Bar Prep Midterm

A wealthy bicycle aficionado loaned one of his bicycles to a cyclist for use in a race. After the race, the cyclist failed to return the bicycle despite repeated requests by the aficionado. Several months later, while walking through the park, the aficionado happened upon the cyclist riding another bicycle that was the same make, model, and color as the aficionado's bicycle. Believing it to be his bicycle, the aficionado, standing only inches away from the bicycle, verbally threatened to grab the bicycle out from under the cyclist if he did not hand it over immediately. The cyclist, fearful of such an attack, surrendered the bicycle to the aficionado. Of the following, what is likely the most serious offense of which the aficionado could be properly convicted?

Assault

A reliable informant gave police a tip that she had witnessed two men dealing drugs out of a car in a grocery store parking lot ten minutes earlier. She gave the police a detailed description of the men and their car, a white sedan. The police sent a cruiser to the grocery store. About ten minutes later, the patrol officers saw a white sedan like the one the informant had described. Both of the occupants of the car fit the general description that the informant had given. The police pulled the white sedan over. One officer searched a locked steel box in the trunk and found bags of cocaine. The other officer then arrested the driver and searched the driver's pockets and coat. In the driver's coat pocket, he found a bag of marijuana. At his trial for drug possession, the driver's attorney moves to suppress evidence of both the marijuana and the cocaine. How should the court rule on the motion?

Deny the motion as to both the marijuana and the cocaine

A plaintiff was in a car accident when his power steering belt broke on a curving mountain road. The plaintiff initially brought an action against his mechanic to recover damages based on the mechanic's alleged negligent installation of the belt in the vehicle. At trial, the mechanic testified that the plaintiff purchased the steering belt elsewhere and brought it to the mechanic, already unpackaged, to be installed in his car. The jury returned a verdict for the mechanic. The plaintiff then brought a strict products liability action against the manufacturer of the power steering belt. The plaintiff called the mechanic as a witness in the action against the manufacturer. The mechanic testified that he often used power steering belts by the manufacturer, and that he removed the belt for the plaintiff's vehicle from the manufacturer's packaging to install it. On cross-examination, the manufacturer's attorney wants to question the mechanic about the statement he made during the previous trial. If the plaintiff objects, should the court permit the inquiry?

Yes, both for impeachment purposes and as substantive evidence

During a defendant's civil trial for assault, a witness for the plaintiff testified that, shortly after the assault took place, the defendant had admitted to her that he did assault the plaintiff. On cross-examination, the defendant's counsel asked the witness whether she had testified in the defendant's prior criminal prosecution for assault that the defendant told her that he had never even met the plaintiff. The plaintiff objected to the defendant's question. May the court allow the question over the plaintiff's objection?

Yes, both to prove that the defendant did not commit the assault and to impeach the credibility of the witness

A suspect was detained for questioning at a police station in connection with a murder. After being properly advised of his Miranda rights, the suspect said, "My cousin is an attorney; should I call him before we continue speaking?" The police responded by telling the suspect that he could continue speaking to them if he had relevant information to provide. In fact, the suspect's cousin had found out that the suspect had been detained, and was at the police station trying to reach him. The police continued questioning the suspect about the murder, and the suspect eventually confessed. If the suspect files a motion to exclude the confession, how should the court rule?

Admit the confession, because the suspect did not unambiguously request an attorney

To test his new, high-powered cross-bow, the defendant went out into the woods behind his home, which bordered the backyard of a house where the defendant knew several children lived and played. The defendant posted a target on a tree and began firing arrows at the target. As he was testing his cross-bow, the defendant heard the children playing nearby, but took no action to warn them as to the danger. Even though the children began to run directly behind the target the defendant continued testing his cross-bow. The defendant accidentally misaimed and shot an arrow to the side of the tree with the target, striking and killing one of the children. The defendant was convicted of murder for the death of the child. On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to support a conviction of murder. What action should the appellate court take with regard to this appeal?

Affirm the conviction, as the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction of murder

Twenty years ago, a federal district court found that a city school district, but not surrounding suburban school districts, had violated the Constitution; the district court issued a complex desegregation order. At the time integration efforts began, the city school district was 70 percent white. The city school district is now only 25 percent white. This decline was largely due to white families either moving to surrounding suburbs outside of the city school district or sending their children to private schools within the school district. To attract those white students back into the district schools, and to limit any further movement of white students from the district, the court orders the city school district to build five expensive, state-of-the-art magnet schools. For which of the following purposes is this order unconstitutional?

Attracting white students from the surrounding suburban school districts into the district's schools

A criminal told his girlfriend that he was planning to rob a local liquor store and would give her a third of the proceeds from the robbery if she agreed to drive the getaway car. The girlfriend agreed and following the robbery, drove the criminal away from the scene of the crime. Subsequently, the police arrested the criminal for the robbery and he made a constitutionally valid confession, implicating the girlfriend. With which of the following crimes may the girlfriend properly be charged?

