Crim Pro

Defendant resides in a state that has adopted the Model Penal Code. Defendant, a druggist, owned a drug store in a remote area of the Rocky Mountains. During a severe storm, a customer entered the store and asked Defendant to sell him some Oxycontin. Defendant did so even though the customer did not have a prescription. Defendant has been charged with the sale of the drug without a prescription. At trial, defense counsel has elicited evidence that the customer bought the Oxycontin for his wife, who was suffering from severe pain caused by an accident and that the customer could not get his wife to a hospital because of the storm. The customer also testified that the medication relieved her pain until he was able to get her proper medical care two days later. Defense counsel wonders whether the customer's testimony provides the basis of a defense for Defendant. Which of the following offers the best advice to counsel?

"You have not laid the foundation for a necessity defense because you have not shown that Defendant was aware of the wife's condition."

Defendant was convicted of murder. On appeal, he received court-appointed counsel, who filed a brief in the appellate court. Although the appellate court noted that a number of issues were close on the merits, it rejected the appeal. Unable to get court-appointed counsel to file a petition for review in the state supreme court, Defendant asked his family to find him counsel to file for review with the state supreme court. Paid-counsel filed the petition, which was denied. Later, Defendant realized that Paid-counsel had done a poor job in filing the petition for review and filed a petition for habeas corpus in which he contended that Paid-counsel was ineffective. How should the court rule on Defendant's petition for habeas corpus?

A defendant does not have a right to effective assistance of counsel on a second appeal, in part, because a defendant has no due process right to counsel at that stage at all. The court should deny the petition.

DEA Agent observed Defendant deplane her incoming flight from Miami, Florida. She was the last person off the flight and appeared nervous. With their suspicions aroused, Agent and his partner approached Defendant in the concourse, identified themselves, and asked to see her identification. The agents asked her how long she had been in Florida and what the purpose of her trip had been. She explained that she had been there only for a day and had gone to a seminar. When she could not name the location of the seminar, Agent asked her to accompany the agents to an interview room, located only about 50 feet from where they were standing. She agreed to go along. Once there, Agent asked if Defendant would allow him to search her purse. She said, "Go ahead." Agent found a packet of heroin in her purse. After her indictment for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

A reasonable person in Defendant's position would not have felt that her freedom was constrained. Further, she consented to the search. The court should deny the motion.

Officer arrested Defendant for armed robbery. During a post-arrest interrogation without Miranda warnings, Defendant admitted that he committed the crime and told the police where he left the weapon and proceeds of the crime. Based on that information, police found the physical evidence. Charged with armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the statements and the physical evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

A violation of Miranda does not require suppression of physical evidence gained as a result of a statement taken in violation of Miranda. The court should suppress the use of Defendant's statement, but not the physical evidence.

Officer Albert arrested Defendant for the murder of his wife. Officer read Defendant his Miranda rights and Defendant said that he would prefer to talk to counsel before he talked to the police. The next morning, Officer Bernard approached Defendant to investigate his involvement in the murder of Defendant's brother. Bernard had reason to believe Defendant killed his brother because the brother was having an affair with Defendant's wife. Bernard gave Defendant a new set of Miranda warnings, after which Defendant agreed to talk and admitted killing his brother and his wife. Charged with two counts of murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Absent a re-initiation of the conversation by Defendant, the police could not re-approach Defendant without counsel present. The court should grant the motion.

Police received an anonymous letter stating that Defendant and his wife were big drug dealers; that they bragged about not having to work; that they kept a large amount of cash and drugs at their home at a specified address; that they were planning a trip to Florida to pick up 30 pounds of marijuana; that Defendant would drive to Florida and meet his wife there; and that she would fly there on a specified date; and they would immediately drive home together. The letter arrived with the police the same day that the author predicted that Defendant and his wife would arrive home. Based on that information, Officer secured a search warrant for Defendant and his wife's home. When executing the warrant, the police did not find any marijuana, but did find a substantial amount of cocaine. On trial for possession of cocaine, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Absent some corroboration of the letter's contents, the magistrate should not have issued the warrant. The court should grant the motion unless it finds the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies.

The Idagon legislature (Idagon is a state in the U.S.) has before it a bill to modify its grand jury practice. Currently, the state must begin all prosecutions by indictment, a practice that some find unnecessarily time-consuming. In addition, state law allows counsel for the target of the grand jury to be present during proceedings, and witnesses are given Miranda warnings. Legislators would like to make grand juries available at the discretion of the state; to disallow counsel for the target of the grand jury to be present; and to get rid of the requirements for Miranda warnings and observance of the rules of evidence. Which of the following answers best describes the legality under the U.S. Constitution of the provisions of the proposed legislation?

All of the provisions are constitutional, at least as long as the state provides an accused some pre-trial way to challenge whether the state has probable cause to proceed against her.

Responding to an emergency call that someone had fired a weapon at a particular address, officers determined that the weapon was fired from Defendant's apartment and they entered the apartment. Defendant was inside and admitted to unlawful discharge of the weapon, and they placed him under arrest. Officer then looked further through the apartment to determine whether anyone who might have been injured was still in the apartment. While looking, Officer noticed an expensive stereo turntable that seemed out of place in the squalid apartment. To determine if it was stolen, he moved the turntable to locate its serial number on the back. He then called in the number and learned from an officer on duty that the turntable had been taken in a recent burglary. On trial for that burglary, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Although lawfully inside the apartment, Officer engaged in an unlawful search when he moved the turntable to read the serial number. The court should grant the motion.

Officer arrested Defendant on a charge of murder. Office read Defendant his Miranda rights. After Defendant agreed to talk to Officer, Officer took him to an interrogation room. Over the next several hours, Defendant refused to confess to his role in the murder despite repeated efforts of several officers to get him to talk. Their efforts included the use of a false DNA report that Officer claimed showed that Defendant's DNA was found at the murder scene. Early the next morning, Defendant confessed. Charged with murder, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. During the suppression hearing, Defendant's attorney argued that the court should exclude the statement unless it found the statement voluntary by clear and convincing evidence. The court disagreed and found that the statement was voluntary by a preponderance of the evidence. The case is now on appeal. Which of the following answers best describes how the appellate court should decide the appeal?

Although the court should review the finding of voluntariness de novo, the trial court applied the correct burden of proof. The court should affirm the conviction.

Officer arrested Defendant on a charge of bank robbery and had him transported to the police station. Officer went to Defendant's two-bedroom home, which he owned, but which he shared with a roommate who paid him rent. Officer asked the roommate if Officer could search the home. The roommate agreed to the search. In a search of a box hidden in the back of the front hall closet that the roommates shared, Officer discovered the proceeds of the robbery and a handgun used in the robbery. Charged with armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Although the roommate lacked authority to consent, his apparent authority entitled the police to rely on the roommate's consent. The court should deny the motion.

The legislature of Texarkana (a state in the U.S.) is considering drafting legislation to govern guilty plea practice in its criminal courts. Heavily dependent on waivers of the right to counsel and on guilty pleas, the state judiciary has asked for guidance from the legislature. The judges have asked for standard information that they should provide defendants seeking to plead guilty so that they can avoid having defendants successfully reopen pleas based on inadequate information. At the same time, the members of the legislature want the statute to provide the constitutional minimum out of a fear that greater warnings may encourage defendants from invoking the right to counsel and from seeking to go to trial. You are employed as a member of the judiciary committee's staff and have been asked to provide accurate advice. Which of the following offers the best advice to achieve the goal of providing constitutionally acceptable information to defendants seeking to waive counsel and plead guilty?

Although the state may choose to provide defendants with more information, the Constitution is satisfied if judges warn defendants as follows: the nature of the charges against the defendant, the right to be counseled by an attorney regarding his plea, and the range of punishments attendant upon entering a plea.

Defendant was convicted of murder. Unable to afford counsel on appeal, Defendant was appointed appellate counsel. In discussions with counsel, Defendant wanted appellate counsel to raise several issues that appellate counsel refused to include in the brief. The appellate court considered the claims that appellate counsel did raise and rejected them. Defendant filed a petition for habeas corpus and argued that appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising arguments that Defendant wanted him to raise on appeal. The record developed before the habeas court revealed that counsel rejected those grounds because counsel believed them to be frivolous and that counsel, instead, focused on a few colorable arguments on appeal. How should the court rule on Defendant's petition for habeas corpus?

An appellate attorney does not have to argue every colorable issue even if the defendant insists that counsel do so. The court should deny the petition.

Officer developed probable cause to believe that Defendant committed a particularly heinous murder. Officer spent two years searching for Defendant, who was successful in eluding the police. On the day of Defendant's arrest, Officer received a tip that Defendant was in his home. Officer set up surveillance and saw a man whom Officer recognized as Defendant appear at a bedroom window. Concerned that Defendant would elude him again, Officer called for backup units to join him. When those units arrived, Officer knocked on the front door. When no one responded after a few seconds, Officer used a battering ram to break into Defendant's home. Officer arrested Defendant in his bedroom and after handcuffing Defendant, found a handgun in a bedside table. Forensic evidence determined that the handgun was the murder weapon. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

An officer needs an arrest warrant to make an in-home arrest (and probable cause that the suspect is at home at the time of the entry). As a result, the court should grant the motion.

Defendant was staying at an acquaintance's apartment. Officer received a radio call notifying Officer of a recent armed robbery. Suspecting the involvement of Defendant and his acquaintance, Officer and a backup team entered the apartment and searched the apartment for the two men. During the course of the search for the men, Officer located a shotgun similar to one used in the robbery. On trial for armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. The state claims that Defendant cannot object to the police conduct. Which of the following answers is the most accurate in light of Supreme Court precedent?

As an overnight guest, Defendant can object to the police conduct.

Defendant was arrested for murder. During his arraignment, he asked the court to appoint counsel for him because he was indigent. Before he had a chance to discuss his case with counsel, Defendant was returned to his cell. Officer, aware of the appointment of counsel, approached Defendant and, after reading Defendant the standard Miranda warnings, asked if he would discuss the charges with Officer. Defendant said, yes. After several hours, Defendant admitted that he committed the crime. On trial for murder, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

As long as Defendant's Miranda waiver was valid, the statement should be admissible on these facts. The court should deny the motion.

State X has in effect a statute that allows the state to file a motion to extend a sex offender's term of incarceration if the state demonstrates that the offender remains a dangerous sex offender. As part of the proceedings to determine whether an offender may be released, the state must carry the burden of proof. Psychiatrists routinely interview prisoners near the end of their terms to determine whether they may be released. During such an interview of Defendant, the psychiatrist did not give Defendant any warnings that he was entitled to remain silent. When Defendant hesitated to talk to the psychiatrist, the psychiatrist told Defendant that he was required to participate in the interview. During the interview, Defendant admitted to continued hostile fantasies. Prior to the hearing on the state's motion to extend Defendant's term of incarceration, Defendant moved to suppress the statement to the psychiatrist. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

As long as State X intended the proceeding to be civil in nature, Defendant had no Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant operated a marijuana farm in a rural and mountainous area. Based on uncorroborated tip to that effect, Officer used a helicopter to get a view of Defendant's property. Officer's job was made difficult by the isolated nature of the property, but the Officer was able to secure a view of the property while the helicopter remained in lawful airspace often used by helicopters flown by fire, police and emergency personnel. They recognized Defendant's crop as marijuana. Officer secured a search warrant, which the Officer and other officers executed. They discovered close to a ton of marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

As long as it is clear that the helicopter was in public airways at an altitude at which members of the public travel with sufficient regularity, the court should deny the motion because there would have been no violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Defendant resides in a state that has adopted the Model Penal Code. In an effort to stop hunters from taking deer out of season, local fish and game wardens set up a sting operation. They placed a stuffed deer near a popular hunting area. Defendant, an avid hunter, was unwilling to wait for the opening of deer season. While on a hunting trip, he spotted the stuffed deer and shot it. Wardens, hidden in the brush nearby, arrested him and the state has charged him with the crime of attempting to take a deer out of season. Which of the following answers best describes the relevance of Defendant's mistaken belief as to what he was shooting at?

As long as the prosecutor can prove that Defendant believed the deer was real, not a stuffed deer, he can be found guilty of the crime.

Defendant was arrested several years ago when Officer stopped him on the highway on suspicion of driving with a suspended license. After Officer arrested Defendant and put him in the police cruiser, Officer returned to the vehicle and conducted a full search of the passenger compartment, where Officer found a large quantity of cocaine in a closed glove compartment. Prior to trial, Defendant challenged the search on the ground that it exceeded the scope of a search incident to a lawful arrest. The court denied the motion and Defendant was found guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. After he appealed his conviction but before the court rendered its decision, the Supreme Court handed down Arizona v. Gant (2009). Defendant contends that the Court's holding supports his argument that search was unlawful. How should the appellate court rule on Defendant's appeal?

At the time of the search, consistent with prevailing precedent, the search was lawful. Even if at the time of the appeal, the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment has shifted, the evidence should not be suppressed because the officer's reliance on precedent was objectively reasonable. The court should sustain Defendant's conviction.

Defendant was arrested on charges of armed robbery. Prior to taking him to be arraigned, Officer put Defendant in a lineup with five other men, similarly dressed and similar in appearance, in the jail. The victim of the robbery identified Defendant. During Defendant's trial for armed robbery, the prosecutor has called the victim to the stand and wants him to testify about the pretrial line-up and for him to identify him in court as well. Defendant has objected to the admission of both identifications. How should the court rule on Defendant's objections to the use of the identifications at trial?

Based on these facts, Defendant's constitutional rights have not been violated. The court should overrule both objections.

Officer suspected Defendant of committing a recent burglary. Knowing that Defendant was on probation, Officer called Defendant's home to set up an interview with him. When no one answered, Officer left a voicemail asking Defendant to contact him. When Defendant called back, Defendant agreed to meet Officer at the police station. Once there, Officer took Defendant to an interview room where, without providing Miranda warnings, Officer discussed Defendant's involvement in the burglary. Not long after the interview began, Defendant admitted that he was involved in the crime. After the interview, Officer allowed Defendant to leave the stationhouse but later formally arrested him when Defendant was charged with burglary. Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Because Defendant went to the station voluntarily, the fact that the questioning took place in the police station without more does not make it custodial interrogation. The court should deny the motion.

Officer obtained a warrant to search Defendant's home for narcotics. Officer and his fellow officers approached Defendant's home. Concerned that Defendant might destroy the drugs, they knocked but entered without waiting even seconds. They located Defendant in the front room of the house where they also located a shotgun and a large stash of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Because police properly armed with a search warrant have lawful authority to enter and search, the violation of the knock-and-announce rule is a minor technicality not worthy of suppression of the evidence. The exclusionary rule does not apply. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant was charged with murder. Because of Defendant's erratic behavior, Defendant's counsel asked the court to order a hearing to determine whether Defendant was competent to stand trial. The court ordered the hearing. At the hearing, counsel introduced evidence of Defendant's long history of mental illness. After holding the hearing, the court ruled that Defendant was competent to stand trial. Upset that his counsel tried to have him declared incompetent to stand trial, Defendant filed a pro se motion to dismiss counsel and to represent himself at trial. How should the court rule on the motion in light of Supreme Court precedent?

Because the ability to conduct trial proceedings requires technical legal knowledge, the Court has held that a competency finding does not mean that a defendant has a right to represent himself. On similar facts, the Court found that the denial of the right to self-represent did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights. The court should deny the motion.

The police developed probable cause to believe that Defendant's boyfriend was involved in a recent armed bank robbery and had proceeds of the robbery in his home. Officer swore out a search warrant, indicating that the police had probable cause to believe that Defendant's boyfriend's home contained several thousand dollars in currency taken from the bank; ski masks worn by the robbers; and two sawed-off shotguns used in the robbery. During the search, the police detained Defendant, who was a house-guest of her boyfriend and whom the police did not suspect of being involved in the crime. Also during the search, Officer found Defendant's purse on a table in the house and, over her protests, Officer searched the purse. Within the purse, Officer found a ski mask similar to one used in the robbery and linking her to the robbery. Charged with armed bank robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence found in her purse. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Because the officers were searching lawfully within her boyfriend's home and because the purse could have contained evidence of the crime, the search was lawful. Further, officers acted lawfully when they detained Defendant because she was present in a home where the police were lawfully searching. The court should deny the motion.

After local officials conducted a hearing on drug trafficking in their area, the chief of police implemented a policy whereby police routinely set up a roadblock to stop motorists. Police followed a standard procedure whereby they stopped every motorist, asked each motorist about the presence of drugs in the vehicle. Officers were trained to look for telltale signs of drug use or drug trafficking and to detain only those who fit the relevant profile. The average time of each stop was less than two minutes. When based on their training, Officers identified Defendant as a drug trafficker, Defendant was asked to pull off to the side of the road where a drug-sniffing dog signaled the presence of narcotics. The immediate search of the vehicle resulted in the seizure of a large amount of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Because the roadblock in this case had the primary purpose of detecting criminal activity - drug-trafficking - and not highway safety, it violates the Fourth Amendment. The court should grant the motion.

Defendant boarded a bus in Florida. Aware that Florida was the entry point for illegal drugs, the local police department routinely had officers get on buses to see if they could locate narcotics. Consistent with departmental policy, Officer got on the bus in which Defendant was riding and felt luggage that passengers had placed in the overhead luggage rack. When Officer squeezed Defendant's bag, he recognized immediately, from his many years of experience in drug trafficking, the distinctive brick-like shape of packaged marijuana. A subsequent search confirmed that the brick was marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Because the squeezing of the luggage was a search without any justification, Officer's conduct was unlawful. The court should grant the motion.

Officer developed probable cause to arrest Defendant for child molestation. Officer observed Defendant and waited until Defendant got into his vehicle and began to drive away. After Officer secured Defendant into the back of Officer's police vehicle, Officer searched Defendant's vehicle. Under the front seat of the car, Officer found three DVDs that appeared to be child pornography. Charged with molestation and possession of child pornography, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Because this was not a lawful search incident to arrest, the court should grant the motion.

Officer, in reliance on an informant's tip, applied for a warrant to search Defendant's home. Informant, who had given Officer reliable information in the past, claimed that he had purchased drugs in Defendant's home. Magistrate authorized the search, which resulted in the seizure of several cartons of stolen goods but no drugs. After the search, Officer confronted Informant, who admitted that he lied to Officer with the hope of getting Defendant in trouble. On trial for possession of stolen property, Defendant has learned of Informant's lie and has moved to suppress the evidence. During the suppression hearing, evidence showed that Officer was negligent in relying on Informant's tip. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Because when he applied for the warrant Officer did not know that Informant was lying, nor was he reckless with regard to whether Informant was lying, the court should deny the motion.

Concerned about drug-trafficking in the area, Officer stopped a vehicle in which Defendant was riding. After ordering the occupants out of the car, including Owner, who was driving the car when Officer stopped it, Officer conducted a search of the vehicle. He located a large amount of cocaine in the trunk of the vehicle. Charged with possession with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. The state has objected that Defendant lacked a sufficient interest in the vehicle to object to the police conduct. Which of the following answers is the most accurate in light of Supreme Court precedent?

Defendant can object to the initial stop of the car as a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Defendant was riding with Friend in Defendant's friend's vehicle when Officer stopped the car for a traffic violation. Officer made the stop late at night. Out of caution, Officer approached the vehicle with his weapon drawn. Officer told Friend to provide him with proof of ownership and to explain what they were doing driving in that neighborhood. Friend complied. Further, Officer asked Friend if Officer could search the vehicle. Fearful that he could not refuse, Friend agreed to the search. During the search, Officer found a substantial amount of cocaine. Friend blurted out, "Defendant sold me that." Charged with the sale of cocaine, Defendant has moved to suppress the admission of the cocaine and Friend's statement. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Defendant does not have a sufficient interest in the place searched or the property seized to object. The court should deny the motion.

