v. Ohio, 1968) — brief detention + pat-down on reasonable suspicion.
• the automobile exception — reduced privacy expectation in cars allows warrantless search on probable cause.
• the exclusionary rule — illegally obtained evidence cannot be used at trial (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961).
• fruit of the poisonous tree — derivative evidence from illegal searches also excluded (Wong Sun).
• the independent-source doctrine — exception when evidence was obtained from independent legal source.
• the inevitable-discovery doctrine — exception when evidence would have been found anyway (Nix v. Williams).
• the good-faith exception (Leon) — police reliance on later-invalid warrant doesn’t trigger exclusion.
• the attenuation doctrine — taint dissipates over time/intervening events.
• the standing requirement — only the person whose rights were violated can challenge.

Fifth Amendment — self-incrimination and due process

• the right against self-incrimination — Miranda v. Arizona (1966).
• Miranda warnings — right to remain silent; anything you say can be used; right to attorney; if you cannot afford one, one will be appointed.
• custodial interrogation — the trigger for Miranda.
• invocation — the suspect asserting the right.
• waiver — voluntarily giving up the right; must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
• the public-safety exception (Quarles) — narrow situations where pre-Miranda questioning is allowed.
• double jeopardy — barred from retrial for same offense after acquittal.
• dual sovereignty — federal and state can prosecute the same act (Rodney King officers).
• due process — fundamental fairness; substantive and procedural.

Sixth Amendment — right to counsel and confrontation

• the right to counsel (Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963) — appointed counsel for indigent defendants.
• effective assistance of counsel (Strickland) — counsel must perform reasonably; deficient performance + prejudice.
• ineffective assistance (IAC) — a common postconviction claim.
• the right to confront witnesses — face-to-face cross-examination (Crawford v. Washington, 2004).
• the Confrontation Clause — bar on testimonial hearsay without cross-examination.
• the right to a speedy trial — and the Speedy Trial Act (federal statutory implementation).
• the right to a jury trial — for offenses with more than 6 months’ potential incarceration.
• a jury of one’s peers — the constitutional ideal.
• a unanimous verdict (Ramos v. Louisiana, 2020) — required in state criminal cases too.

Eighth Amendment — cruel and unusual punishment

• cruel and unusual punishment — the textual prohibition.
• the evolving standards of decency — the doctrinal test for Eighth Amendment claims.
• proportionality — the punishment-to-crime fit.
• categorical bar — entire classes of punishment forbidden (juvenile death penalty, Roper; intellectually disabled death penalty, Atkins).
• LWOP (life without parole).
• mandatory minimum — legislatively required floor.
• excessive bail / excessive fines — also Eighth-Amendment topics.

Qualified immunity — the doctrine and its critique

Qualified immunity is the most contested doctrine in 21st-century US police law.

• qualified immunity — judge-made doctrine shielding government officials from civil suit unless they violate “clearly established” law.
• \§1983 — the federal civil-rights statute (42 U.S.C. \§1983) used to sue state officials.
• Bivens action — analogous suit against federal officers (Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 1971).
• clearly established law — the demanding standard: a prior case with materially identical facts must have held the conduct unconstitutional.
• the on-point case requirement — courts increasingly require near-identical precedent.
• the two-step test (now optional, Pearson v. Callahan) — (1) was there a constitutional violation? (2) was it clearly established?
• qualified immunity reform — proposed statutory abolition or modification.
• the Reuters investigation (2020) — landmark journalism on QI’s expansion.
• the Sotomayor dissent line — her recurring objections to QI’s expansion.

“Qualified immunity has come to function as a near-absolute bar to civil recovery — not because police rarely violate the Constitution, but because the ‘clearly established’ requirement asks plaintiffs to find a prior case with facts so identical that the rights at stake have rarely been litigated in that exact form before.” — The Atlantic, 2023.

Prosecutorial discretion and plea bargaining

US criminal justice is overwhelmingly a system of pleas, not trials.