Officer received a call concerning a barroom brawl. When Officer arrived, he arrested Defendant and Defendant's friend Abe for assault and battery of Vinnie, who was badly beaten. Defendant's counsel was able to secure Defendant's release on bail when he was arraigned before a magistrate. Subsequently, Vinnie died. Officer contacted Abe and told him that Abe was going to be charged with murdering Vinnie. In exchange for leniency, Abe agreed to wear a wire to get Defendant to make incriminating statements about Defendant's role in the crime. Defendant's discussion with Abe, in which Defendant made statements showing that Defendant, not Vinnie, was the aggressor in the fight, was captured on tape. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Defendant had a Sixth Amendment right to counsel for the assault and battery charge and the assault and battery charges are lesser included offenses of murder. The court should grant the motion.

FBI Agent suspected Defendant of being connected to the Mob. Unable to get hard evidence against him, Agent arranged with a local restaurant to place a "bug" in a private dining room that Defendant reserved for a dinner with one of his associates. The bug allowed Agent to overhear and tape several incriminating conversations between Defendant and his associate. As a result, Agent was able to secure a warrant for the arrest of Defendant and a warrant to search his home. The evidence seized at his home allowed the government to indict Defendant for violations of the federal racketeering statute. Prior to trial, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy that his private conversation would not be overheard. As a result, the use of the bug was an unreasonable search. The court should grant the motion.

Unable to determine whether Defendant was operating an illegal gambling operation, Officer asked one of his informants to get to know Defendant. Informant did so and told Officer that Defendant did maintain an apartment from which he conducted his activities as a bookie. Officer arranged to tape a phone conversation between Defendant and Informant. Informant called and placed a bet with Defendant. Charged with illegal gambling, Defendant has moved to suppress the conversation recorded by Informant on the grounds that the police conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation with a person who, as it turns out, is working with the police and was recording the conversation. The court should deny the motion.

Officer lacked probable cause to arrest Defendant for drug trafficking. Officer arranged for Informant to wear a wire to see if Defendant would sell Informant a sizeable amount of cocaine. Defendant and Informant first met in a restaurant but then when they began to discuss the sale of cocaine, Informant suggested that they go to Defendant's home to avoid public scrutiny. Defendant agreed. While in Defendant's home, Informant and Defendant discussed the terms of the sale, a conversation that was transmitted to Officer, who was located nearby. After Defendant made the sale, Officer secured arrest and search warrants for Defendant and his home. The search netted a large amount of cocaine. Charged with the sale of cocaine, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation with a person who, unbeknownst to him, happens to be transmitting the conversation to the police. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant resides in a state has not adopted the Model Penal Code. Defendant has been charged with murder based on the following facts: Defendant, who was serving time in prison at the time of these events, was intent upon getting revenge on Vic, a fellow inmate. Prisoners suspected Vic of ratting on his fellow prisoners to prison authorities. Defendant learned that members of a prison gang wanted to kill Vic as well and planned to do so when Vic took a shower that night. Intent on helping the gang kill Vic, Defendant watched to be sure that the guards did not arrive in time to save Vic. Occupied elsewhere in the prison, the guards did not arrive in the shower area until after gang members killed Vic. Defendant was overheard telling the gang members that he had their back after the killing was complete. Charged as an accessory to murder, Defendant hopes that the evidence is insufficient to convict him of murder. Which of the following best describes the law prevailing in this case?

Defendant had the mens rea to be an accessory but did not have the actus reus. He should not be found guilty of murder.

FBI Agent suspected Defendant, a union official, of extortion and other federal offenses. Agent arranged with other agents to search the Union's office. Arriving at the office without a warrant, Agent attempted to secure the consent of Defendant and other union members present in the office at the time. They refused. The search yielded many documents that implicated Defendant in extortion and other federal offenses. Charged with those crimes, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Defendant has standing to challenge the search; on these facts, the agents violated the Fourth Amendment by failing to secure a warrant. The court should grant the motion.

Defendant was riding in a vehicle with Owner, a friend of Defendant's. Officer received a radio call notifying Officer of a recent armed robbery and describing the vehicle. Spotting Owner's car, Officer stopped the vehicle on reasonable suspicion that it was the getaway car. Officer ordered the occupants out of the car. Within the vehicle, he located a sawed-off shotgun and Defendant's jacket. A search of the jacket revealed shells that were the same caliber as those required for the shotgun. On trial for armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. The state has objected that Defendant lacked a sufficient interest in the vehicle to object to the police conduct. Which of the following answers is the most accurate?

Defendant has standing to object only to the search of his jacket, not the search of the car.

Defendant was charged with murder. He pled guilty and was sentenced to a term of 30 years in prison. Neither counsel nor the court advised Defendant that he had to serve at least 15 years in prison before he was eligible for parole. He filed a petition for habeas corpus and argued that counsel was ineffective and that the court violated Defendant's rights by failing to warn him concerning the length of the minimum sentence he must serve. How should the court rule on Defendant's petition for habeas corpus?

Defendant must demonstrate not only that counsel failed to warn him but that counsel's performance was below the objective standard of reasonableness and that had he been properly advised, he would have gone to trial. If Defendant makes that showing, the court should grant the petition.

Defendant, a white man, was charged with murder. During voir dire, the prosecution used five peremptory challenges to eliminate African-Americans from the jury. Defendant challenged the prosecution's use of its peremptory challenges as violating equal protection. The prosecution then explained to the trial court why the prosecution had excluded the prospective jurors, including concerns about the prospective jurors' demeanor during voir dire. The trial court accepted the prosecution's explanations and excluded those prospective jurors from the final panel. Defendant wants to challenge the exclusion of those prospective jurors from the jury. Which of the following best describes the law governing Defendant's claim?

Defendant must prove that the trial court's finding that the prosecution's non-racially motivated explanation was clearly erroneous.

Federal Agent arrested Defendant for running an illegal still and for selling moonshine without a license. Defendant received a six month sentence. Shortly after Defendant's release, Federal Agent asked Undercover Agent to contact Defendant to see if Defendant was still in the business of producing moonshine. Defendant told Undercover Agent that he could not afford to get back in the business because he could not afford a copper still. Learning that fact, Federal Agent told Undercover Agent to offer to lend Defendant money to buy a new still. Initially Defendant resisted the offer but upon a third offer of a loan, he borrowed the money and began producing moonshine again. Undercover Agent became his only buyer. Now charged with running an illegal still and for selling moonshine, Defendant hopes to interpose an entrapment defense. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, which of the following describes the law governing Defendant's defense?

Defendant probably cannot prevail on a traditional entrapment defense because he seems to have a predisposition to commit the offense; but because of the degree of law enforcement involvement in the crime, he may be able to raise a due process defense.

Officer arrested Defendant on a charge of burglary. During arraignment, the court appointed counsel for Defendant. Unable to make bail, Defendant remained in jail awaiting trial. Officer learned that the owner of the home that Defendant had burglarized was missing; police efforts thus far had not been successful in locating Owner. Not certain whether Defendant knew anything about Owner's whereabouts, Officer approached Defendant in his cell, gave him Miranda warnings, obtained a waiver from Defendant, and asked Defendant if he knew what may have happened to Owner. Defendant admitted to having murdered Owner and hiding his body. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Defendant waived both his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, so Officer may question him about both the charged crime and the missing Owner. The court should deny the motion.

Officer stopped Defendant for speeding. During the course of the stop, Officer developed suspicion that Defendant was high on drugs. As he was giving Defendant the ticket for speeding, Officer asked whether Defendant was high on marijuana. Defendant admitted that he was. Officer then noticed a pouch of marijuana on the floor of the vehicle and arrested Defendant for misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana, Defendant has moved to suppress the statement. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Defendant was not in custody within the meaning of Miranda. The court should deny the motion.

Agent was investigating Defendant for money-laundering and suspected that Defendant and Banker were co-conspirators. Unable to develop probable cause against Defendant, Agent persuaded Informant to break into Banker's home and to search his home for incriminating evidence. There, Informant found detailed records implicating Defendant and Banker in the scheme. Indicted for money-laundering, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights have not been violated. The court should deny the motion.

Shipping Co. handles a large number of packages, including many shipped from areas where illegal drugs originate. Concerned about the spread of drugs, Shipping Co. management put in place a policy that required employees to hold suspicious packages for further inspection before delivering them. Employee detained a package addressed to Defendant when Employee noticed leaking talcum powder, often used to mask the smell of marijuana. Upon opening it, Employee discovered three pounds of marijuana. After several days, Employee contacted Officer, who arranged to do a controlled delivery of the package. After receiving the package, Defendant was arrested for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The court should deny the motion.

Officer made a warrantless arrest of Defendant, an alien who has been living in the United States for several years. He made the arrest in Defendant's home on suspicion of murder. As Officer was making the arrest, he seized a handgun that he saw on a table in the room where he arrested Defendant. Subsequent lab tests revealed that the gun was the murder weapon. On trial for murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Defendant's connection to the United States seems sufficient to bring him within the Fourth Amendment's protection. Because of Officer's violation of the Fourth Amendment, the court should grant the motion.

Officer arrested Defendant for murder. Prior to submitting the case to a grand jury, the prosecutor arranged for Defendant to be placed in a line-up. During the line-up, all of the individuals in the line-up were ordered to repeat, "Your money or your life," so that the witness could identify the perpetrator by his voice as well. The witness identified Defendant after he repeated the words he was ordered to say. Indicted for murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the identification. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion in light of Supreme Court precedent?

Defendant's constitutional rights were not violated by the procedure used by the police. The court should deny the motion.

Officer, in charge of an investigation into a murder, focused on Defendant as a prime suspect. Officer learned that Defendant had been arrested and arranged to interview Defendant. The interrogation began at midday and lasted for three hours. It took place in a small room; Defendant sat in a chair and was not in any way confined. At the beginning of the interrogation, Officer gave Defendant a standard form stating Defendant's Miranda warnings. Officer asked Defendant to read the warnings out loud. Defendant complied. Officer then read the warnings to Defendant; after doing so, Officer asked Defendant to sign the form. Defendant did not do so. Despite that, Officer began questioning Defendant about his participation in the murder. At no point did Defendant ask to remain silent or to consult with an attorney. Over the course of the interrogation, Defendant answered a few questions with limited responses, but mostly remained silent. Finally, Officer asked Defendant whether he felt guilty about what he did. Defendant began to cry. Officer asked whether Defendant wanted to tell him about shooting the murder victim. Defendant responded, "Yes." He gave a full confession. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Defendant's course of conduct implied a waiver of his right to silence and his mere act of remaining silent after being read his rights was not a clear invocation of his right to silence. The court should deny the motion.

Officer Albert arrested Defendant for the murder of his wife. During his arraignment that day, Defendant was asked by the court whether he wanted counsel appointed to represent him in the murder case. The next morning, Officer Bernard approached Defendant to investigate his involvement in both the murder of Defendant's wife and brother. Bernard had reason to believe Defendant killed his brother and wife because the brother was having an affair with Defendant's wife. Bernard gave Defendant his Miranda warnings, after which Defendant agreed to talk and admitted killing them both. Charged with both murders, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Defendant's request for counsel was not the type of request that prevents the police from seeking to interrogate the defendant if he waives his Miranda rights. The court should deny the motion.

Two weeks after Defendant was indicted for armed robbery, Officer brought Witness to the police station where she showed him a photograph of Defendant and asked if Witness could identify the perpetrator. Not surprisingly, Witness said yes, that the person in the photo was the perpetrator of the robbery. At trial, the prosecutor put Witness on the stand and asked Witness about the out-of-court identification. Defense counsel objected. In addition, the prosecutor made clear that she hoped to have Witness make in-court identification as well. How should the court rule on Defendant's objections to the use of the identifications at trial?

Defendant's right to counsel attached at the time of the indictment, but that right did not extend to a photo-line-up. Further, as long as Witness can make the in-court identification based on his original observations of Defendant as opposed to being based on the photo show-up, the in-court identification is proper. The court should overrule both objections.

When Police attempted to arrest Defendant for armed robbery, he resisted. Police arrested Defendant after a shoot-out in which Defendant was seriously injured. While he was being treated for his injuries, Defendant was given a sedative. Officer was assigned to watch Defendant while he was in the hospital and realized Defendant was in a confused state as a result of the sedative. After seeing a nurse give Defendant an additional injection for pain, Officer gave Defendant his Miranda warnings. Defendant did not ask for an attorney and did not ask to remain silent. Officer then asked Defendant questions about his involvement in the robbery. Largely because of his confusion caused by the medication, Defendant admitted his involvement. Charged with armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Defendant's statement was involuntary. The court should grant the motion.

Defendant, a sailor on shore leave, was involved in a fistfight in a bar that turned into a drunken brawl. Waking in jail in the morning, Defendant remembered the fight but little else. Officer approached Defendant, gave him Miranda warnings, and asked if Defendant waived his rights. Defendant, believing that he would be charged with simple battery, agreed to waive his rights and admitted that he hit another patron in the bar. Only later did he learn that the patron had died and Defendant was being investigated for murder. Charged with murder, Defendant moved to suppress his statement. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Defendant's waiver was knowing and intelligent despite not being told that he was being investigated for murder. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant was charged with murdering his ex-wife. Severely depressed and suicidal, Defendant was initially found incompetent to stand trial. Treated while awaiting trial, Defendant was found competent to stand trial. Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss his court-appointed attorneys and to represent himself. The trial judge is uncertain how to handle Defendant's motion. Which of the following offers the trial judge the best guidance on how to decide the motion consistent with Supreme Court precedent?

Deny the motion if you otherwise believe that Defendant cannot properly handle self-representation because the Court has found that a state is free to compel a defendant to accept counsel under similar circumstances.

Defendant was a prisoner in a state prison. He kept personal items in a locker, which, consistent with prison regulations, he kept locked. Both Defendant and prison guards had the combination to the locker. In addition to his personal items, like a journal and his legal papers, he kept a small amount of narcotics. Prison Guard located the narcotics when Prison Guard unlocked the locker so that Prison Guard could inspect the contents. Charged with possession of narcotics, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Despite Defendant's subjective expectation of privacy, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in items kept in his locker in prison. Hence, the protection of the Fourth Amendment does not apply in the prison setting. The court should deny the motion.

Officer was investigating Defendant for his involvement in a murder for hire. Officer talked to two witnesses to the crime whose descriptions of the suspect matched Defendant and who picked Defendant out of a photo array. In filling out an application for a search warrant of Defendant's home, to be sure that the magistrate would issue the warrant, Officer added, falsely, that he had also received information from an informant, identifying Defendant as the murderer. After the magistrate issued the warrant and during the search of Defendant's home, a second officer found the murder weapon. On trial for murder, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Despite inclusion of false information in the warrant, the warrant otherwise established probable cause. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant ran an investment fund. When the financial crisis began in 2008, investors learned that Defendant had been engaged in a Ponzi scheme and that the fund no longer had sufficient capital to cover their investments. The U.S. Attorney filed criminal charges against Defendant. Plaintiff filed a class action against Defendant. During Defendant's deposition, Plaintiff's counsel asked him several questions concerning Defendant's management of the fund. Defendant's counsel told Defendant to take the Fifth Amendment and to refuse to answer the questions. Plaintiff's counsel has filed a motion with the United States District Court to compel Defendant's answers. How should the court rule on the motion to compel?

Despite the explicit language in the Fifth Amendment (limiting the right not to be compelled to be a witness against oneself in a criminal case), the Court has recognized a number of prophylactic rules necessary to protect the core constitutional right. This is one of those instances. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant and her boyfriend were indicted on charges of murder. Police were worried about the strength of their case because, although there was circumstantial evidence of the death of the victim, his body had not been found. Efforts to arrange a deal with Defendant for her testimony in exchange for a lighter sentence went nowhere. Defendant's father was convinced that Defendant was involved in the crime. Aware of Defendant's father's close relationship with his daughter, Officer approached Defendant's father and asked if he would try to persuade her to take the deal. Although she continued to refuse to rat on her boyfriend, she made statements to her father that incriminated her. On trial for murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Encouraging and arranging the meeting between Defendant and her father amounted to a violation of Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court should grant the motion.

Officer developed probable cause that Defendant murdered a rival gang member and that Defendant used a shotgun to kill his victim. After learning that Defendant resided with his parents, Officer secured a search warrant for their home. In the warrant, Officer failed to list the shotgun as evidence to be seized but listed only a distinctive sweater that Defendant was wearing at the time of the shooting as the items to be seized. During the course of the search, an officer entered Defendant's parents' bedroom where she found the sweater. She seized the sweater. Sometime later, another officer looked in Defendant's bedroom, where he found the shotgun. He seized the weapon. Prior to his trial for murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Entry into Defendant's parents' bedroom was permissible. As a result, the search for and discovery of the sweater was lawful. But once officers found the evidence listed in the warrant, they should have ended their search. The court should deny the motion as to the sweater but grant it as to the shotgun.

Officer developed probable cause that Defendant murdered a rival gang member and that Defendant used a shotgun to kill his victim. After learning that Defendant resided with his parents, Officer secured a search warrant for their home. In the warrant, Officer listed the weapon as the only item to be seized. During the course of the search, an officer entered Defendant's parents' bedroom where the officer found the shotgun. She seized the weapon. At about the same time, another officer looked in a small drawer in a bedside table in Defendant's bedroom, where he found shotgun shells. He seized the shells. Prior to his trial for murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Entry into Defendant's parents' bedroom was permissible. But the search in the bedside table exceeded the scope of a lawful search. The court should deny the motion as to the shotgun, but grant the motion as to the shells.

Defendant was on trial for armed robbery. During his defense, Defendant took the stand and testified on direct examination. Before the case recessed for the night, the court ordered trial counsel not to discuss the case with Defendant between the close of trial that night and the next day. The court feared that counsel would coach Defendant and prevent an effective cross-examination. Defense counsel followed the court's order. After his conviction, Defendant appealed on the grounds that counsel was ineffective. How should the court rule on the appeal?

Even though counsel was acting pursuant to the trial court's order, counsel was ineffective and the court should order a reversal without more.

DEA Agent observed Defendant deplane her incoming flight from Miami, Florida. She was the last person off the flight and appeared nervous. With their suspicions aroused, Agent and his partner approached Defendant in the concourse, identified themselves, and asked to see her identification. The agents asked her how long she had been in Florida and what the purpose of her trip had been. She explained that she had been there only for a day and had gone to a seminar. When she could not name the location of the seminar, Agent retained her identification and asked her to accompany the agents to an interview room, located only about 50 feet from where they were standing. She went with the agents. Once there, her luggage was brought to the room and Agent asked if Defendant would allow him to search the luggage. She said, "Go ahead." Agent found a packet of heroin in a suitcase. After her indictment for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Given all of the surrounding circumstances, Defendant was under arrest when she was moved from the concourse to the interview room. The court should grant the motion because there was no probable cause to justify the arrest.

Early in the morning, Officer and his partner responded to a call of an unknown disturbance involving someone with a baseball bat in a neighborhood known for gang activity. Officer and his partner were traveling in a marked police car and wearing uniforms. They approached three men walking in the street. Two of the men turned and went into an apartment complex. Defendant also turned and started to move away from the police car. Officer did not see Defendant with a baseball bat but got out of the patrol car and shouted, "Police, stop." Defendant ignored Officer's command. Under state law, a person commits a misdemeanor if that person ignores a lawful order to stop. Now believing that Defendant committed the misdemeanor of ignoring his order to stop, Officer decided to pursue Defendant. Defendant went through the gate of Defendant's home. The gate and fence were six feet tall and blocked Officer's view. Officer kicked open the gate. In the front yard, he saw several marijuana plants. He then arrested Defendant for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Prior to trial, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Given that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to order Defendant to stop, Defendant had a right to walk away. Officer's warrantless action was unjustified. The court should grant the motion.

Officer received a tip that Juvenile was going to commit a violent assault at his school. A number of officers went to Juvenile's home to investigate the claim. No one responded when the police knocked on the door. Finally, Officer called the phone number listed for the family's residence. Defendant, Juvenile's mother, answered the phone. She agreed that she and Juvenile would come out to discuss the officers' concerns about her son but refused to let the police enter her home. After several minutes of discussions in front of the home, Officer asked if Juvenile had any weapons in the home. Defendant became agitated and ran into the home. Officer, fearing that Defendant was going inside to get a weapon, ran after her. Within the home, Officer saw a sizeable amount of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Given the fear that Defendant represented a threat to the police, Officer's conduct was justified and the evidence was in plain view. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant lives in a state that has not adopted the Model Penal Code. He has been charged with public intoxication based on the following facts. Defendant is an alcoholic. On the day in question, he consumed a fifth of whiskey in his own home and then went outside to a local park where he was visibly intoxicated. He hopes to have the charges against him dismissed. Is he likely to be successful?

He is not likely to be successful because, even though he is addicted to alcohol, he voluntarily appeared in public.

Defendant resides in a state that has adopted the Model Penal Code. She has been charged with possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute based on the following facts: Defendant told some of her neighbors that she was going on vacation to New York. That evening, she received a phone call from a person who refused to identify himself. He threatened to destroy her house when she was gone if she did not carry a package to a person who would meet her flight in New York. She agreed to do so. She found the package on her doorstep the next morning and slipped it into her suitcase. As she boarded her flight for New York, DEA agents arrested her. Defense counsel wonders if Defendant can raise a defense based on these facts. Which of the following offers the best advice to counsel?

Her only hope on these facts is a necessity defense. Under the MPC, she does not have a duress defense.

Inspector for a county safety department was on duty when she approached Defendant's apartment building to conduct a safety inspection. In reliance on a state statute, Inspector told Defendant, who refused to consent to the search, that she was authorized to do the search without a warrant. After Defendant acquiesced, Inspector conducted the search. During the search, Inspector found not only evidence of safety violations but also found evidence of illegal gambling activity on the premises. She reported that information to the local police, who arrested Defendant for gambling violations. Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. In the interim, in another case, the state supreme court struck down the statute because it violated the Fourth Amendment. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Inspector's reliance on the state statute was objectively reasonable. The court should deny the motion.

Officer observed Defendant in a high crime area and suspected Defendant was involved in drug trafficking. Unable to develop probable cause or even articulable suspicion, Officer waited until Defendant got in his vehicle and followed Defendant until he made an illegal turn. Officer pulled him over. During the time Officer was writing the ticket, Officer asked Defendant if he could search the vehicle. Defendant said yes. During the search, Officer found a locked brief case and forced open the locked case. Inside he found a substantial amount of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion in light of Supreme Court precedent?

It is not reasonable to believe that Defendant's consent to a search of his car included consent to force open his locked briefcase. The court should grant the motion.

Officer lacked probable cause to arrest Defendant for murder, but suspected him of having murdered the victim, a woman. Officer developed probable cause to arrest Defendant for failing to appear for a court hearing on a charge of battery and got a warrant for Defendant's arrest. When Officer arrived at Defendant's home, he knocked on the door. Defendant answered the door and stepped onto his front porch. He was dressed, but was not wearing shoes. Officer told him that he was under arrest, handcuffed him and took him back into his home and led Defendant to his bedroom to find a pair of shoes. Before opening the closet to find a pair of shoes, Officer saw a dress draped over a chair. He grabbed the dress and turned it over, revealing blood stains and a slit that looked like it was made by a knife. He also entered the closet to get Defendant's shoes. While picking up the shoes he saw a slip that had been slashed and was blood-stained. He seized the slip and the dress, because they revealed blood, which Officer believed was the victim's. Charged with murder, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Looking in the closet was justified by the need to get shoes for the suspect, but examining the dress without probable cause that it was evidence of a crime was unlawful. The court should deny the motion with regard to the slip but grant it with regard to the dress.

A Drug Enforcement Administration agent who had information that the Defendant's mobile motor home was being used to exchange drugs for sex, watched the Defendant approach a youth who accompanied the Defendant to the motor home, which was parked in a downtown lot. The agent and other agents then kept the vehicle under surveillance, and stopped the youth after the youth left the vehicle. The youth told the agent that the Defendant provided drugs in return for sex. At the agent's request, the youth returned to the motor home and knocked on the door. The Defendant stepped out. Without a warrant or consent, the agent entered the motor home and saw drugs. A subsequent search of the motor home at the police station revealed additional drugs, and the Defendant was charged with possession of drugs with the intent to sell. Did the agent need a warrant to enter the Defendant's motor home?

No, because the motor home was mobile and the agent had probable cause to believe that it contained contraband, the agent could search the motor home without a warrant.

Officer stopped Motorist observing that she was not wearing a seatbelt. While Officer could have given Motorist a citation, Officer arrested her instead. Officer also denied Motorist's request to drop her small children off with a neighbor even though Officer stopped her in her neighborhood. Officer handcuffed Motorist and drove her to the local police station where she was forced to remove her shoes, glasses, and jewelry, and placed in a jail cell until she could be taken before a magistrate. After being released on bond, she paid a fine for the seatbelt violation. She has sued the City and Officer for a violation of her constitutional right to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure. Did Officer violate Motorist's Fourth Amendment rights?

No. Custodial arrests for minor offenses are not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment even if the state or local law does not authorize an arrest for such an offense.

Out of concern about the employment of illegal immigrants, federal agents developed a strategy. As revealed in pretrial discovery, when they learned that a business hired large numbers of immigrants, a team of federal agents would approach the business and ask the owner whether the owner would consent to agents questioning employees about their immigration status. Once they obtained consent, armed agents stood at building exits while other armed agents moved around the business asking questions about citizenship. The agents displayed badges and were armed. They went row by row in order to be sure to ask questions of every employee relating to citizenship or status as legal aliens. If the agents discovered that the employee was illegally in the United States, the employee was arrested. The sweeps lasted a couple of hours but during the time, employees continued at their work stations. Employees filed a class action suit claiming that the practice violated the workers' Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable seizures. Did the agents practice violate the Fourth Amendment?

No. The actions of the agents did not amount to a seizure because the employees were free to disregard the agents and go about their business.

Defendant lives in a state that has not adopted the Model Penal Code. He has been charged with attempted felony murder based on the following facts: while engaged in a burglary, Defendant was confronted by the owner of the home that he had entered. Before the owner was able to pull out a weapon, Defendant beat up the owner. After the owner was able to grab his weapon, Defendant fled, but was arrested nearby. Defendant's attorney, for whom you work, asks you whether the charge is proper. You answer correctly as follows:

No. Virtually all states reject the doctrine of attempted felony murder.

Officer received a tip that Defendant was selling drugs out of his mobile home, which he kept at a park for recreational vehicles. The facility provided a hook up for electricity. Officer observed individuals entering and leaving Defendant's mobile home. Officer stopped a woman who had just exited the mobile home and told her of his suspicions. When Officer said that he was not interested in arresting her for possession, the woman showed the officer a small amount of drugs and told the Officer that Defendant was selling drugs from his mobile home. Officer knocked on the door of Defendant's mobile home. After Defendant refused to consent to a search, Officer told him that Officer was going to conduct a search of his mobile home. Officer detained Defendant during the search. No one else was present. Officer found a substantial amount of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Officer developed probable cause that drugs were present in the mobile home and did not need a search warrant because the Court has recognized an exception to the warrant requirement in such cases. The court should deny the motion.

Two days after the disappearance of a young girl, Officer developed probable cause that Defendant was involved in her disappearance. Officer arrested Defendant on charges of kidnapping. He was also sure that the girl was dead but felt that he needed to find the body to support a murder charge. He gave Defendant Miranda warnings, and Defendant asked "if I show you the body, will that help me with the prosecutor?" Officer responded, "it might, but there are no promises." Defendant waived his rights and led Officer to the body. Defendant is charged with kidnapping and murder moves to suppress the evidence that he led Officer to the body. Which is the correct ruling?

Officer did nothing wrong. His answer to Defendant's question did not pressure Defendant to waive. The court should deny the motion.

Officer observed Defendant engage in a drug purchase of a small amount of heroin on a street corner where Officer was on a stakeout. Officer saw that Defendant had the heroin in a small brown paper bag and followed Defendant to her automobile and, as soon as she pulled away from the curb, Officer turned on his flashing lights and pulled Defendant over. Officer handcuffed Defendant and placed her in the back of his patrol car and went back to Defendant's vehicle to search for the drugs. After finding the small brown paper bag with the heroin on the front seat, Officer opened the trunk, where he located a larger quantity of heroin. Charged with possession of heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the heroin on the front seat and in the trunk. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Officer exceeded the scope of a search incident to a lawful arrest because Defendant was detained in the police vehicle when Officer searched in the trunk. But the search of the passenger compartment was lawful. The court should deny the motion as to the evidence found in the passenger compartment but grant the motion as to the evidence found in the trunk.

Unable to develop probable cause to arrest Defendant for drug trafficking, Officer waited until he saw Defendant's vehicle parked illegally in a tow-away zone. Officer called for a tow truck and had Defendant's vehicle taken to an impoundment lot. There, he searched the vehicle. Feeling along the passenger seat, Officer felt a lump of something under the fabric. He used a knife to cut the material and there, he found a packet of heroin. Charged with possession of heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Officer exceeded the scope of an inventory search and lacked probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime was located under the fabric. The court should grant the motion.

Officer developed probable cause to search Defendant's home for the proceeds of a burglary. Officer did not include in the warrant several items that Officer had probable cause to believe were taken in the burglary, including several items of jewelry. Instead, he only listed a large jewelry box (measuring about twelve inches tall and ten inches long) among the items to be seized. While executing the warrant, Officer searched in a small dresser drawer (2 inches high) where he found several items of jewelry taken in the burglary and a packet of cocaine. He seized all of those items. Defendant has been charged with possession of cocaine and armed robbery. Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Officer exceeded the scope of the warrant when he found the jewelry and the cocaine. The court should grant the motion.

Officer was attempting to corroborate a tip that a courier was about to leave a sizable amount of heroin in the basement of a particular apartment building. Officer entered the basement of the building, accessible to anyone in the building. Officer's search in the basement did not reveal any heroin. Officer left briefly but returned an hour later and now found heroin in the basement. Officer asked the building superintendent if Officer could look at a security tape for that period of time. The superintendent allowed Officer to do so. During the hour when Officer was not present, three men entered the basement of the apartment building alone and at different times and any one of them could have been the courier. Shortly thereafter, Officer saw Defendant, one of the men whom he had seen in the video. Officer arrested Defendant in the common area in the apartment building where he lived and did a full body search of Defendant. The search revealed several packets of heroin. Charged with possession of heroin, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. Which of the following answers offers the best explanation for how the court should resolve that motion?

Officer lacked probable cause to arrest Defendant. As a result, the search was not justified as a search incident to lawful arrest. As a result, the court should suppress the evidence.

Officer developed probable cause to believe that Defendant was engaged in felony drug trafficking but had yet to secure an arrest warrant. While on patrol, she noticed Defendant standing directly in the doorway of his apartment. Officer approached Defendant in order to make an arrest. Seeing the officer approaching, Defendant ran into his apartment. Officer pursued and arrested Defendant in the living room of his apartment where Officer saw and seized a large amount of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Officer may arrest Defendant without a warrant because he began the arrest in public and, once begun, could pursue Defendant into his house. The court should deny the motion.

Officer filled out an application for a search warrant of Defendant's home. In the probable cause section, Officer stated as follows: "I swear under oath that I have cause to believe and do believe that Defendant has a large quantity of cocaine stored in his home located at 123 Spruce Street." Aware of Officer's credibility from previous contact with the officer, the magistrate signed the warrant. The subsequent search of Defendant's home resulted in the discovery and seizure of a sizeable amount of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Officer should have known that the barebones statement of probable cause was insufficient and cannot, therefore, rely on the issuance of the warrant. The court should grant the motion.

Officer arrested Defendant on a charge of murder. Defendant was arraigned on the charge, Thereafter, without notifying Defendant's attorney, Officer assembled a line-up to see if the eye-witness would identify Defendant as the perpetrator. Officer used men detained in the jail and the other suspects in the line-up did not look much like Defendant. Not surprisingly, the eye-witness identified Defendant. Charged with murder, Defendant has filed a motion in limine to oppose the use of the out-of-court identification and any subsequent in-court identification. Which of the following answers best describes the legal rules governing Defendant's motion?

Officer violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel at the original lineup. Therefore, the out-of-court identification is inadmissible. Less certain is whether the eye-witness can testify at trial. The court must determine whether the eye-witness's in-court identification is based on the illegal lineup or has an independent basis.

Officer had probable cause to believe that Defendant was transporting a large quantity of narcotics in his suitcase and was traveling on a bus from Florida to New York. When Officer met the bus at the bus terminal in New York, he approached Defendant and asked him to consent to a search of his suitcase. Defendant refused to consent. When Defendant asked whether he was free to leave, Officer said yes, but that he was not free to take his suitcase. Defendant left immediately. Officer retrieved Defendant's suitcase and opened it immediately. Officer found a large amount of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Officer was entitled to detain the suitcase but needed to secure a warrant to open it. The court should grant the motion.

Officer observed Defendant driving a car that seemed out of place in the high crime neighborhood where Officer was working. Suspicious that Defendant was involved in illegal drug activity, Officer stopped Defendant when Defendant rolled through a stop sign in violation of a local traffic law. During the stop, Officer asked if Defendant would allow Officer to search the trunk of his car. Believing he could not refuse, Defendant said yes, that Officer could look in the trunk. There, Officer saw a paper sack. Upon opening it, Officer found a large quantity of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Officer was reasonable in believing that Defendant's consent extended to the paper sack. The court should deny the motion.

Officer suspected but could not prove that Defendant was engaged in an illegal drug production operation or where Defendant had his drug operation. Working with a local seller of chemicals, some of which are used in the production of methamphetamines, Officer learned when Defendant ordered several drums of a particular chemical. Before seller shipped the chemical, Officer arranged to substitute a drum filled with the chemical and containing a beeper. After Defendant picked up the drums, Officer was able to track Defendant's movements. Trailing Defendant, Officer found Defendant's operation in a rural area. Officer was able to pinpoint the drum to a barn about fifty yards from a farmhouse where Defendant and his co-workers lived. To be sure that the chemical was used in drug production, Officer went onto the property and looked into an open barn. There, he saw and photographed evidence to establish probable cause that the chemicals were in fact being used in drug production. Officer then secured a warrant to search Defendant's property and seized evidence of drug trafficking. Charged with the illegal manufacture of methamphetamines, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Officer's conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The initial use of the beeper merely allowed Officer to learn what Defendant knowingly exposed to the public. Further, the barn was not within the curtilage. The court should deny the motion.

Officer stopped Defendant, a motorist, for a traffic violation. In the course of the stop, Officer began to think that Defendant might be involved in illegal drug activity. Officer asked Defendant to consent to a search of his vehicle. Believing that a person cannot say no to an officer's request, Defendant gave Officer permission to search the vehicle. Officer found a sizeable amount of marijuana in the trunk of the vehicle. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Officer's conduct was lawful because Officer did not coerce Defendant into consenting. The court should deny the motion.

San Francisco Police Officer noticed Defendant, a disheveled man, sitting in a fancy car with Arizona license plates. With his suspicions aroused, Officer approached the vehicle and asked Defendant what he was doing in the area. Appearing nervous, Defendant said he had driven to town to see the San Francisco Giants play baseball that night. Officer was aware that the Giants were on an extended road trip. When asked by Officer, Defendant could not remember the name of the vehicle's owner. At that point, Defendant attempted to start the vehicle. Officer reached into the vehicle and grabbed the keys. Officer ordered Defendant out of the car. While Defendant complied with the order, Officer saw a weapon in Defendant's waistband. Officer grabbed the weapon. Once Defendant exited the car, Officer saw a sizeable packet of cocaine on the driver's seat. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Officer's conduct was lawful. The stop did not occur until Officer reached for the keys by which time he had articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. Ordering Defendant out of the vehicle was lawful. Further, the seizure of the weapon and the seizure of the cocaine were based on plain view. The court should deny the motion.

Officer was investigating drug trafficking in Defendant's neighborhood. Officer made an illegal stop and search of Informant. When Officer found narcotics on Informant, Officer demanded to know from whom Informant got the drugs. Informant named Defendant as his source. Based on that information, Officer went to Defendant's home and arrested him for selling drugs. Officer then entered Defendant's home without Defendant's consent. During the course of a search of Defendant's home, Officer found an ounce of heroin. After his arrest and arraignment, Defendant was released on bail. Two days later, he returned to the police station and spoke to Officer. After receiving Miranda warnings, Defendant admitted that he was involved in the sale of heroin. On trial for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Officer's entry into Defendant's home was unlawful and requires suppression of the heroin. But the court should allow the state to use the statement because the statement does not appear to be the fruit of the original poisonous tree. The court should grant the motion as to the physical evidence but deny the motion as to the statement.

A school official called Officer because he was concerned about a motor home parked near the school. He told Officer that he had seen Defendant soliciting underage girls to enter the motor home and the official assumed that Defendant did so for sexual purposes. Officer found the motor home and noticed that it had a flat tire. Unable to see into the motor home because curtains covered the windows, Officer decided to wait to see if he could develop a case against Defendant. After waiting for an hour, he saw a girl exit the motor home and approached her. When Officer told the girl that she had to cooperate with his investigation, she admitted to being under age and to having engaged in an act of intercourse with Defendant. Officer immediately knocked on the door of the motor home and demanded that Defendant exit the motor home. Once Defendant was secured in the patrol car, Officer went back into the motor home to investigate. There, he found a box of condoms and explicit pictures of what appeared to be child pornography. Charged with several felonies arising from these facts, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. Which of the following answers best describes how the court should rule on that motion?

Officer's observations gave him reason to believe that he would find evidence of the crime in the motor home and the motor home comes within the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The court should deny the motion.

Officer saw Defendant's van weaving on the roadway. Suspecting Defendant of driving under the influence of alcohol, Officer pulled Defendant over to the side of the road. Confirming that Defendant was intoxicated and smelling alcohol in the van, Officer called for a back-up unit and put Defendant under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol. After the back-up unit took Defendant to the stationhouse for booking, Officer conducted a search of the vehicle before having the vehicle towed to an impoundment lot. Officer saw a backpack, opened it and found within it a sizeable amount of cocaine and cash. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. Which of the following is the most plausible argument that the prosecution can make on these facts?

Officer's search of the backpack was justified as a search incident to lawful arrest consistent with the bright line rule created by the Court.