• prosecutorial discretion — the broad authority to charge, decline to charge, dismiss, or offer pleas.
• the trial penalty — the sentence differential between conviction at trial and plea.
• plea bargaining — negotiated guilty plea, typically in exchange for reduced charges or sentence.
• charge bargaining — pleading to a lesser charge.
• sentence bargaining — pleading guilty for a recommended sentence.
• fact bargaining — pleading guilty while contesting some facts.
• the Alford plea — pleading guilty while maintaining innocence (North Carolina v. Alford, 1970).
• the open plea — pleading guilty without an agreement; throwing oneself on the court’s mercy.
• the plea colloquy — the judge’s required questioning to ensure voluntariness.
• the factual basis — the prosecution must establish that the defendant in fact committed the offense.
• mandatory minimums as plea leverage — the structural critique.
• overcharging — stacking charges to pressure plea.
• dismiss without prejudice — can be refiled.
• dismiss with prejudice — barred from refiling.
• nolle prosequi / nolle pros — formal abandonment of the prosecution.
• the speedy-trial dismissal — for violations of the time requirement.

“Ninety-five percent of felony convictions in state courts come from pleas. The trial-vs-plea calculus is rarely about whether the defendant is guilty; it is about what risks they can afford to take given the trial penalty.” — The Marshall Project, 2022.

Criminal-justice policy and reform vocabulary

The political register of 2026 US criminal-justice commentary.

• mass incarceration — the term framing US imprisonment rates as a systemic crisis.
• the carceral state — academic/activist framing.
• abolition — the position that prisons should be eliminated or radically minimized; associated with Angela Davis, Ruth Wilson Gilmore.
• decarceration — the more moderate position; reducing the prison population.
• defund the police — the 2020-era slogan; range of policy meanings.
• police reform — reformist alternative.
• community policing — relationship-based model.
• co-responder model — pairing police with mental-health professionals.
• diversion programs — alternatives to prosecution.
• drug courts / mental-health courts / veterans courts — specialty courts.
• restorative justice — victim-offender-community framework.
• clemency / commutation / pardon — executive relief.
• expungement / sealing / vacatur — record relief.
• Three Strikes — recidivist enhancements.
• truth in sentencing — the 1990s reform requiring 85%+ time served.
• the war on drugs — the policy framework since Nixon.
• the crack-powder disparity — 100:1 (then 18:1) federal sentencing ratio; reformed by Fair Sentencing Act (2010) and First Step Act (2018).
• cash bail — pretrial release conditioned on payment; reform target.
• bail reform — moving toward risk assessment or eliminating cash bail.
• pretrial detention — held before trial.
• the New Jim Crow (Michelle Alexander) — the influential framing of mass incarceration as racial control.

Evidence — the core vocabulary

• direct evidence — proves a fact directly (eyewitness testimony, confession).
• circumstantial evidence — proves by inference (fingerprints, motive, opportunity).
• physical evidence — tangible items.
• testimonial evidence — witness statements.
• documentary evidence — writings and records.
• demonstrative evidence — illustrative aids.
• hearsay — out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
• the hearsay rule — generally excluded.
• the hearsay exceptions — many: present sense impression, excited utterance, business records, public records, dying declaration, statement against interest.
• the residual exception — catch-all for trustworthy out-of-court statements.
• chain of custody — the documented trail of physical evidence handling.
• expert testimony — admitted under Daubert standard (federal) or Frye (some states).
• the Daubert standard — judge as gatekeeper for scientific reliability.
• the Frye standard — general-acceptance test.
• lay opinion — non-expert witness opinion; narrowly limited.
• impeachment (of a witness) — challenging credibility.
• prior inconsistent statement — used to impeach.
• the rule against character evidence — generally excluded to prove conduct.
• prior bad acts (404(b)) — admissible for motive, opportunity, intent, not propensity.

AmE-specific legal vocabulary

Collocations

• to bring charges / a case / a motion
• to file a motion / a brief / a complaint
• to move to suppress / dismiss / strike / sever
• to grant / to deny a motion
• to enter a plea / an appearance / an order
• to plead guilty / not guilty / no contest
• to take the stand — testify
• to take the Fifth — invoke against self-incrimination
• to throw out the case / the evidence / the indictment
• to overturn a conviction / a verdict / a ruling
• to vacate a conviction / a sentence
• to remand — send back to lower court
• to affirm / to reverse — appellate outcomes
• to charge with murder / fraud / conspiracy
• to indict on charges of
• to convict of / to acquit of
• to sentence to / to impose a sentence
• to serve time / a sentence
• a hung jury — cannot reach unanimous verdict
• a mistrial — terminated without verdict
• a deadlock — same idea
• a bench trial — judge sits as factfinder
• a jury trial — petit jury sits
• a cooperator — a defendant testifying for the prosecution
• a flip — turning state’s evidence
• a snitch / a rat — informant (pejorative)
• a CI — confidential informant (police term)