Officer was called to the scene of an armed bank robbery and developed probable cause to arrest Defendant. Officer and his partner located Defendant and arrested him shortly after the robbery. Seeing a holster without a gun and concerned about the location of Defendant's weapon, Officer asked Defendant where the weapon was located. Defendant refused to tell them. In response, Officer, with weapon drawn, told Defendant that Defendant had no choice about whether Defendant would cooperate with the police and that he had to tell them where the weapon was located. In response, Defendant told them that he hid the weapon and showed Officer where he had hidden it. Charged with bank robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress his statement and the weapon. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Officer's words and actions render the statement involuntary. Because the statement was involuntary, discovery of the weapon was the illegal fruit of that violation. The court should grant the motion in its entirety.

Officer developed probable cause to believe that Defendant was guilty of a recent bank robbery. As part of the investigation, Officer went to Defendant's home and knocked on the door. A woman responded to the knock. When Defendant appeared at the door to inquire what was going on, Officer asked him to come outside. Officer then put him under arrest. With Defendant in the patrol car, Officer went back to Defendant's house and asked the woman whether she would consent to a search of the apartment. She agreed. Officer found evidence linking Defendant to the robbery. Charged with armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

On similar facts, the Court has held that the police do not need to ask a suspect for consent to search his premises as long as the person consenting has authority or apparent authority to grant the consent.

Petitioner, convicted when he was a juvenile many years ago, is currently in state prison serving a sentence of life without benefit of parole. Recently, the Court decided Miller v. Alabama (2012) (holding that such sentences violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment). Petitioner has recently filed a petition in state court asking that court to apply Miller's holding to his case. At no point prior to filing a petition in state court did Petitioner ever raise a challenge to his life sentence. Under state law, a failure to raise a challenge to one's conviction and sentence amounts to a procedural default. Petitioner contends that state law must yield to federal law in determining when a constitutional rule is to be given retroactive effect. Consistent with the Supreme Court's precedent, how should the state court rule on Petitioner's case?

On similar facts, the Court has held that the retroactivity standards of Teague v. Lane (1989) are in fact constitutionally mandated. As a result, because Miller announced a new rule of substantive constitutional law, the state court should apply Miller's holding to Petitioner's case.

Defendant was charged with murder. He did not get along with his court-appointed attorney and filed a motion to represent himself at a plea hearing. The court held a hearing at which the court told Defendant the nature of the charges against him; of his right to be counseled regarding his plea; and of the range of punishments that the court might impose. After he pled guilty, Defendant filed an appeal in which he sought to withdraw his plea and to have a new trial ordered. He argued that the court failed to warn him adequately of the dangers of self-representation, specifically that the court should have told him that counsel inform Defendant of any viable legal defenses before deciding whether to plead guilty. How should the court rule on the appeal?

On similar facts, the Court has held that the warnings Defendant received were adequate. The court should deny the appeal.

Defendant and Snitch, Defendant's co-felon, were arrested and arraigned for burglary. Because Defendant did not qualify for a Public Defender, Defendant remained in jail while his family located counsel to represent him. Unbeknownst to Defendant, Snitch approached Officer, who was in charge of the investigation, about whether the state would cut Snitch a deal if he could get Defendant to incriminate himself in the burglary. Officer agreed to recommend that Snitch be put on probation if he succeeded. After Snitch was placed in the cell with Defendant, Snitch raised the topic of the burglary and tricked Defendant into discussing the crime, a statement that was overheard by the police. During his trial for burglary, Defendant took the stand and denied his involvement in the crime. On cross-examination, the prosecutor attempted to ask Defendant about the statements that he made to Snitch. Defense counsel made a timely objection. How should the court rule on Defendant's objection to the use of the statement?

On similar facts, the Court held that even a statement taken in violation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel may be used to impeach the defendant. The court should overrule the objection.

Defendant's Boyfriend was wanted on charges of murder. Officer secured a warrant for Boyfriend's arrest. Officer learned that Boyfriend spent time during the day at the Defendant's home and set up surveillance to determine if Boyfriend was there. Once Officer learned that Boyfriend was at Defendant's home, Officer went to Defendant's home and demanded entry to arrest Boyfriend. During the search of the home to locate Boyfriend, Officer saw drugs and drug paraphernalia in Defendant's bedroom. Officer seized the drugs. Charged with possession of narcotics, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

On these facts, it does not appear that Boyfriend resided at Defendant's home. As a result, Officer needed a search warrant for Defendant's home. The court should grant the motion.

Defendant was arrested on suspicion of murder. When his wife learned of his detention, she called the Public Defender's Office to secure counsel for him. Before an indictment or his first appearance in court, Defendant waived his Miranda rights and, in response to police questioning, he made a full confession. Prior to his confession, a Public Defender tried to see Defendant to counsel him, but the Duty Officer refused to let the Public Defender see Defendant. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Police need not inform Defendant of counsel's request because Miranda warnings include all of the information necessary for Defendant to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant was arrested for robbery. Unable to afford bail, he remained in jail after his arraignment. Because Officer did not believe that the case against Defendant was sufficient, Officer put Snitch in the cell with Defendant and instructed Snitch to keep his ears open for anything that Defendant might say. Shortly thereafter, Defendant began talking to Snitch and eventually told him about his role in the murder. On trial for murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Snitch was a passive listener. As a result, the state did not deliberately elicit the incriminating statement. The court should deny the motion.

The police arrested Defendant on suspicion of murder. Defendant was placed in a jail cell to await arraignment. Officer arranged to have Snitch, an informant, placed in the cell with Defendant. Snitch asked Defendant a number of questions about why he was in jail. Trying to sound tough, Defendant told Snitch that he committed murder and that the police weren't smart enough to prove that he did the crime. Indicted for murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the statement he made to Snitch. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Snitch's conduct did not amount to the kind of questioning that requires Miranda warnings. The court should deny the motion.

A state legislature decides that it wants to amend the Bill of Rights in the state constitution to provide a jury trial for any offense punishable by any term of incarceration. Which of the following is correct?

States are free to provide more protection in their constitutions than is provided by the United States Constitution.

Officer arrested Defendant for murdering her husband. Aware that Defendant had not received Miranda warnings, Officer commented briefly, "You know you are facing the death penalty." Defendant responded immediately, "I know I am. I killed that SOB." Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Such a direct statement would appear to be the functional equivalent of interrogation and, therefore, should have been preceded by proper Miranda warnings. The court should grant the motion.

Officer received information that Defendant had committed several acts of petty theft. Officer arrested Defendant and took her to the stationhouse where Officer read Defendant her Miranda rights. Defendant, on probation and fearful that her shoplifting would lead to her denial of probation, asked whether she could see her probation officer. Officer told her that she could not. Subsequently, Officer took a statement from Defendant in which she admitted several acts of shoplifting as a means of getting money to buy drugs. On trial for theft, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The Court has found a similar invocation of the right to see one's probation officer was not sufficient to invoke the right to counsel. The court should deny the motion.

Officer arrested Defendant for murder. Defendant was taken before a magistrate within 72 hours of arrest for a preliminary hearing. At the hearing, Defendant was advised of the right to counsel, but he did not say anything at the point. Later, Officer came to Defendant's jail cell and read Defendant his Miranda rights. Defendant agreed to talk to Officer and to take him back to the murder scene to locate the murder weapon. Defendant admitted his involvement in the murder and helped Officer locate the weapon at the scene. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The Court has held that Miranda warnings and waiver are sufficient to knowingly and intelligently waive the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court should deny the motion.

Postal Clerk became suspicious of a package that she received from a scruffy looking character. She noticed that package contained a return address that did not exist within that community. She called a Postal Inspector to report her suspicions. Inspector told her that he would pick up the package shortly. Inspector picked up the package later that day and the next day exposed it to a drug-sniffing dog, which signaled the presence of narcotics. Inspector then applied for a search warrant. The search found that the package contained a significant amount of cocaine and revealed Defendant's fingerprints on the interior of the package. Charged with the illegal distribution of cocaine, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The Court has held that a detention that does not significantly interfere with the owner's possessory interest is reasonable and that a dog-sniff is not a search. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant owned a construction business. Inspector, an employee of the state's Occupational Safety and Health Agency, arrived at Defendant's business and demanded access to inspect for safety violations. Defendant attempted to deny Inspector access but acquiesced when Inspector showed him a copy of the state statute, requiring access for all businesses. During the course of Inspector's examination of the premises, he saw a sizeable amount of cocaine. Inspector called Officer and Officer, in reliance on that information, secured a search warrant for the premises. Officer executed the warrant immediately and seized the cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The Court has held that a warrantless search of a business premise pursuant to a health and safety regime is unreasonable. Instead, Inspector needs a warrant even if the warrant is based only a general administrative plan not individualized probable cause. The evidence found was the product of that illegality. The court should grant the motion.

At Defendant's trial for first degree murder, the state introduced minimal evidence relating to whether Defendant premeditated prior to killing the victim. Defendant appealed his conviction and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence of premeditation. The state's attorney responded by pointing to the record, which included the minimal evidence of premeditation. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, which of the following best describes how the court should rule on Defendant's appeal?

The Court has held that an appellate court must review sufficiency claims to determine whether any rational factfinder could have found the contested fact beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that the record included only minimal evidence of premeditation, the appellate court should also hold that Defendant cannot be retried on first degree murder.

Police suspected Defendant of murdering Victoria, his ex-wife, but lacked enough evidence to arrest him. In the meantime, his ex-wife's family sued Defendant for her murder. During Defendant's deposition, the Plaintiffs' lawyer asked Defendant, "Did you kill Victoria?" Defendant's lawyer told him not to answer the question because it violated Defendant's Fifth Amendment right to silence. Plaintiffs' lawyer disagreed and after the parties could not resolve their dispute, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion to compel Defendant to answer the question. Which of the following answers best describes the law governing the issue before the court?

The Court has held that an individual may invoke the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding as long the statement could ultimately be used against him in a criminal case. The court should rule for Defendant.

Officer developed probable cause to believe that Defendant had committed a recent armed bank robbery. The robber wore a distinctive sweat suit and used a distinctive handgun. Officer applied for a search warrant, listing the handgun and cash taken in the robbery, but chose not to include reference to the sweat suit in the section of the warrant indicating the items to be seized. After Magistrate issued the warrant, Officer executed the warrant. During the course of the search, Officer looked in the washing machine and found the sweat suit. Officer was unable to locate the cash or handgun. Charged with armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to dismiss?

The Court has held that an officer executing a search warrant need not discover unlisted items inadvertently, but can seize any evidence discovered in plain view as long as it was discovered within the scope of the search warrant. The court should deny the motion.

Officer developed probable cause to believe that Defendant was involved in drug trafficking and using his home as the base of his operations. Officer filled out a warrant in which Officer described Defendant's home with some particularity, the basis of Officer's probable cause and items to be seized during the search, including a reference to a large amount of marijuana and "paraphernalia associated with drug trafficking." After issuance of the warrant, officers executed the warrant. Once at the property described in the warrant, Officer realized that the warrant stated the wrong address for Defendant's home. Also, once on the premises, officers seized not only marijuana but also scales and several hundred baggies. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence, specifically, the scales and baggies. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The Court has held that minor errors in the description of the property to be searched do not invalidate a warrant if the officers can still determine the building to be searched. Further, the general description of "paraphernalia associated with drug trafficking" was almost certainly sufficient because an officer is not likely to be able to describe such information in greater detail. The court should deny the motion.

While Defendant was driving his car, he was broadsided by another motorist. Defendant's vehicle was totaled and Defendant was taken to the hospital. As Defendant was placed in an ambulance, Officer noticed that a pipe for smoking crack cocaine on the floor of the car and smelled the odor of crack on Defendant's clothing. After Defendant was removed from the scene and his car towed to Defendant's home, Officer conducted a search of the vehicle. In it, he found several packets of crack cocaine. Charged with possession of crack cocaine, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to dismiss?

The Court has held that police do not need a search warrant to search a vehicle when they have probable cause. The court should deny the motion.

Officer suspected Defendant of having murdered his wife. Lacking probable cause to arrest Defendant, Officer asked if Defendant would meet him to discuss the case. Defendant agreed to do so. They met at a local restaurant where Officer questioned Defendant. Defendant was forthcoming in answering most questions but remained silent when Officer asked him whether Defendant's handgun was of the same caliber as the one used in the murder. At trial, Defendant's counsel objected when the prosecutor asked Officer about Defendant's response to the question about his handgun. How should the court rule on the objection?

The Court has held that silence does not amount to an invocation of a suspect's right to remain silent, rendering testimony about the fact of the suspect's silence admissible at trial. The court should deny the objection.

For several years, Defendant made a significant amount of income from delivering narcotics for a large drug dealer. Able to withdraw from involvement in drug trafficking, Defendant entered drug rehabilitation and gained employment. When the large drug dealer was arrested and charged along with other members of the drug ring, the United States also charged Defendant with violating federal drug laws. Defendant pled guilty to the charges. At sentencing, the United States has sought a minimum of 30 months in prison based on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Among other facts that the United States placed before the trial court was the fact that Defendant distributed a large amount of narcotics over a several-year period. Defendant has asked to be placed on probation despite the fact that such a sentence is not consistent with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Defendant's crime. Which of the following best describes the law governing this case?

The Court has held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are not mandatory. Further, the Court has held that a trial court may impose even a sentence that is far below the sentence recommended under the Guidelines as long as the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Defendant spent her junior year abroad in France. During that time, her roommate was murdered. Defendant returned home, but in the interim, the French government petitioned the government to extradite Defendant to France on suspicion of murder. United States authorities scheduled an interview with Defendant in her home. During the interview, agents told Defendant that she was required to tell her side of the story of what happened in France. On advice of counsel, she refused. The government filed an action in federal court to compel Defendant to cooperate with the government's investigation. Defendant's counsel argued that the government's action violated Defendant's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. How should the court rule consistent?

The Court has held that the Fifth Amendment does not protect a person faced with a criminal proceeding abroad because that is not a "criminal case" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. The court should rule for the government.

Officer arrested Defendant for burglary. During the booking process, consistent with state law, a member of the police department took a sample of Defendant's DNA over Defendant's objection. Officer took the sample by having Defendant swab the inside of his cheek. The entry of Defendant's DNA into the police data base produced a match that indicated that he was the perpetrator of an unsolved rape. On trial for rape, Defendant has filed a motion to suppress the evidence that the police secured by taking his DNA. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The Court has held that the collection of DNA as part of the arrest process for a serious felony is akin to other booking activity, like taking fingerprints. The court should deny the motion.

Immigration officials set up a checkpoint in Arizona about 20 miles from the Mexican-US border. There, they routinely stopped motorists to see if vehicles included illegal aliens. Frustrated that agents were able to locate few illegal aliens, agents decided to do roving patrols and to make random stops of vehicles further away from the border. While driving on a major highway, Agent randomly stopped Defendant's vehicle. Agent demanded Defendant's driver's license. Defendant produced his license and evidence that he was a permanent resident alien. But Agent demanded that Defendant exit the vehicle. The subsequent search of the vehicle resulted in discovery of a sizeable amount of cocaine in Defendant's vehicle. Agent arrested Defendant. The government brought a deportation proceeding against Defendant because of his violation of US criminal law. Defendant has moved to deny deportation on the ground the search was illegal. How should the court rule on the motion to dismiss?

The Court has held that the exclusionary rule does not apply in deportation cases.

A state police officer arrested Defendant, a Canadian national, on charges of murder. During the subsequent interrogation, Defendant was given Miranda warnings. But despite a requirement in Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Officer did not inform Defendant of his right to receive consular assistance. After waiving his Miranda rights, Defendant confessed to his role in the murder. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress his confession. How should the court rule on the motion on the motion to suppress?

The Court has held that the exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of Article 36. The court should deny the motion.

Officer suspected Defendant of selling methamphetamines, but did not have probable cause to arrest Defendant. When Officer saw Defendant driving his vehicle, Officer called into the police station to ask whether any outstanding warrants existed for Defendant's arrest. Checking the data base, a police department employee saw a warrant from a neighboring county's police data base. That warrant indicated that Defendant was wanted for failing to appear at a hearing on a traffic offense. Unbeknownst to Officer, the police department negligently failed to delete the warrant from the computer after Defendant had paid a fine. In reliance on the employee's report of an outstanding warrant, Officer arrested Defendant. During the subsequent search, Officer found methamphetamines on Defendant's person and found a book, indicating names of purchasers of methamphetamines. Charged with the sale of methamphetamines, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The Court has held that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the error in reporting the warrant was merely negligent whether the mistake was made by a judicial or police employee. The court should deny the motion.

Officer suspected that Defendant was involved in drug trafficking. Unable to establish probable cause, Officer nonetheless arrested Defendant. In the interim, other officers located compelling proof of Defendant's guilt. While in jail awaiting trial, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him because of his illegal arrest. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The Court has held that the mere fact of an illegal arrest does not deprive the state of the ability to try a criminal defendant. The court should deny the motion.

Officer arrested Defendant based on a suspicion that Defendant was involved in the murder of several rival gang members. During the ride back to the police station, Officer asked Defendant about the fact that Defendant had his hair dyed and his moustache cut off since the murders. Defendant admitted those facts. Prior to trial, Defendant moved to suppress that evidence as the product of the illegal arrest. The court granted the motion. At trial, the prosecutor introduced evidence from eye witnesses that Defendant's hair color had been changed since the day of the crime and that he had shaved off his moustache. Defendant's attorney called as a witness a friend of Defendant's, who testified that Defendant had not changed his appearance, contrary to what the state's witnesses testified to. When the prosecutor began to cross examine Defendant's witness by reference to Defendant's admission that he changed his hair color and shaved off his moustache, Defendant's counsel objected. How should the court rule on that objection?

The Court has held that the state may impeach a defendant with a prior statement that resulted from a Fourth Amendment violation. But the Court rejected expanding the impeachment exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule when the state attempted to use the defendant's statement to impeach a witness who was testifying at trial. The court should sustain the objection.

Officer, a member of the local police department, was investigating a series of serious acts of vandalism targeting the local electric utility company. Officer developed articulable suspicion, but not probable cause, that Defendant was involved in those activities. Officer knew that Defendant was on probation and that probationers in that state sign an agreement making them subject to searches of their homes by probation or other law enforcement agents when the official has articulable suspicion. Officer went to Defendant's home and demanded entry. There, he found several items of evidence linking Defendant to the acts of vandalism. Charged with a number of felonies relating to the acts of vandalism, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion consistent to suppress?

The Court has held that, especially in light of probation conditions like those in the fact pattern, a warrantless search of a probationer's home based on articulable suspicion is reasonable. The court should deny the motion.

Officer lacked probable cause to arrest Defendant for dealing in narcotics. When ordinary surveillance techniques failed to yield sufficient evidence of Defendant's drug activities, Officer learned that Defendant's late model vehicle was equipped with GPS technology. After Officer learned the monitoring code for Defendant's vehicle, Officer tracked Defendant over several weeks, eventually yielding enough information for Officer to secure a search warrant for Defendant's home. Officer seized large amounts of narcotics during the search. Charged with possession of narcotics with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The Court has left the particular question open, but at least five justices on the current Court suggested that such conduct may be a search. The court should grant the motion.

Defendant was arrested for robbery. Unable to afford bail, he remained in jail after his arraignment. Because Officer did not believe that the case against Defendant was sufficient, Officer put Snitch in the cell with Defendant and instructed Snitch to report anything that Defendant might say. Shortly thereafter, Defendant began talking to Snitch. Snitch kept the conversation going by asking Defendant why he was in jail. Defendant eventually told him about his role in the murder. On trial for murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. Which of the following is the best answer?

The Court has not addressed the precise question, but the best argument for the state is that Snitch's conduct merely kept the conversation going and did not amount to a deliberate elicitation. The court should deny the motion.

Officers received an emergency call from Defendant. When Officers arrived at the scene, Defendant was waiting outside a cabin in a state park that he and his wife were renting. He said that she was inside, seriously injured or dead; that she may need help; that they were attacked by a masked intruder; and that he had been injured as well. Officers entered the cabin and removed the wife's body. They asked Defendant whether he wanted medical care, and he said he did. They transported him to the hospital, and thereafter officers cordoned off the cabin and spent the next sixteen hours examining the area and the contents of the cabin. Eventually, officers found information in Defendant's open suitcase that implicated him in his wife's death. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. Which of the following answers describes the best argument for the state to pursue?

The Court has rejected a general crime scene exception to the warrant requirement. The prosecutor would be better off developing facts demonstrating that Defendant consented to the entry and search.

Officer was investigating Defendant on a charge of murder. Shortly after the crime and prior to Defendant's arrest, Officer asked Defendant if he would submit to a test to determine whether he had recently fired a handgun. Defendant refused to do so. During his trial on murder, Defendant did not take the stand. During closing argument, the Prosecutor argued that Defendant's refusal to submit to the test demonstrated consciousness of guilt. In her closing argument, Defendant's attorney argued that Defendant had never been allowed to give his side of the story of the crime. In rebuttal, the Prosecutor commented on Defendant's failure to take the stand at trial. Defendant's attorney objected. Defendant appealed his conviction of murder and raised the Prosecutor's comments about Defendant's refusal to submit to the gunpowder test and failure to take the stand as error. How should the court rule on appeal?

The Court has rejected the claim that comment on the failure to take the stand violates a Defendant's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when he has put the question in issue by claiming he lacked an opportunity to tell his side of the story. The Court has also held that commenting on a defendant's refusal to cooperate in providing physical evidence is not a violation of the Fifth Amendment because the amendment does not protect a defendant from providing non-testimonial evidence. The court should affirm Defendant's conviction.

A supplier of a chemical compound used in processing methamphetamines contacted police about a large order of the chemical placed by Defendant. Aware that Defendant would be picking up several 50 gallons drums of the chemical in the near future, police brought the supplier a 50 gallon drum of the chemical that included a tracking device in a hidden compartment and the supplier gave this drum to Defendant. Over the next two days, Officer learned where Defendant went throughout the day and was able to set up surveillance at those locations. Defendant did not travel on private property during the period of surveillance. Based on those observations, Officer developed probable cause that Defendant was producing methamphetamine in a garage. Officer secured a search warrant for the garage. Thereafter, Officer conducted a search of the garage, resulting in the seizure of a large quantity of methamphetamines. Prior to his trial for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. Which of the following answers best describes how the court should rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The Court has upheld similar police conduct on the ground that it does not amount to a search when the police use technology to discover what one knowingly exposes to the public. The court should deny the motion.

After a visit to Mexico, Defendant returned home to the United States by way of a checkpoint between Tijuana, Mexico and San Diego, California. At the border, Agent signaled Defendant to leave the line and to go to a special screening area. There, Agent ordered Defendant to a private area where another agent performed a strip search of Defendant. Agent also supervised a full examination of Defendant's vehicle, which included the removal of the gas tank. The strip search resulted in discovery of a large packet of cocaine within Defendant's underwear; the search of the vehicle netted a sizeable amount of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The Court has upheld similar searches of vehicles at the border without any level of suspicion, but has suggested that intrusive body searches must be based on some level of suspicion. The court should grant the motion with regard to evidence found on Defendant's body, but deny the motion as to evidence found in the vehicle.

Several years ago, Officer, acting on an uncorroborated tip, secured a warrant to search Defendant's home for drug paraphernalia. During the search, Officer found files that plainly contained only papers, examined their contents, and found that the papers were related to a fraudulent real estate transaction. Based on that evidence, Defendant was convicted of fraud and is currently serving a long prison term. After exhausting all of his remedies in state court, Defendant has filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court in which he has claimed that the search of his home violated the Fourth Amendment. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The Court held that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply in habeas corpus proceedings. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant was on trial for violating federal racketeering laws. FBI Agent suspected that Defendant was attempting to bribe a juror. As a result, Agent approached a friend of Defendant's who was under indictment for violations of federal law as well. Agent promised to intervene with federal prosecutors about having the charges reduced if the friend would ingratiate himself with Defendant to find out whether Defendant was attempting to bribe the jury. The friend contacted Defendant. Defendant invited him to visit with him during the racketeering trial and allowed him to sit in during discussions with Defendant's defense team. Eventually, Defendant asked his friend if he knew anyone who could contact a member of the jury. The friend told him that he would do so; instead, he shared that information with Agent. Now on trial for bribing a juror, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion on the motion to suppress?

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel as to the bribery charge had not attached. On similar facts, the Court has indicated that such conduct is not protected by the Fifth Amendment because Defendant voluntary allowed his friend to enter the room and participate in conversations. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant resides in a state that has not adopted the Model Penal Code. He has been charged with "deliberate homicide." That crime is defined further as one in which a defendant has purposely or knowingly caused the death of another. At trial, Defendant admitted that he killed the victim, but claimed that he did not do so intentionally or knowingly. The judge's instruction to the jury explained that a defendant is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his voluntary acts. Further, the judge explained that once the state has shown the facts surrounding the slaying, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove he did not purposely or knowingly kill the victim. On appeal after his conviction, Defendant claims that instruction was in error. Which of the following best describes the law governing this issue?

The Supreme Court has held that such an instruction is improper because it is inconsistent with the requirement that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendant is on trial for battery, punishable by up to two years in prison. Under state law, a defendant does not have a right to a jury trial unless he is charged with a capital offense or a crime punishable at hard labor in the state prison for more than two years. Defendant has filed a timely motion requesting a jury trial in his battery case. Which of the following answers best describes how the court should rule on Defendant's motion?

The Supreme Court has held that the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury is fundamental to the Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty and therefore applies to the states so that a defendant is entitled to trial by jury for any offense punishable by more than six months incarceration.

Defendant, a long-time petty drug dealer, was approached by a federal undercover police officer about becoming involved in a large scale drug importation scheme. Defendant refused to become involved for a considerable period of time, during which the undercover police officer repeatedly suggested that Defendant help him with the scheme. Finally, when the undercover police officer increased Defendant's share of the profits, Defendant agreed to participate. Charged with an attempt to violate federal drug laws, Defendant hopes to raise an entrapment defense. Which of the following answers best describes the most probable outcome in this case?

The Supreme Court has held that the entrapment defense, even if not amounting to a due process violation, is available as a defense to a federal criminal prosecution. At trial, Defendant must prove that he was not predisposed to commit the crime. As a result, Defendant is not likely to prevail on his entrapment defense.

Officer presented Magistrate with an affidavit in which Officer stated the following: "Upon information and belief provided by a reliable informant, Defendant is operating an illegal marijuana business out of his home" and specified the address. After reading this, Magistrate signed a warrant for a search of the home. Several officers executed the search warrant and found a large amount of marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The affidavit was so lacking in creating probable cause that no reasonable officer could rely on its issuance by a magistrate. The court should grant the motion.

Officer received a phone call from an anonymous caller who indicated that Defendant was standing at a bus stop and was wearing a plaid flannel shirt and blue jeans. The caller also said that Defendant was carrying an unregistered firearm on his person. Following up on the tip, Officer observed Defendant at the bus stop and approached him. The officer saw nothing that suggested possession of a weapon, but out of concern for his and others' safety, Officer patted down Defendant and located a loaded weapon in his waistband. Charged with the unlawful possession of a firearm, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The amount of detail in the tip is far too little to justify stopping Defendant in the first instance. The court should grant the motion.

State police arrested Defendant for domestic assault. At his arraignment, the magistrate appointed Defendant counsel. After hearing evidence from the prosecutor on the issue of bail, the magistrate set bail at several thousand dollars, despite defense counsel's argument that Defendant could not afford the amount set by the magistrate. The magistrate refused to reduce the amount of bail to a figure that Defendant could afford. Defendant hopes to appeal the issue immediately. Which of the following answer best describes how the appellate court is likely to resolve Defendant's appeal?

The appellate court is likely to deny the appeal because, although a Defendant probably has an Eighth Amendment right to be free from excessive bail, that does not mean that the court must set bail at an amount that a defendant can afford.

Defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute a large quantity of heroin. Defendant pled guilty. At Defendant's sentencing hearing, the prosecutor called a number of witnesses who testified concerning the large quantity of drugs that various participants bought and sold during the time Defendant was involved in the conspiracy. Although one witness testified that Defendant was minor participant in the conspiracy, Defendant did not testify about her role. In setting the sentence at the statutory maximum, the sentencing judge told Defendant that her unwillingness to testify led him to infer that her role in the conspiracy was significant. On appeal, Defendant alleged that the sentencing judge's reliance on her refusal to testify was a violation of her Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against herself. Consistent with the prevailing Supreme Court precedent, which answer best describes how the court should resolve Defendant's argument on appeal?

The appellate court should overturn the sentence because the Court has held that the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent applies during the sentencing hearing as well as at the guilt phase of the trial and that the judge should not draw an unfavorable inference from the defendant's silence.

Officer had a few confrontations with Defendant in their community but had never been able to arrest Defendant for a crime, despite Officer's belief that Defendant was a criminal. While on traffic patrol, Officer noticed Defendant driving his vehicle on the public right of way. Officer followed Defendant with the expectation that Defendant would violate a traffic law, allowing Officer to arrest Defendant. Officer pulled Defendant over when Officer noticed that Defendant had removed his seatbelt while driving. When Officer confirmed that Defendant was not wearing his seatbelt in violation of state law, Officer made a custodial arrest. As an incident to that arrest, Officer did a full body search. In the course of that search, Officer found a sizeable packet of heroin on Defendant's person. On trial for possession of heroin with intent to deliver, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. He made the motion after he learned that state law allowed only a citation, not a custodial arrest, for a violation of the seatbelt law. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The arrest was lawful as long as Officer had probable cause that there was a violation of state law. As such, the subsequent arrest was not unlawful within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant attended a private college. Concerned about drug use on campus, the Dean announced rules requiring students to allow random inspections of their dorm rooms. The Dean did so after the local police chief went to the Dean and told the Dean that the College had to do the inspections if it wanted the support of the police department. During a random search, campus officials found a large amount of marijuana in Defendant's room. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The collaboration between the police and the Dean makes the college's activities state action. The court should grant the motion.

While investigating a tip that Defendant was involved in trafficking narcotics, Officer and his partner went to Defendant's home. A brief surveillance of Defendant's home gave the police probable cause to believe that he was selling narcotics from his home. Officer knocked on Defendant's door. When he opened the door, Officer told him of his suspicions and asked if Defendant would consent to a search of his home. Defendant refused. Officer told his partner to secure a search warrant. In the meantime, Officer told Defendant that Defendant could not enter his home. Over the next two hours, when Defendant needed to go into his home, Officer allowed him to do so as long as Officer could watch him as he moved about his home. Two hours later, when Officer and his partner searched Defendant's home pursuant to the warrant, they discovered a large quantity of heroin. Charged with possession of heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The conduct of the police in securing the premises and detaining the defendant while they went to get a search warrant was lawful. The court should deny the motion.

Aware that drug dealers were using private shipping companies to send drugs throughout the United States, the federal Drug Enforcement Agency developed a policy whereby agents sought help from those shipping companies. After being requested to do so by the DEA, Shipping Co. management agreed to hold suspicious packages for further inspection before delivering them. Employee detained a package addressed to Defendant when Employee noticed leaking talcum powder, often used to mask the smell of marijuana. Upon opening it, Employee discovered three pounds of marijuana. Employee contacted Officer, who arranged to do a controlled delivery of the package. After receiving the package, Defendant was arrested for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The cooperation between the private company and the DEA makes the Fourth Amendment applicable to this case. As a result, Employee's opening of the package was an illegal search because no warrant was obtained. The court should grant the motion.

Defendant was charged with first degree murder, requiring the state to prove that Defendant not only acted with malice aforethought but also that the killing was premeditated, deliberate, and willful. At trial, the prosecution offered considerable evidence that Defendant took a handgun to meet her ex-husband and that she shot him directly in the temple. Recently appointed to the criminal bench, the trial judge failed to instruct the jury on the elements of first degree murder and simply stated that malice aforethought captured the meaning of the additional elements that the state had to prove. In its reply brief to Defendant's appeal, the state has conceded that the trial judge's instruction was in error for failing to instruct the jury on the elements of premeditation, deliberation, and willfulness. Nonetheless, the state has contended that the court should not reverse the conviction. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, how should the court rule in this case?

The court may affirm the conviction if it finds that the state has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the guilty verdict.

Officer lacked probable cause to arrest Defendant for the murder of his girlfriend. Nonetheless, Officer hoped that by arresting him, Officer could shock him into confessing. About two hours after Defendant's arrest, Officer read Defendant his Miranda rights. Defendant waived his rights and confessed to killing his girlfriend. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the confession. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The court must determine whether, based on all of the facts, the taint of the original illegality was purged. On similar facts, the Court held that the state had not met its burden. The court should grant the motion.

Defendant resides in a state that has not adopted the Model Penal Code. Defendant has been charged with criminal trespass and battery based on the following facts: Defendant, the leader of an anti-abortion group, led a protest of an abortion facility. Unable to stop women from entering, he barged into the facility and grabbed a young woman who was there to have an abortion performed. At trial, the trial court refused a jury instruction submitted by Defendant that would have told the jury that it should acquit on both charges if it found Defendant's conduct prevented a greater harm, the death of the young woman's fetus. Defendant has appealed his conviction, in which he contends that the refusal to instruct the jury on his necessity defense was reversible error. Which of the following best describes how the court should rule on Defendant's appeal?

The court should affirm the conviction. Courts have not recognized this kind of civil disobedience necessity defense.

Defendant was charged with capital murder. During voir dire, the prosecutor asked prospective jurors who indicated discomfort in imposing the death penalty whether that discomfort would substantially impair their ability to impose the death penalty. In each instance where a prospective juror said that the juror would have difficulty imposing the death penalty, Defendant's attorney asked each juror whether that discomfort with the death penalty would prevent that juror from finding Defendant guilty during the guilt phase of the trial. Each juror expressed confidence in being able to find Defendant guilty if that was what the evidence showed. Nonetheless, the trial judge excused those jurors for cause. After his conviction for murder, Defendant appealed, challenging those jurors' exclusion for cause from the guilt phase of his trial. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, how should the court rule on Defendant's appeal?

The court should affirm the judgment because the Court has rejected this claim.

Defendant was charged with a series of acts of embezzlement from her boss. After a jury convicted her of five charges of embezzlement, the judge ordered a probation report to determine the appropriate sentence. Under state law, a judge may order terms of prison to be served concurrently or consecutively depending on whether the judge finds that a defendant may have committed other uncharged criminal conduct relating to the same series of transactions. Defendant moved to submit the question whether she committed uncharged acts of embezzlement to a jury. The judge denied Defendant's motion and sentenced Defendant to serve five terms of imprisonment consecutively because the judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant committed a number of other acts of embezzlement dating back several years. On appeal, Defendant moved to reverse the judgment of sentence. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, how should the court rule on Defendant's appeal?

The court should affirm the judgment of sentence because on similar facts, the Court has held that the state's rule does not impinge on the historic role of the jury in finding facts. Therefore, the state rule does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to a jury.

Defendant was charged with three counts of disorderly conduct during a recent protest rally. Because the maximum penalty for each count was only six months, the trial judge denied Defendant's motion to impanel a jury. Although the trial judge initially was not going to sentence Defendant to more than six months in jail, she ended up imposing two six month terms to be served consecutively. On appeal, Defendant contended that the trial judge erred in denying him a right to trial by jury. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, which of the following describes how the court should rule on Defendant's appeal?

The court should affirm the lower court judgment because Defendant did not have a right to a jury trial on the facts of this case, absent some additional statutory penalties making this offense a serious one.

Officer developed probable cause to arrest Defendant for the sale of cocaine. When Officer arrested Defendant, Officer searched Defendant and removed an envelope and a flip-phone. After handcuffing Defendant, Officer looked at the paper and flipped open the phone. The paper revealed the names of individuals to whom Defendant had sold drugs; the flip-phone showed phone numbers of individuals who called Defendant about purchasing drugs. Charged with the sale of cocaine, Defendant has moved to suppress the use of the evidence taken from Defendant. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The court should deny the motion as to the paper in light of cases upholding similar searches; but the court should grant the motion as to the flip phone because, in light of the extensive invasion of privacy, Officer needed to get a warrant to search the phone on these facts.

California state police arrested Defendant for transporting a large amount of cocaine. During his trial in California state court for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, the prosecutor committed error, leading the trial court to declare a mistrial. At around the same time, the United States Attorney brought charges against Defendant based on the same act of transporting cocaine. Prior to trial, Defendant moved to dismiss the charges on the grounds that the second trial violated Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy. Consistent with the prevailing Supreme Court precedent, which answer best describes how the court should resolve Defendant's motion?

The court should deny the motion because California and the United States are separate sovereigns.

Defendant was arrested for the burglary of Victim's home. At trial, Defendant interposed two defenses; the first that he was so intoxicated that he lacked the specific intent to commit the crime, and the second that he did not commit the burglary. The jury acquitted the defendant. Subsequently, police found Victim's body and have brought murder charges against Defendant. Prior to trial, Defendant moved to dismiss the new charge on the grounds that the second prosecution was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Consistent with the prevailing Supreme Court precedent, which answer best describes how the court should resolve Defendant's motion?

The court should deny the motion because burglary is not a lesser included offense to murder.

Defendant was arrested after he was involved in a fistfight in a bar. At his arraignment, Defendant waived counsel. Thereafter, the prosecutor offered Defendant a plea deal whereby Defendant would plead guilty to simple battery and receive a three month jail sentence. When Defendant hesitated, the prosecutor told him that the state would charge Defendant with aggravated battery and seek the maximum sentence of five years in prison if Defendant rejected the plea bargain. Defendant accepted the plea. Defendant had second thoughts after he entered his plea and sought to reopen his case so that he would go to trial and interpose a defense. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, which of the following answers best describes how the court should resolve Defendant's motion to revoke his guilty plea?

The court should deny the motion because the Court has upheld such bargains.

Defendant was arrested and convicted for assault with a deadly weapon. Unable to make bail, he remained in jail for a year before the state finally set a sentencing hearing. The delay was due to a clerical error committed by a state employee. At the sentencing hearing, Defendant moved to have his case dismissed on the grounds that the delay in holding the sentencing hearing violated his right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment. Consistent with the prevailing Supreme Court precedent, which answer best describes how the court should resolve Defendant's motion?

The court should deny the motion because the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial attaches when a defendant is formally charged, but detaches upon his conviction. That is so because the right to a speedy trial is a protection for the "presumptively innocent."

Defendant resides in a state that has adopted the Model Penal Code. He is on trial for theft based on the following facts: Defendant went to the car dealership to take a test drive of a new car. Because the salesman was quite busy, he let Defendant take the car out by himself. After getting on the highway, Defendant decided to keep the car. Several days later, police located the vehicle and arrested Defendant. At the close of the prosecutor's case, Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal. Which of the following provides the best explanation of how the court should rule on that motion?

The court should deny the motion because the facts are sufficient to constitute theft because he has exercised unlawful control over the property.