Phrases and locutions

• the rule of law — government by law, not by men
• the presumption of innocence — until proven guilty
• innocent until proven guilty — the cliché form
• the right to remain silent — Miranda formula
• read someone their rights — administer Miranda
• a fair trial — Sixth Amendment guarantee
• a speedy and public trial — same
• a jury of one’s peers — same
• the chips fall where they may — let outcome be what it is
• let the punishment fit the crime — proportionality
• throw the book at someone — sentence harshly
• slap on the wrist — mild punishment
• on the lam — fleeing prosecution
• cop a plea — accept a plea deal
• the long arm of the law — broad reach of policing
• above the law — exempt from accountability
• due process / the due-process tradition
• equal protection of the laws — Fourteenth Amendment
• liberty interest / property interest — due-process triggers

Common Russian-speaker mistakes

1. *Criminal* used for any wrongdoer. Russian криминал / криминальный is broad. In AmE, criminal (noun) is reserved for someone convicted or actively engaged in serious crime; offender is the neutral institutional term; defendant is the trial-context term; perpetrator / perp is the police-procedural term. He’s a criminal is a strong claim — he’s a defendant or he’s a suspect is the safer phrasing pre-conviction.
2. *Process* for trial. Calque of процесс. AmE process means procedure or legal proceeding generally; the trial itself is trial or proceedings in formal contexts. The criminal process is the whole apparatus (charging through sentencing); the criminal trial is the specific factfinding phase. His process starts Monday sounds wrong; native is his trial starts Monday.
3. *Procurator* for prosecutor. False friend with прокурор. The English word is prosecutor; the office is the District Attorney (state) or the US Attorney (federal); the AG is the chief. Procurator is not standard US English (it survives in some other systems and as a historical/Roman title).
4. *To take the trial* for to stand trial. Calque. AmE says to stand trial, to go to trial, or to face trial. The defendant stands trial; the prosecution brings the case to trial. He’s taking the trial is wrong.
5. *Crime* as countable for any one offense, including misdemeanors. Crime is mass-noun-ish in casual AmE — crime is up, fighting crime. For a specific act, AmE uses a crime, an offense, an incident. The hierarchy: felony (serious), misdemeanor (lesser), infraction / violation (lowest, often non-criminal). Russians sometimes call any преступление a “crime”; native AmE matches the term to severity.
6. *Sit in prison* as default. Russian сидеть в тюрьме. AmE says serve time, do time, be in prison, be incarcerated, be locked up, be inside. He sits in prison is grammatical but unidiomatic; he’s serving twenty years or he’s doing time sounds native.
7. *Investigator* for detective. Both exist but differ. Detective is the police rank for a plainclothes officer investigating crime. Investigator is broader — covers private investigators, federal agents, internal-affairs officers, OIG investigators. In a police-procedural context, the line cop becomes a detective; the private gumshoe is an investigator or PI. The FBI calls its line agents special agents, not investigators.

Summary

• The Latin core: mens rea, actus reus, prima facie, stare decisis, habeas corpus, voir dire.
• Burdens of proof: reasonable suspicion < probable cause < preponderance < clear and convincing < beyond reasonable doubt.
• Fourth Amendment: the warrant requirement, the exclusionary rule, fruit of the poisonous tree, the warrant exceptions.
• Fifth Amendment: Miranda, custodial interrogation, invocation, waiver, double jeopardy.
• Sixth Amendment: right to counsel, effective assistance (Strickland), Confrontation Clause (Crawford), speedy trial.
• Qualified immunity + \§1983 + clearly established law = the police-civil-liability triangle.
• Prosecutorial discretion + plea bargaining + trial penalty = the modern reality of US criminal justice.
• AmE specifics: DA, US Attorney, felony/misdemeanor, grand jury vs petit jury, the docket.

Next theme: Psychology and philosophy — C2 — phenomenology, qualia, theory of mind, embodied cognition, predictive processing, the free energy principle, dual-process theory, and the cognitive-science register of 2026.