Defendant was charged with first degree murder based on the death of his wife. At trial, evidence suggested that Defendant intentionally killed her to collect on his wife's insurance policy. Defendant contended that the death resulted accidentally when he was cleaning his shotgun. During deliberations, the jury foreperson told the judge that the jury was unanimous in finding that Defendant did not intend to kill, but was deadlocked on whether the killing was the result of criminal negligence or an accident. When the court realized that the jury was hopelessly deadlocked, it ordered a mistrial after the parties agreed that a mistrial was in order. The state commenced a new trial and again sought to convict Defendant of first degree murder. Prior to trial, Defendant moved to dismiss the murder charge on the grounds that the second prosecution for murder was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Consistent with the prevailing Supreme Court precedent, which answer best describes how the court should resolve Defendant's motion?

The court should deny the motion because the jury did not reach a final judgment on the first degree murder charge. As a result, jeopardy has not attached and Defendant may be retried on that charge.

Defendant left the country when he learned that state police were investigating his role in a murder. He remained at large for over a year. He was arrested for murder upon his return to his community. Less than a year after his arrest but almost two years since the murder, he was formally charged. Defendant moved to dismiss the murder charge on the ground that his right to a speedy trial was violated. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, how should the court rule on Defendant's motion?

The court should deny the motion because the right to a speedy trial is triggered only by commencement of formal proceedings and because a delay of less than a year almost certainly does not create a presumption of a violation of Defendant's right to speedy trial.

The United States charged Defendant with possession of heroin with intent to distribute based on his efforts to bring a large quantity of heroin into the United States. He was acquitted at trial. Subsequently, the United States charged Defendant and a co-defendant with conspiracy to distribute heroin based on the same shipment of heroin as involved in the earlier transaction. Defendant has moved to dismiss the charges on the grounds that the second prosecution was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Consistent with the prevailing Supreme Court precedent, which answer best describes how the court should resolve Defendant's motion?

The court should deny the motion because under the Supreme Court's test for double jeopardy, the original charge and the conspiracy charge are considered separate offenses.

The U.S. Attorney has decided to charge Defendant with several counts of mail fraud, involving an investment scheme that lost investors all of their money. The U.S. Attorney has notified Defendant that she is the target of the investigation. Defendant has filed a motion with the court asking that in the grand jury proceeding she be allowed to testify on her own behalf; that the U.S. Attorney not be allowed to rely on hearsay evidence, but instead to present testimony from witnesses against her; and that the U.S. Attorney must present the grand jury with information that the U.S. Attorney has in his possession that would tend to exculpate Defendant. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, which of the following answers describes how the court should rule on Defendant's motion?

The court should deny the motion in its entirety.

The police received a complaint from a victim who told the police that she has been receiving threatening phone calls. Some of those calls were recorded on her voicemail. She was unable to identify the caller. Based on a suspicion, the police officer in charge of the investigation believed that the caller might be an associate of the victim's, perhaps a fellow employee. The police officer brought that information to the local District Attorney, who decided to convene a grand jury and to subpoena several of the victim's fellow employees. The subpoena explained that the District Attorney wanted the persons named in the subpoena to read a prepared statement (a transcript of the threatening language in the recorded voicemail) into a recording device. After receiving a subpoena, Will, one of the employees, filed a motion to quash the subpoena. In that motion, Will contended that appearing violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unlawful seizure and his Fifth Amendment right to be free from being a witness against himself. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, how should the trial court resolve Will's motion?

The court should deny the motion on both grounds because, on similar facts, the Court has rejected the claims that a similar subpoena violated the suspect's right to be free an unlawful seizure and that a voice recording violated the suspect's Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.

Officer developed probable cause to believe that Defendant was guilty of a home invasion armed robbery. When he arrived at Defendant's home, Officer did not tell him the purpose of his visit and merely told him that he was investigating the home invasion. Defendant invited him into his home. While there, Officer, without giving Defendant Miranda warnings, asked him numerous questions about Defendant's possible involvement in the crime. Not sure whether he had to cooperate with the police, Defendant asked Officer whether Defendant had a right to speak with counsel at this point. Officer said "that's up to you.". As a result, Defendant continued the interview and admitted his involvement in the crime. On trial for armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The court should deny the motion. Defendant had no right to Miranda warnings and no right to counsel in this situation.

Defendant has been charged with burglary in state court. The District Attorney began proceedings by way of information, rather than by seeking a grand jury indictment. Defendant has filed a timely motion to dismiss the charges against him because he was not afforded the protection of a grand jury as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Which of the following answers best describes how the court should rule on Defendant's motion to dismiss?

The court should deny the motion. The Court has not held that the Fifth Amendment right to a grand jury is fundamental to the Anglo-American scheme of justice.

Petitioner was arrested for possession of a large quantity of illegal drugs after police entered his home without a warrant. Petitioner's counsel filed a motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that the search violated Petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights. Prior to trial, Petitioner's counsel learned that the state claimed that Petitioner's roommate gave consent to the entry into the apartment. Petitioner's counsel was unable to find the roommate despite due diligence and asked the court for a continuance to attempt to find the roommate. The court denied the request. At the suppression hearing, the court allowed the police to testify about their conversation with the roommate. The court then found that the search was lawful. After his conviction, Petitioner appealed through the state system, where the appellate courts found for the state. Counsel filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal court on Petitioner's behalf and challenged the state courts' finding on Petitioner's Fourth Amendment claim. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, how should the court rule on the petition?

The court should determine whether Petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to present his Fourth Amendment claim. Absent that, a federal court cannot review a state court's decision on a Fourth Amendment claim.

Defendant was charged with burglary and appointed counsel. During part of the trial, especially after lunch, counsel smelled of alcohol and on occasion seemed to be asleep. When Defendant brought that to the attention of the judge, the judge admonished counsel and promised to watch closely to see if counsel performed erratically. Despite at least two more instances of counsel appearing to be asleep, the judge allowed the case to proceed to verdict. Defendant was convicted. Post-conviction, Defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds that trial counsel was ineffective. Which of the following answers best describes the controlling legal standard governing Defendant's motion?

The court should find for Defendant only if Defendant can show actual prejudice or that his counsel was so inattentive to amount to Defendant having no counsel at all.

Defendant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of manslaughter. Subsequently, she learned that a witness had recanted his original story. Defendant filed a notice of appeal and requested that the state appoint her counsel to handle the appeal. State law makes an appeal from a guilty plea discretionary and does not require appointment of counsel in such cases. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, how should the appellate court rule on Defendant's request for court-appointed counsel?

The court should grant Defendant's request for counsel because the Court has held that the failure to appoint appellate counsel under such circumstances violates a defendant's right to equal protection.

Defendant was arrested for attempted felony murder in Florida (the only state that recognizes that particular theory). Prior to trial, the prosecutor offered Defendant's counsel a plea deal, reducing the possible sentence from several years in prison to two years in prison. Defendant's counsel, who recently moved to Florida where he passed the Florida bar, explained the plea deal to Defendant but discouraged Defendant from taking the deal. Defendant's counsel was sure that the court would reject the state's theory of attempted felony murder at trial, resulting in a conviction only of battery. In reliance on Defendant's counsel, Defendant rejected the plea deal and went to trial. The jury found Defendant guilty of attempted felony murder and the court sentenced Defendant to six years in prison. Post-conviction, Defendant moved to reopen his case on the grounds that Defendant's counsel was ineffective in the advice offered about the state of Florida law. Consistent with controlling Supreme Court precedent, which answer best describes how the court should resolve Defendant's motion?

The court should grant the motion as long as Defendant establishes that it is reasonably probable that he would have accepted the plea deal but-for the inaccurate advice from counsel.

Victor, the victim of a robbery, reported to the police that the robber wrestled him to the ground and took only Victor's tuba, measuring about 4 feet in height. The robber did not display a weapon. Victor described the robber's vehicle in great detail, including the make, model and an almost complete license number. Later that day, Officer spotted Defendant's vehicle parked not far from the scene of the crime. The vehicle matched Victor's description. Officer conducted an immediate search, beginning with the interior of the vehicle. She located a handgun in the glove compartment. She then popped open the trunk but did not find the tuba. Subsequent investigation revealed that the weapon was one used in a recent homicide. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the handgun from evidence. Which of the following answers best describes how the court should rule on Defendant's motion to dismiss?

The court should grant the motion because Officer lacked probable cause to look in the glove compartment.

Defendant was arrested by officers in Guam, a U.S. territory in the Pacific Ocean, for attempting to import a controlled substance from China. After he was convicted in the Guam court, the U.S. also brought charges against him based on his attempt to import the same controlled substance. Prior to trial, Defendant moved to dismiss the new charge on the grounds that the second prosecution was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Consistent with the prevailing Supreme Court precedent, which answer best describes how the court should resolve Defendant's motion?

The court should grant the motion because the Court's test for sovereignty in this context looks to whether the two governments derive their power from the same constitutional source, which the U.S. and its territories do.

Defendant owned a business engaged in providing services to Medicare patients. The U.S. Attorney received information hinting that Defendant was engaged in a fraudulent scheme to overcharge the government for Medicare services. The U.S. Attorney knew that the government lacked probable cause to seek a search warrant for Defendant's records. Instead, she secured a subpoena to force Defendant to hand over his business records. Upon receipt of the subpoena, Defendant filed a motion to quash the subpoena on alternative grounds. He contends that the subpoena violates his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, how should the court rule on Defendant's motion to quash the subpoena?

The court should grant the motion on Fifth Amendment grounds only insofar as the government will rely on Defendant's act of production to show that these are the documents in Defendant's possession.

Defendant, a permanent resident alien in the United States, was arrested for a serious felony. Prior to trial, her court-appointed counsel advised to her take the prosecutor's offer of a short jail term, instead of risking a greater sentence at trial. Defendant did not ask her attorney whether her guilty plea would affect her status as a permanent resident alien. After Defendant pled guilty, the United States Immigration Service began deportation proceedings because federal immigration law makes conviction of a felony a virtually automatic deportable offense. Defendant filed a motion to reopen her guilty plea to avoid deportation. Consistent with controlling Supreme Court precedent, which answer best describes how the court should resolve Defendant's motion?

The court should grant the motion only if it finds that Defendant could have prevailed at trial.

A jury convicted Defendant of murder; the court sentenced him to a term of 15 years in prison. Thereafter, he successfully appealed his conviction. Upon retrial and reconviction, the prosecutor sought a sentence of life in prison. Defendant filed a motion in which he claimed that such a sentence would violate his right to be free from double jeopardy. Consistent with the prevailing Supreme Court precedent, which answer best describes how the court should resolve Defendant's motion?

The court should grant the motion only if it finds that the greater sentence was sought vindictively to punish Defendant for having appealed the original conviction.

Defendant, who suffered from mental illness, was charged with first degree murder. During the pretrial stages, Defendant's attorney filed a motion to have Defendant found incompetent to stand trial and a motion to compel the prosecutor to provide exculpatory evidence (counsel believed that police had the name of a witness who would support Defendant's claim of self-defense). At the competency hearing, the trial judge found Defendant capable of aiding counsel and of understanding the proceedings, despite his significant mental illness. Instead of responding to the second motion, the prosecutor offered Defendant a term of 25 years in prison if he pled guilty to second degree murder. Defendant agreed to the bargain, but at a hearing before the trial judge, Defendant insisted that he was acting in self-defense, but was afraid to go to trial because he might otherwise face the death penalty. The trial judge accepted Defendant's guilty plea. When Defendant's attorney learned the identity of the witness, Defendant moved to reopen his case so that he can go to trial on the murder charge. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, which of the following answers best describes how the court should resolve Defendant's motion to revoke his guilty plea?

The court should grant the motion only if it finds that there was strong evidence of Defendant's guilt.

Officer developed probable cause to believe that Defendant was guilty of a home invasion armed robbery. The prosecutor presented that evidence to a grand jury, which indicted Defendant for armed robbery. Armed with an arrest warrant, when he arrived at Defendant's home, Officer did not tell him the purpose of his visit and merely told him that he was investigating the home invasion. Defendant invited him into his home. While there, Officer, without giving Defendant Miranda warnings, asked him numerous questions about Defendant's possible involvement in the crime. Not sure whether he had to cooperate with the police, Defendant said he would like to speak with counsel at this point. Believing that Miranda was not applicable, Officer said that he had no right to do so. As a result, Defendant continued the interview and admitted his involvement in the crime. On trial for armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The court should grant the motion. Defendant had no Miranda right to counsel but Officer still violated Defendant's right to counsel.

The state charged Defendant with possession of a firearm. At trial, the prosecutor introduced evidence that Defendant possessed a pistol. The key witness stated that the pistol appeared to be a .32 caliber weapon. After the prosecution rested, Defendant interposed a defense. After the jury found Defendant guilty of the offense, Defendant made a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal and in support, cited state case law indicating that the state must prove that a weapon is less than 16 inches long to come within the definition of a firearm for purposes of state law. The trial court agreed and entered a verdict of acquittal. The state appealed the trial court's entry of a verdict of acquittal. Defendant countered by arguing that the appeal was improper because a reversal and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, which of the following best describes how the appellate court should rule in this case?

The court should grant the state's appeal if it finds that the trial court was in error. On these facts, the appellate court would merely be reinstating the jury's verdict, not requiring a new trial.

Defendant resides in a state that has not adopted the Model Penal Code. She has been charged with the murder of her husband. After years of abuse, she finally cracked when he threatened to kill her if she did not eat her supper out of a dog's dish. At trial, defense counsel has called Dr. Expert to testify concerning the battered spouse syndrome. The prosecutor has objected to the testimony. Defense counsel has made a proffer indicating that Dr. Expert will testify on two issues: (1) she will support Defendant's credibility (i.e., to explain how a woman would stay with her husband for so long if, as the evidence will show, Defendant suffered years of abuse); and (2) she will explain how, from Defendant's point of view, her belief in the need to defend herself was reasonable. Which of the following best describes how the court should rule on the prosecutor's objection consistent with prevailing law?

The court should overrule the objection as to Dr. Expert testimony on Defendant's credibility but sustain the objection as to her testimony on Defendant's view of what was reasonably necessary to protect her life.

Two years ago, Officer arrested Defendant during an undercover sting when Defendant purchased heroin from an undercover informant. Prior to trial, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. The court found in Defendant's favor. Officer remained mad when he learned that Defendant got off on a technicality and kept his eye out for Defendant. Recently, Officer again arrested Defendant for possession of heroin. During his trial on a charge of possession of heroin, Defendant took the stand. His defense was that Officer planted the heroin on him. On cross examination, Defendant denied ever purchasing heroin. When the prosecutor sought to introduce evidence of his possession of heroin that he possessed two years earlier when Officer arrested him initially, Defendant's attorney objected that the use of the evidence violated Defendant's constitutional rights. How should the court rule on Defendant's objection to the admissibility of the evidence?

The court should overrule the objection because the Court has held that the state may use evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment for impeachment purposes.

After Defendant's husband was found shot in their home, the state charged Defendant with the murder of her husband. As part of her pretrial motion, Defendant asked the prosecution to hand over any exculpatory evidence in its possession. The prosecution handed over a few documents in its possession at the time; none was particularly helpful to Defendant's case. After Defendant's conviction for murder, a defense investigator interviewed one of the state's eyewitnesses, who mentioned that he initially told the police he could not recognize the person whom he saw running from Defendant's home and that he identified Defendant at trial only after he had seen a photo array at the police station. Based on that witness's statements, Defendant has moved for a new trial on the grounds that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence from Defendant. The prosecution responded, claiming (1) the prosecution was not aware of the exculpatory evidence, and, therefore, did not act in bad faith; (2) the prosecution had other incriminatory evidence and, therefore, Defendant could not prove that the result at trial would have been different, had the evidence been presented; and (3) the evidence was not in the possession of the prosecutor until after Defendant filed her motion and she did not include a continuing request for exculpatory evidence that would have put the prosecution on notice of its obligation to search its records after the original request for exculpatory evidence. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, which of the following best describes how the court should resolve Defendant's motion for a new trial?

The court should probably grant the motion for a new trial.

Defendant and his co-defendant were charged with attempted murder in a small rural county. Due to the small number of attorneys who did criminal defense work in the county, the trial judge appointed Attorney Al to represent both defendants. During the course of trial, co-defendant took the stand and suggested that Defendant, not he, was the person who shot at the victim. Co-defendant further denied any agreement between him and Defendant to shoot at the victim. Convicted of attempted murder, Defendant appealed and raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to the conflict of interest that his counsel had by representing both defendants. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, how should the court rule on Defendant's appeal?

The court should reverse Defendant's conviction if Defendant can show that he was adversely affected by his lawyer's performance; but defendant does not have to show actual prejudice.

The state charged Defendant with attempted murder and possession of a firearm. At trial, the prosecutor introduced evidence that Defendant shot the victim with a pistol. The witness stated that the pistol appeared to be a .32 caliber weapon. At the end of the state's case, Defendant moved for a directed verdict of acquittal on the possession of a firearm charge. She pointed to the case law that defined "firearm" as having a barrel less than 16 inches long. The trial court agreed that the state failed to prove that element of possession of a firearm and made an entry in the record, granting the motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. Thereafter, Defendant put on her defense to the attempted murder charge. Prior to closing arguments, the prosecutor cited a number of cases under state law that suggested that the evidence presented as part of the prosecutor's case in chief was sufficient to allow a jury to find that Defendant possessed a firearm. Over Defendant's objection, the trial court agreed to let the jury decide the issue. The jury convicted Defendant on both charges. On appeal, Defendant contended that submitting the possession of a firearm charge to the jury violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, which of the following best describes how the appellate court should rule on Defendant's appeal?

The court should reverse the trial court's decision to submit the possession of a firearm charge to the jury because the trial court's original finding constituted an acquittal. As a result, submitting the case to the jury violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Defendant was under investigation for the sexual assault and murder of his step-daughter. In jail on other charges, Defendant was befriended by Snitch, who was posing as a convicted mob boss but working undercover for the police. The police asked Snitch to find out what he could about the sexual assault and murder. During their daily routine, Snitch warned Defendant that other detainees were going to harm Defendant because he was suspected of being a child molester. Snitch offered to protect Defendant but only if he came clean about his crime. Defendant did so. At trial for murder, the state secured a conviction, in part, in reliance on Snitch's testimony about Defendant's admissions made to Snitch. On appeal, Defendant challenged the use of his statement to Snitch and has demanded a new trial. How should the court rule on Defendant's appeal?

The court should rule that the statement was made involuntarily. It must also determine whether the state has carried its burden beyond a reasonable doubt that the erroneous admission did not affect the outcome at trial.

When Police attempted to arrest Defendant for armed robbery, he resisted. Police arrested Defendant after a shoot-out in which Defendant was seriously injured. While he was being treated for his injuries, Defendant was given a sedative. Officer was assigned to watch Defendant while he was in the hospital and realized Defendant was in a confused state as a result of the sedative. After seeing a nurse give Defendant an additional injection for pain, Officer gave Defendant his Miranda warnings. Defendant did not ask for an attorney and did not ask to remain silent. Officer then asked Defendant questions about his involvement in the robbery. Largely because of his confusion caused by the medication, Defendant admitted his involvement. Prior to trial, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. The court granted the motion. During trial, Defendant took the stand and, inconsistent with his statement, Defendant claimed he was at work and was not involved in the robbery. Prosecutor began to cross-examine Defendant by using his earlier statement to impeach his testimony. Defendant's counsel objected to the use of the statement. How should the court rule on counsel's objection?

The court should sustain the objection if the basis of its earlier holding suppressing the statement was based on a finding that the statement was involuntary.

State police arrested Defendant for domestic violence. At his arraignment in state court, a magistrate appointed Defendant with counsel. Under state law, the magistrate also conducted a bail hearing. The prosecutor introduced hearsay evidence suggesting that Defendant represented a continuing threat to his spouse. Defendant's counsel sought to introduce evidence of a psychologist to rebut that conclusion, but the magistrate upheld the prosecutor's objection to that evidence. Defendant also asked the magistrate if he could testify, but the magistrate refused him that right. The magistrate then denied Defendant bail because, according to the magistrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, Defendant posed a continuing risk to his spouse. Defendant has filed an appeal, challenging the magistrate's denial of bail. Which of the following answer best describes how the appellate court is likely to resolve Defendant's appeal?

The court will deny the appeal because none of Defendant's constitutional rights have been violated under prevailing Supreme Court precedent.

Defendant entered the United States by way of a checkpoint between Tijuana, Mexico and San Diego, California. He was driving a pickup truck with a camper shell covering the truck bed. At the border, Agent signaled Defendant to leave the line and to go to a special screening area. Agent ordered another agent to drill into what appeared to be a solid plastic camper shell to determine whether Defendant was transporting drugs. Agent found a large amount of cocaine within the shell. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The destruction of Defendant's property probably made the search unreasonable, despite the fact that this was a border search. The court should grant the motion.

While arriving to execute a search warrant for narcotics at a specified address, Officer encountered Defendant as he was leaving the house. At that point, Officer did not know Defendant's connection to the house or to any narcotics. Officer requested that Defendant come back into the house. Officer sat Defendant on a couch and handcuffed Defendant during the course of the search, which took over an hour to complete. Officer found a small amount of marijuana in the home. When Officer learned that Defendant owned the home, Officer arrested Defendant for possession of the marijuana. During the course of a search of Defendant, Officer found a sizeable packet of heroin. Charged with possession of marijuana and heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The detention of Defendant as an occupant of the premises during the course of executing a search warrant is reasonable. Further, Defendant's ownership of the home gave Officer probable cause to arrest him for ownership of the home's contents - the marijuana. The court should deny the motion.

Bob was a member of a private crime watch group. Community members were concerned because there had been a number of recent break-ins and had asked members of the watch group to be vigilant. Witness had given a rough description of the person suspected of having committed the break-ins. While on watch, Bob saw Defendant, who vaguely fit that description. Bob detained Defendant and forced him to accompany him to Witness's home. Bob knocked on Witness's door and told her that he had the perpetrator with him and wanted her to identify Defendant. She did so. Based on that information, the state has charged Defendant with burglary. The state intends to call Witness at trial both to testify as to her out-of-court identification and to make an in-court identification. Defendant has filed a motion in limine, objecting to the use of Witness at trial. How should the court rule on the motion in limine?

The evidence was secured without state action. As a result, Defendant's constitutional rights were not violated. Unless state evidence rules prevent the use of the evidence, he is out of luck. The court should deny the motion.

Officer suspected Defendant of being involved in drug trafficking. Unable to develop probable cause against Defendant, Officer set up surveillance of Defendant's premises. Suddenly realizing that Defendant was receiving a shipment of marijuana, Officer knocked on Defendant's door and demanded entry. Once inside, he located a large quantity of marijuana. Working in cooperation with state law enforcement officials, federal authorities decided to prosecute Defendant for violating federal drug laws. When Defendant learned that the US Attorney was presenting the case to the Grand Jury, Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence to prevent its use against him. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The exclusionary rule does not apply at the grand jury stage of a proceeding. The court should deny the motion.

Police developed probable cause that Defendant was dealing drugs from his home. Armed with a search warrant, officers knocked on the door of his home and waited 10 seconds before using a battering ram to enter the apartment. Upon entry, officers heard Defendant in the shower. Officers handcuffed Defendant during the search without allowing him to dress. They found a large quantity of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The fact that the officers did not wait long enough before entering will not result in the suppression of the evidence. Defendant's remedy, if he has one, would be a civil suit against the police. The court should deny the motion.

Officer saw a person acting suspiciously. Believing that the person was involved in selling drugs on the street corner but lacking probable cause, Officer watched the person for some period of time. When the person left the corner and headed for an apartment complex, Officer followed, but lost track of the suspect. Believing erroneously that the person had gone into Apartment A, Officer knocked on the door and announced, "this is the police." Officer heard individuals within moving around and believed that they were destroying evidence. Officer then opened the door and upon entering, saw Defendant holding a bag of cocaine that he was attempting to flush down the sink. Charged with possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The information possessed by Officer when he forcibly entered the apartment was probably not a sufficient justification to authorize a warrantless search of the home.

Overwhelmed with jury trial demands, the legislature in Idagon (a state in the U.S.) is considering how to make the jury trial process more efficient without undercutting its reliability. A consultant for the legislature conducted thorough empirical studies that demonstrate that groups of six "jurors" deliberate as well as do groups of twelve. The consultant further found the non-unanimous "juries" came to accurate results as long as at least 80% of the participants had to agree on a verdict. As a result, the consultant has recommended that the Idagon legislature adopt a rule allowing six person non-unanimous juries as long as five jurors agree on the verdict. You are counsel to a member of the state's judiciary committee; your boss asks for your opinion whether such legislation would be constitutional. Which of the following offers the best advice, consistent with the Supreme Court's precedent?

The legislation would be clearly unconstitutional if the state used such juries for serious offenses.

In reliance on an informant's tip, Officer believed that Defendant was selling drugs from his home. The informant who had provided Officer information leading to prior convictions offered Officer considerable detail but did not tell him the source of his information. Officer took the warrant to Magistrate, who under state law, did not receive a salary but received $100 for each warrant that she issued and did not have to be a lawyer. After reading the warrant, Magistrate issued the warrant. During the execution of the warrant, Officer found a large quantity of narcotics in Defendant's home. Charged with possession of narcotics with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The magistrate who issued the warrant was not neutral and detached because she got paid only if she issued the warrant. The court should grant the motion.

Defendant lived in a rural area at the end of a country road. He installed a chain link fence around the property; he planted bushes along the fence and obscured the view from the roadway; and he placed "No Trespassing" signs on the fence. Inside the fenced area, in the middle of a field not far from his house, Defendant grew a sizeable amount of marijuana. Based on an uncorroborated tip that Defendant was growing marijuana, Officer drove to the edge of Defendant's property and entered the property. Once on the property, he noticed the marijuana plants. Thereafter, Officer secured a search warrant for Defendant's property. During the execution of the warrant, Officer and fellow officers seized the marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion in light of Supreme Court precedent?

The marijuana was not in an area associated with the intimate activities of the home. As a result, entry onto the property was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant arrived at the Newark Airport on a flight from Miami. While she awaited her luggage, Officer approached her and asked for identification and asked her a few questions about her trip. She appeared to get more nervous and Officer was suspicious that her increased nervousness and her coming from a source city for drugs meant she was a drug courier. Officer's suspicions were confirmed when her luggage arrived and she refused to allow him to search her bag. Officer explained that she was free to go but that he was detaining her luggage and that it would be 90 minutes before the police could bring a drug sniffing dog from another place to the airport. An hour and a half later the dog arrived and Officer exposed Defendant's luggage to the drug-sniffing dog, which indicated the presence of narcotics. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The officer did not have the reasonable articulable suspicion required to detain Defendant's luggage. The court should grant the motion.

Officer suspected Defendant of conducting an illegal marijuana operation in his suburban home. Absent probable cause to secure a warrant, Officer and another officer, a member of the K-9 unit, brought a drug sniffing dog up to the front door of Defendant's home. After the dog signaled the presence of marijuana, Officer filled out a search warrant application and got it approved by a magistrate. Pursuant to the warrant, Officer searched Defendant's home, where Officer found a large stash of marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The officers' conduct in bringing a drug-sniffing dog onto the curtilage of the home amounted to a trespass, rendering their conduct a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court should grant the motion.

Defendant arrived at the Miami Greyhound Bus Terminal. While Defendant was waiting to retrieve his luggage, Officer noticed Defendant and believed that he was acting suspiciously. Officer along with his trained drug-sniffing dog approached Defendant and Officer asked if Defendant would consent to a search of his luggage. Defendant refused. Officer explained that he was going to expose the luggage to his dog. The dog immediately signaled the presence of narcotics. Officer seized Defendant's luggage long enough to obtain a search warrant for the luggage. The subsequent search revealed three pounds of marijuana. On trial for possession of marijuana, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence alleging the dog used is not reliable. How should the court respond to Defendant's motion?

The past performance of a dog is one factor relevant to probable cause, so if raised as an issue, the court should hold a hearing to determine whether probable cause existed.

Defendant and Snitch, Defendant's co-felon, were arrested and arraigned for burglary. Because Defendant did not qualify for a Public Defender, Defendant remained in jail while his family located counsel to represent him. Unbeknownst to Defendant, Snitch approached Officer, who was in charge of the investigation, about whether the state would cut Snitch a deal if he could get Defendant to incriminate himself in the burglary. Officer agreed to recommend that Snitch be put on probation if he succeeded. After Snitch was placed in the cell with Defendant, Snitch raised the topic of the burglary and tricked Defendant into discussing the crime, a statement that was overheard by the police. On trial for burglary, Defendant has moved to suppress the statements he made to Snitch. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The police conduct violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court should grant the motion.

Police suspected Defendant of being involved in drug-trafficking but could not develop probable cause to secure a search or arrest warrant. After learning that Defendant's late model vehicle was equipped with Global Position Satellite technology, over a two-day period, the police tracked Defendant's movements while he travelled in public. They quickly learned where Defendant travelled and were able to set up a surveillance of his activities. Officer observed him make a drug transaction on one corner in an area known for drug trafficking. Based on the information secured via the GPS and Officer's surveillance, Officer secured a search warrant for Defendant's home and located a large quantity of narcotics. Charged with possession of narcotics with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The police did not violate Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights on these facts. The court should deny the motion.

Detective was working on a case nicknamed the "Lone Ranger." The Lone Ranger wore a mask similar to the movie character the Lone Ranger and committed a series of armed robberies on his own. Detective developed probable cause that Defendant was the Lone Ranger and secured a warrant for Defendant's arrest. Learning that Defendant was at home, Detective and other police officers went to Defendant's home and, after Defendant did not respond to their announced presence, the police entered forcibly. Police spread out through the house until Detective located Defendant in his bedroom. After Defendant's arrest, Officer noticed a cellar door ajar. After Officer called down the stairs to demand anyone else in the home to come out, Officer went into the cellar where he found the Lone Ranger mask. Charged with multiple counts of armed robbery, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The police may conduct a protective sweep of areas of the home beyond the immediate area of the suspect's arrest if they have articulable suspicion that someone else may present a risk of harm. But on these facts, the police lacked articulable suspicion that anyone else was in the home. The court should grant the motion.

The police developed probable cause to believe that Defendant was involved in a recent murder. Unable to locate Defendant for over two weeks and suspecting that he was eluding the police, two officers set up a stakeout to locate Defendant and eventually saw him enter his apartment building. Without waiting to get a warrant, they located the apartment and entered forcibly after they knocked and received no answer from within. They realized that Defendant was not within the apartment but did see a handgun similar to one involved the in homicide. They seized it. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The police must get an arrest warrant to justify an arrest in the suspect's home. The court should grant the motion.

Prison Official approached Defendant, a prisoner in the state prison, to ask him about his role in a murder that took place in the prison. Defendant invoked his right to counsel. Prison Official authorized Defendant's release back into the prison population. Five days later after officials had gained more information about the crime, Prison Official ordered Defendant back to an interview room to ask him again about his involvement in the murder. Prison Official gave Defendant Miranda warnings but this time, Defendant agreed to talk about his role in the crime and subsequently confessed. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The police or prison officials may re-approach a suspect who has invoked his right to counsel pursuant to Miranda after he has been released back into the general prison population. But the break in custody between the invocation of the right to counsel and the renewed discussions with the suspect was not long enough to allow the officials to reapproach Defendant. The court should grant the motion.

Suspecting but needing proof that Defendant was involved in the drug trade, Officer attached a tracking device to the underside of Defendant's vehicle. Over the next two days, Officer learned where Defendant went throughout the day and was able to set up surveillance at those locations. Based on those observations, Officer developed probable cause that Defendant had a large amount of heroin in his car. Officer called for a backup team and arrested Defendant. Thereafter, Officer conducted a search of Defendant's vehicle, resulting in the seizure of a large quantity of heroin. Prior to his trial for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. Which of the following answers best describes how the court should rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The police trespassed in placing the tracking device on the car and then using it to learn Defendant's movements. A warrant was required to justify the placement, so the court should grant the motion.

Officer developed probable cause to believe that Defendant was engaged in a "fencing" operation and had recently received a small shipment of very desirable computer games that he could sell for a great deal. Officer obtained a search warrant for Defendant's home on January 1. The warrant ordered the warrant to be executed within 10 days. Because of other pressing business, Officer did not execute the warrant until February 1. In the interim, Officer learned that Defendant would be receiving another shipment of computer games in the near future. When Officer and other officers executed the warrant, they found the computer games that Defendant received both before and after the warrant application on January 1. Charged with receiving stolen property Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. Which of the following answers is most accurate?

The probable cause in the January 1 warrant became stale. As a result, the search was unconstitutional.

Officer developed probable cause to believe that Slick was engaged in bank fraud. To make a case against Slick, Officer was able to secure a search warrant for Defendant's office. At the time, Officer did not believe that Defendant was involved in the crime but merely that Defendant was storing Slick's business records. During the execution of the warrant, Officer located files demonstrating that Defendant and Slick were co-conspirators in the bank fraud. Charged with bank fraud, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The question is whether the police have probable cause to search the location identified in the warrant. Whether the place is occupied by a suspect or non-suspect is irrelevant. Further, the Fifth Amendment is inapplicable to papers prepared voluntarily by a person. The court should deny the motion.

Intent on increasing the number of arrests for drug offenses, state police developed an aggressive strategy on infiltrating drug treatment programs, where undercover agents approached recovering drug addicts and attempted to get them to involve themselves in drug dealing. One particular officer went further and became romantically involved with Defendant, for many years a drug dealer and drug addict. Initially unwilling to sell drugs again, Defendant resisted the undercover officer's efforts to involve her in drug dealing. She eventually agreed to get involved in a large drug transaction with some of her former buyers. Arrested and charged in state court with attempted sale of illegal drugs, Defendant hopes to interpose an entrapment defense. Which of the following answers best describes the law governing this case?

The result will depend on whether this state has adopted a subjective or objective standard for determining whether a defendant was entrapped. Her prior involvement in drug activity would make it hard for her to prevail in a state that has adopted the subjective standard. But even in such a state, she may be able to prevail if she can show that the police conduct denied her of due process.

Federal prosecutors learned that Defendant was involved in fraudulent land transactions. In an effort to prosecute him, FBI Agent developed probable cause to believe that Defendant had documents in his office that would establish the case against him. Agent swore out a warrant to search Defendant's office. During the execution of that warrant, Agent found papers prepared by Defendant, showing his knowledge of the fraudulent nature of his conduct. Charged with fraud, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The search and the seizure of Defendant's papers violated neither the Fourth nor the Fifth Amendment. The court should deny the motion.

Officer received a phone call from Son, who lived out-of-state and expressed concern that he had not heard from his parents in some time. Son asked if Officer could check on his parents. Because this was a small town and because Officer knew the family, Officer agreed to do so. Arriving at the parents' home, Officer noticed a strange odor emanating from the house. Calling for back up, Officer entered the home through an unlocked door. There, he saw a woman's body, badly beaten. Officer rushed through the house to determine whether there were other victims in the home. He quickly realized that the house was otherwise empty. When backup officers arrived, Officer explained the scene and indicated that from his familiarity with the family, Defendant, the woman's husband, was a prime suspect. Several officers went through the house and did a detailed search, locating a good bit of incriminating evidence against Defendant, including letters from another woman with whom he appeared to be having an affair. On trial for murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The search exceeded the initial justification for the entry. The court should grant the motion.

Officer stopped Defendant on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. After determining that Defendant was intoxicated and smelling alcohol in the car, Officer placed Defendant in the back of his patrol car and returned to Defendant's vehicle. He searched in the closed glove compartment and in the trunk. In the glove compartment, he found a small wallet and in the trunk, he found a backpack., He opened the wallet and found that it contained a small amount of cocaine. He also opened the backpack and found a large amount of marijuana. Charged with possession of narcotics with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The search exceeded the scope of a search incident to a lawful arrest and was not justified under the automobile exception.

For some time, Officer suspected Defendant of conducting illegal gambling from his home. Unable to develop probable cause as to the gambling operation, Officer developed probable cause that Defendant made an illegal purchase of an automatic weapon. Armed with a search warrant to seize the weapon in Defendant's home, Officer arrived at Defendant's home. When no one responded to his knock and announcement of police presence, Officer and fellow officers used a battering ram to open the door. During the course of the search for the weapon, Officer opened a large filing cabinet drawer and noticed various file folders that plainly contained only papers. He opened one, examined the contents of the documents and realized instantly that the files were gambling records. Officer seized the evidence. Charged with illegal gambling, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The search exceeded the scope of the search authorized by the warrant. The court should grant the motion.

Officer suspected that Defendant was the perpetrator of an armed robbery, but she could not develop probable cause to get an arrest warrant or search warrant. For two years, the case went cold. Finally, relying on an informant who had provided reliable information about drug activity in the past, Officer developed probable cause to believe that Defendant was the robber. She secured a search warrant for Defendant's home. In the warrant, she stated that the object of the search warrant was the weapon used in the robbery and the unmarked cash taken in the robbery (several thousand dollars). During the execution of the warrant, the police located the weapon in a dresser drawer and finally found a sizeable amount of cash when one officer pulled off some wall paneling behind which Defendant had hidden the cash. Charged with armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion?

The search for the weapon was not in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but, given the lapse of time, the police lacked probable cause to search for the cash. The court should grant the motion as to the cash and deny it as to the weapon.

Defendant murdered his wife. He created a complex plot to make the crime appear to have been committed by an intruder when Defendant was out of town. While he was still out of town on business, he called his neighbor, Officer, and told Officer that he was worried about his wife because she had not answered the phone over the course of the last couple of days. Defendant asked Officer to check on Defendant's wife. When Officer did so, he saw that the backdoor had been jimmied open. He entered and found Defendant's wife dead in the kitchen. Officer called for an investigative unit and an ambulance. Investigators recognized the cause of death immediately - Defendant's wife had been stabbed in the chest with a knife that lay next to her body. Over the next couple of hours, Officer joined the criminal investigation team looking throughout the house. Late in the day, beginning to suspect Defendant's involvement in the murder, Officer noticed a locked brief case. He opened it and found several love letters addressed to Defendant from a woman other than Defendant's wife. Those letters, in addition to other evidence, led the District Attorney to charge Defendant with the murder of his wife. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The search of the brief case exceeded the scope of Defendant's consent. Further, Officer's act of opening the brief case was part of a criminal investigation focusing on Defendant as a suspect, not as part of the crime scene investigation. The court should grant the motion.

Defendant frequented the Dirty Bar. On the occasion that gave rise to his arrest, Defendant was at the bar when the police entered the bar to execute a search warrant because Officer had developed probable cause to believe that narcotics would be found on the premises. Officer and other police lined up patrons along one side of the bar. While some police searched the area around the bar, Officer frisked all of the patrons. When Officer patted down Defendant, he touched objects that he had probable cause to believe were packets of heroin. He reached in and removed the heroin. Charged with possession of heroin, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The search warrant did not give Officer a justification for a frisk of Defendant. The court should grant the motion.

The vice principal of a public school implemented a no-tolerance policy for cigarette smoking on campus. Students suspected of smoking on campus were sent to the vice principal's office for investigation and possible suspension. While Defendant and two friends were in the boys' bathroom, a teacher smelled smoke. By the time the teacher entered the bathroom, none of the boys had a cigarette in hand. Nevertheless, the teacher took the students to the vice principal's office. The vice principal interviewed Defendant, who denied that he had been smoking. The vice principal demanded that Defendant hand over his backpack and proceeded to search it. In the backpack, the vice principal found a pack of cigarettes and what appeared to be a marijuana pipe. A further search revealed a pouch of marijuana. The vice principal called the local police and handed over the marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The search was justified by the administrative needs of the school. The court should deny the motion.

Officer arrested Defendant for murder. In response to Miranda warnings, Defendant invoked his right to counsel. Several hours later, Defendant asked another officer who was driving him to another facility what would happen to him now. In response, Officer said, "you will be arraigned in open court tomorrow morning." In response to questioning by Officer, Defendant stated that he committed the murder. On trial for murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. The prosecutor wonders what the state must show to defeat Defendant's motion to suppress. Which of the following best describes the controlling legal standard?

The state must show that Defendant reinitiated the conversation about the crime and, based on the totality of circumstances, waived his Miranda rights.

Officer stopped Defendant when he saw that she was driving without her seat-belt in violation of state law. Allowed to make a custodial arrest under state law, Officer placed Defendant under arrest. During the course of the search of her purse following the arrest, Officer found a small amount of marijuana. At her trial for possession of marijuana, Defendant argued that her arrest for a minor offense like the seat-belt violation was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment and under the state constitutional protection (a provision identical to the Fourth Amendment). Found guilty at trial, Defendant appealed to the state supreme court, which reversed the conviction. In its opinion, the court stated that the arrest was unreasonable. The United States Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari and the case is now before the United States Supreme Court. Defense counsel has argued that the state supreme court judgment is beyond review by the United States Supreme Court. Which of the following answers best describes how the Court should decide the case consistent with its case law?

The state supreme court opinion is ambiguous whether the decision rested on the Fourth Amendment or the state constitution. As a result, the Court should resolve the matter on Fourth Amendment grounds and reverse the decision of the state supreme court.

Two officers arrested Defendant for murder of a cab driver shortly after he committed the crime. Officers were still searching for his weapon. Officer Abel gave Defendant Miranda warnings while the three officers were driving Defendant back to the police station. He invoked his right to counsel. Passing near a grade school, Officer Bernard looked directly at Defendant and stated, "Listen to me. I know you have asked for a lawyer, but I sure would hate it if a child found that sawed-off shotgun and hurt herself." A few moments later, Defendant said, "I left the weapon back by that shopping center, back in the dumpster." The officers located the weapon. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the statement. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The statement by Officer Bernard amounted to improper interrogation after an invocation of the right to counsel. The court should grant the motion.

Officers, responding to a report of an armed bank robbery, located Defendant near the bank. Arresting Officer took him to the stationhouse while other officers searched the area for Defendant's weapon. Shortly thereafter, Defendant was taken before a magistrate, arraigned on charges of armed robbery, and appointed counsel. While Defendant remained in his cell, awaiting a meeting with counsel, Officer came to Defendant's cell. Without giving Defendant Miranda warnings, Officer asked Defendant where he hid his gun. Defendant told Officer that he hid the weapon in a sewer near the bank. At Defendant's trial on the charge of armed robbery, Prosecutor hopes to introduce Defendant's admission and the weapon, which Officer located in the sewer. Prior to trial, Defendant has moved to suppress the statement and the gun. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The statement was a deliberate elicitation of incriminating evidence. The court should grant the motion.

Police received a tip that Defendant, a suspect wanted in connection with a robbery that occurred the day before, was in a coffee shop. Several officers surrounded Defendant with their guns drawn. One officer placed Defendant in handcuffs and another, still with his weapon drawn and held three inches from Defendant's face, told him that he wanted to know where the weapon was that Defendant used in the robbery. Defendant indicated that it was in his attaché case, which was on a chair next to where Defendant was sitting. On trial for armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress his statement. Which of the following is the best answer?

The statement was involuntary. The court should grant the motion.

Officer was on the lookout for a late model Ford Escort believed to be the getaway car from a robbery that had taken place twenty minutes earlier. Upon spotting a late model Ford Escort in a place on the highway consistent with where the robber might have driven in twenty minutes, Officer stopped Defendant. Officer's suspicions were confirmed when he saw that Defendant fit a detailed description of the robber, He placed Defendant under arrest. Officer called a tow truck, which took the vehicle to an impoundment lot. Two days after the arrest, Officer searched the vehicle without securing a warrant. The search revealed evidence linking Defendant to the robbery. Charged with armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The stop, arrest and search were all lawful because Officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle, probable cause to arrest Defendant and probable cause to search the vehicle for evidence of the crime. The court should deny the motion.

Principal, the principal of a public school, developed reasonable suspicion that Student possessed a small amount of marijuana. Principal called Student to her office and in the presence of another representative of the school, Principal demanded that Student reveal the contents of her purse. When Principal did not find marijuana, she demanded that Student remove her clothes down to her underpants and to pull out her bra and the elastic on her underpants to allow Principal to determine if Student was hiding marijuana. Principal found a marijuana cigarette in Student's bra. Charged in a juvenile court with delinquency, Student has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The strip search of the student was not reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the content of the Principal's suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion. The court should grant the motion.

Defendant was charged with murder. During the pretrial stage, consistent with state law, the prosecutor sent Defendant's attorney a request for the names of Defendant's witnesses at trial. Defendant's attorney provided the prosecutor with several names. At trial, Defendant's attorney has sought to add a witness whose name was not included on the list. The prosecutor has opposed the request. Defendant's attorney has contended that a denial of Defendant's ability to call the witness would violate his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process. The trial court is uncertain how to resolve the issue. Which of the following answers best describes how the trial court should rule?

The trial court should determine whether Defendant was deliberately seeking a tactical advantage by withholding the witness' name. If so, the court may refuse to allow the witness to testify.

Officer arrested Defendant on suspicion of murder. After reading Defendant his Miranda rights, Defendant indicated a willingness to talk. Over the next few hours, Defendant insisted up on his innocence. Officer left the room briefly and conversed with a fellow officer. Officer stated in a voice intended for Defendant to be able to hear that fellow officer should arrest Defendant's ailing wife as an accessory to murder. Officer had no reason to believe Defendant's wife was involved in the murder in any capacity. After Officer returned to the interrogation room, Defendant confessed to the murder. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The unwarranted threat of an arrest of Defendant's ailing wife could have rendered Defendant's statement involuntary. If the court so finds, it should suppress the statement.

Officer arrested Defendant on charges of armed robbery. He remained in jail after his arraignment. Officer also suspected that Defendant was involved in a recent murder. Hoping to get Defendant talking about his involvement in the robbery and the murder, Officer arranged for Snitch to be placed in Defendant's jail cell. Snitch, a large man with a history of violent crime, asked the much smaller Defendant about Defendant's crimes. Snitch peppered Defendant with questions over a few hours while they were together in the cell. Defendant told him details about the armed robbery and, out of fear that Snitch might harm him, Defendant bragged about his role in the murder to make himself sound tough. On trial for armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress his statement to Snitch concerning his involvement in that crime. On trial for murder, Defendant has moved to suppress his statement to Snitch concerning his involvement in that crime. How should the court rule on the motions to suppress?

The use of Snitch violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel as to the armed robbery charge. The court should grant the motion as to the statement involving Defendant's role in the armed robbery. If the court finds that Snitch's conduct was sufficiently intimidating to cause Defendant's confession, the court should suppress the statement about Defendant's involvement in the murder because the statement would then be involuntary.

After Defendant was indicted on charges of murder, Detective was concerned about the strength of the government's case. As a result, Detective arranged to have Snitch, a jailhouse informant, placed in the cell with Defendant. Snitch had provided a good deal of information to Detective in the past. Detective told Snitch not to ask questions but just to listen. Snitch asked Defendant questions anyway and Defendant told Snitch details about the murder. Prosecutor intends to use Snitch's testimony as part of the government's case-in-chief at trial and to impeach Defendant if Defendant takes the stand. Which of the following answers best describes whether Snitch's testimony is proper at trial?

The use of Snitch violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel; as such, his testimony cannot be used as part of the state's case-in-chief. But Defendant's statements can be used to impeach him.

Officer arrested Defendant on suspicion of armed robbery. Prior to interrogating Defendant about his role in the crime, Officer gave the following version of Miranda warnings: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions and to have him with you during interrogation. We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court." Defendant waived his Miranda rights and shortly thereafter confessed his role in the robbery. On trial for armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the statement. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The warnings are sufficient to comply with Miranda. The court should deny the motion.

Officer and fellow officers saw a suspect run from a robbery scene and enter an apartment building. They followed. Once inside the building, they heard screams from an apartment. They knocked on the door, which was answered by a woman who was bleeding from her mouth. Officer asked the woman to step outside so that officers could do a protective sweep. Defendant came into the room and objected to the police's entry. Suspecting that Defendant had assaulted the woman, Officer removed him from the apartment and arrested him. Officer also realized Defendant was the robbery suspect. Officer took Defendant to the police station. Officer then returned to the apartment and asked the woman whether she would consent to a search of the apartment. She agreed. Officer found evidence linking Defendant to the robbery. Charged with robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The woman's consent at the time of the search made the search lawful. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant resides in a state that has adopted the Model Penal Code. On the day in question, Defendant began drinking early in the day and by the time he went out that evening, he was already very drunk. He continued drinking heavily in an area bar where he got into an argument with another patron. Defendant began beating the other patron and continued to do so until several other patrons dragged him off the other patron. Defendant has been charged with battery, defined as "the intentional application of force upon another," and aggravated battery, defined as "a battery committed with the intent to kill." Defense counsel is not sure whether Defendant's severe intoxication is relevant in Defendant's trial. Which of the following offers counsel the best advice?

Under the Model Penal Code §2.08, intoxication is not admissible to negate a defendant's mens rea if the offense can be committed recklessly. Because both of these offenses include a mens rea term of "intent," Defendant's intoxication is relevant and may negate his mens rea.

Defendant was arrested for the murder of her seriously impaired child. The officers brought her to the stationhouse where two officers interrogated her for two hours. The officers chose not to provide her with Miranda warnings. After she confessed, the officers gave her coffee and donuts and a short bathroom break. At that point, Officer read her Miranda warnings and asked her again whether she killed her child. She again confessed and signed a written confession. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress both confessions. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Under the circumstances in this case, the Miranda warnings were not effective, and the court should grant the motion.

Two days after the disappearance of a young girl, Officer developed probable cause that Defendant was involved in her disappearance. Officer arrested Defendant on charges of kidnapping. He was also sure that the girl was dead but felt that he needed to find the body to support a murder charge. When Officer read Defendant his Miranda warnings, Defendant said that he would like to speak to counsel before discussing the case further. Facing bad weather and an hour's drive to the police station where Defendant would be arraigned before the magistrate, Officer turned to Defendant and said, "I imagine that little girl's body is out in this area. Don't respond to me but think about whether she deserves a Christian burial." Shortly afterwards, Defendant said, "I killed her and her body is in the woods, over there." Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the statement. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Unless the case comes within the public safety exception, Officer violated Defendant's Miranda rights when he directed his comments to Defendant. The court should grant the motion.

Officer observed Defendant on a street corner in a high crime area. Officer observed Defendant hand a small object to another individual as both looked around nervously. Officer approached Defendant and asked him who he was just talking to. Defendant mumbled something and put his hand by his waistband. Noticing a bulge around Defendant's waistband, Officer told Defendant to face the wall of the building behind him and to spread eagle. During the patdown, Officer felt a soft object. He reached into Defendant's waistband and removed what turned out to be heroin. Charged with the sale of heroin, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Until Officer reached into Defendant's waistband, Officer's conduct was lawful. He had articulable suspicion for both the stop and the frisk, but the patdown did not confirm Officer's suspicion that Defendant was armed. The court should grant the motion.

Highway Patrol Officer noticed a vehicle driving erratically. Believing that Defendant was intoxicated, Officer pulled Defendant over to the side of the road. Officer asked if Defendant knew why he pulled her over; Defendant slurred her words in response to his question. Officer then asked her to get out of the car and had her perform field sobriety tests, including asking her to count backwards from 100. After Defendant passed all of the sobriety tests, but concerned she was high on drugs, Officer went to her vehicle and looked into the passenger's compartment. After he wrote a ticket, citing her for crossing the center line, and before letting her go back to the car, out of concern that Defendant might have a weapon in the car, Officer reached under the front seats. Under the passenger's, he located a baggy of what he recognized as marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Until Officer reached under the seats, his conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment. But the facts do not indicate any articulable suspicion that Defendant's vehicle contained a weapon and lacked probable cause to believe that drugs were in the vehicle. The court should grant the motion.

Game Warden was working near a pier when he saw Defendant catch something with a hand-line, which could be used to catch lobsters as well as other seafood. Catching and keeping lobster was out of season at that time; catching other seafood was not out of season. State law provided that any Game Warden could conduct an inspection of the catch of any individual operating in the state if the Warden had articulable reason to believe that the individual was catching seafood out of season. Warden also saw Defendant place whatever he caught in a black bag. Warden saw Defendant get in his vehicle. Warden followed and stopped Defendant three blocks from the pier. Warden asked Defendant if he had any fish or lobsters in his vehicle. When Defendant said no, Warden told Defendant he was going to conduct a search of Defendant's vehicle. Inside an ice chest, Warden found marijuana, which he recognized instantly, and a lobster. Warden tossed the lobster back into the water and arrested Defendant for possession of marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Warden's activities come within the special needs doctrine, allowing state actors to engage in searches without satisfying the requirements for traditional criminal investigations. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant was arrested along with his codefendant and charged with armed robbery. Indigent, Defendant and his codefendant asked for the appointment of counsel at their arraignment. Under local procedure, the court appointed Defendant and his codefendant the same attorney. When Defendant had counsel file an objection to co-representation because of a conflict that counsel faced in representing both defendants, the court told him that the county lacked sufficient funds to appoint counsel for each defendant and that he was free to find an attorney willing to represent Defendant if Defendant was not satisfied with the situation. After his conviction for armed robbery became final, Defendant filed a petition for habeas corpus and claimed that he was denied effective representation because trial counsel had a conflict of interest. How should the court rule on Defendant's petition for habeas corpus?

Where the trial court refuses to hear a claim of a conflict of interest where counsel has raised that issue, the defendant is entitled to a per se reversal of his conviction. The court should grant the petition.

Officer developed probable cause to believe that Defendant committed a recent robbery of a bank; that Defendant still had proceeds of the robbery; and that Officer would find at Defendant's home a distinctive mask that the robber wore during the robbery. Officer applied for and received a search warrant for Defendant's home. While executing the warrant, Officer saw Defendant's vehicle, parked under a carport next to Defendant's home. Officer searched the vehicle and located the mask hidden under the front seat of the car along with bundles of cash from the robbery. Charged with armed robbery of the bank, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

While the Court has not resolved the particular question, as long as the car was within the curtilage and could contain evidence of the crime, it follows that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court should deny the motion.

Magistrate was appointed despite his lack of a law degree. For a time, he did his job diligently but after a while, he lost interest in the position and routinely signed warrants without carefully reading them. On the particular occasion of the issuance of a warrant to search Defendant's home, a credible person in the courtroom noticed that Magistrate did not read the application for the warrant and mentioned that to the officer seeking the warrant, who agreed. The police executed the warrant and found a large stash of child pornography in Defendant's home. Charged with possession of child pornography, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion consistent to suppress?

While the Court has not ruled on this issue, it has held that a magistrate must be neutral and detached. A magistrate who does not read the warrant is not neutral and detached; he is a rubber stamp for the police. The court should grant the motion.

FBI agents suspected Defendant of conducting an interstate gambling operation and learned that he used a particular cell phone to make his calls. After arresting one of Defendant's regular gambling customers, Customer agreed to allow agents to listen in on conversations between him and Defendant by using the speaker device on the phone so that Customer and agents could hear Defendant's voice. Based on those phone conversations, the government secured Defendant's indictment for interstate gambling. Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

While the Court has used different theories over time to justify participant monitoring, it has upheld the practice consistently. Because Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy on these facts, the court should deny the motion.

A state prosecutor charged Defendant with misdemeanor assault. During pretrial plea negotiations, the prosecutor offered Defendant a short sentence if he pled guilty. When Defendant hesitated to accept the deal, the prosecutor told him to save the court the inconvenience of a trial by accepting the deal. The prosecutor stated further that she would go to a grand jury and have Defendant charged with felony assault if Defendant did not accept the deal. Defendant turned down the deal. The prosecutor secured the indictment, resulting in Defendant's conviction of felony assault. The judge sentenced Defendant to a long term of imprisonment over Defendant's objection that the prosecutor acted vindictively in bringing the more serious charge against him. On appeal, Defendant has challenged the legality of that sentence on grounds that the prosecutor acted vindictively because Defendant refused to accept the plea offer. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, which of the following best describes relevant legal rules governing this case?

Without more, Defendant has not established a violation of due process.

Officials with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") suspected that the Defendant was engaging in illegal interstate gambling. FBI agents learned that the Defendant reserved a room in a downtown hotel. Prior to the Defendant checking in at the hotel, the agents installed a listening and recording device on the telephone in the Defendant's room. The agents did not obtain a warrant prior to installing the device.Based on the recordings of the conversations that the Defendant made from the hotel room telephone, the government obtained an indictment against the Defendant for violating a federal statute that prohibits interstate gambling. The Defendant filed a motion to suppress the recordings, arguing that the installation of the listening and recording device was an unconstitutional search that violated the Fourth Amendment. The Government responded that the Fourth Amendment did not apply at all because the installation of the listening and recording device was not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. You are a law clerk for the judge who has to rule on the motion to suppress. Was the installation of the listening and recording device on the Defendant's hotel telephone a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?

Yes, because the government violated the Defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy.

At a bail hearing for Defendant, a protester arrested at a Presidential inauguration, the magistrate is uncertain how to rule on Defendant's request for bail. (Assume that the magistrate has statutory authority to grant or deny bail). The magistrate believes that Defendant will appear for trial for disorderly conduct and related relatively minor charges; that the evidence of guilt is quite strong; and that Defendant is of high moral character. But the magistrate is also convinced that Defendant will continue to be involved in protests that have now clogged city traffic and have the potential to lead to backlash from the new President's supporters. The magistrate asks you which of the following best describes the magistrate's options under the U.S. Constitution:

You do not have to set bail; and if you do set bail, you do not have to set bail at a rate that a defendant can afford.

Victor, the victim of an armed robbery, reported to the police that the suspect left the scene of the crime in a late model Ford Escort and headed north on Main Street. Several hours later, the police spotted a six year old Ford Escort, legally parked in a rundown part of town. Using a flashlight, Officer looked into the vehicle and spotted items that Victor reported were taken during the robbery. Officer is uncertain how to proceed. Which of the following answers provides Officer with the best advice?

You have probable cause that evidence of the crime is located in the vehicle at this point. You may conduct a lawful search of the vehicle.