Both robbery and conspiracy

A man broke into and entered a home at night with the intent of bludgeoning the homeowner to death with a baseball bat. Upon seeing the man raise the baseball bat to strike him, the homeowner pleaded for his life. The man decided not to strike or kill the homeowner and instead took personal property worth several thousand dollars from the home. Of the following, which are the most serious crimes for which the man can be convicted?

Burglary and robbery only

On the basis of an eyewitness description, a student was arrested in connection with the murder of a security guard who was killed during a protest at a college. The police brought the student to the police station and gave him his Miranda warnings. The student then asked to speak with his attorney. Before the attorney could arrive, the eyewitness walked into the station, saw the student, and told the police that this was the person she had seen kill the security guard. The prosecution sought to introduce at trial evidence of the eyewitness identification. The defense moved to have evidence of the identification suppressed. The court should:

Deny the motion because there was no Sixth Amendment violation

A computer programmer for a local software company was upset by the loud parties held in the apartment next door by a college student whenever her father, with whom she was living for the summer, went out of town. One day, while no one was home, the programmer broke into the apartment and installed a video camera. Operating the camera from his apartment, the programmer recorded the college student's next party. The recording contained evidence of the sale and use of illegal drugs by the college student. The programmer provided that recording to the police, who arrested the college student for the distribution of illegal drugs. The college student has moved to suppress the recording as a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. How should the court rule?

Deny the motion, because the police had no role in making the recording

A beautiful woman preyed upon lonely, desperate men looking for love on the Internet by getting a potential suitor to fall in love with her and then propose marriage to her. After a suitor would propose to her and give her an engagement ring, the woman would have a replica of the engagement ring made at a fraction of the cost of the real one. Shortly thereafter, the woman would break off the engagement, return the knock-off version of the engagement ring to the duped suitor, and then sell the real engagement ring for a sizeable profit. After scamming her most recent suitor, the suitor tried to return the knock-off ring to a high-end jewelry store the same day that he was dumped. The jewelry store marked all of their rings with a very specific insignia that could not be replicated. Once they realized that the ring was a knock-off, they called the police and the woman was arrested. If the woman is guilty of any crime, she is most likely guilty of:

False pretenses

Two women who shared an apartment in a high-crime neighborhood decided to buy a taser for protection. As permitted by applicable state law, the taser had been advertised as a form of "non-lethal self-defense" when used properly. After purchasing the taser but before receiving the formal training required to learn how to use it, one of the women jokingly put the taser against her roommate's chest and shocked her. The roommate went into cardiac arrest, and although the woman called 911 immediately, the roommate died. The jurisdiction defines first-degree murder as premeditated and deliberate murder, and gives second-degree murder the same elements as common-law murder. For which of the following crimes is the woman most likely to be found guilty?

Involuntary manslaughter

A woman was moving out of state. As she was completing her packing one night, she realized that her neighbor had never returned a book that the woman had lent her. The woman walked over to her neighbor's house and knocked on the door. When she realized that no one was home, she let herself in through the unlocked garage, intending to take the book and return home. While she was in the neighbor's house, the woman remembered that the neighbor had a necklace that the woman had long admired. The woman decided to take the necklace, figuring that her neighbor probably would not notice it was missing until after the woman had moved. As the woman was heading toward the door, she heard her neighbor come in. The woman greeted her neighbor, and apologized for letting herself in to retrieve the book. The woman gave her neighbor a good-bye hug, and then left with the necklace in her pocket. The crimes below are listed ascending order of seriousness. What is the most serious crime for which the woman may be convicted?

Larceny

While climbing a steep mountain, a woman's climbing rope failed, and she fell off the side of the mountain. She landed on a small ledge 30 feet below. Behind her, a man continued climbing. The woman shouted, "Hey! I'm here! Throw me a rope so I can get up!" The man, who did not know the woman but had all the gear that would be necessary to safely rescue her, looked down at her and said, "Sorry, I'd like to help, but I have to reach the summit before dark." He continued on to the summit. On the way back down, he looked down to see that the woman had fallen off the ledge to her death. What is the most serious crime for which the man can be convicted?

No crime

At a trial for the arson of three warehouses, the prosecution was unable to present any direct evidence linking the defendant to the crime. Instead, the prosecution presents several witnesses who testified that they saw the defendant near each of the warehouses shortly before the buildings caught on fire and one witness who testified that she saw the defendant running away from one of the warehouses while it was on fire. The defendant did not object to the testimony of any of the prosecution's witnesses. At the close of the prosecution's case, the defendant's attorney moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the prosecution failed to meet its burden to show that the defendant committed the crimes because the prosecution did not present any direct evidence linking him to the crime scenes. Should the judge grant the defendant's motion and dismiss the charges against him?

No, because a criminal defendant can be convicted based solely on circumstantial evidence

Many citizens are concerned that large contributions by special interest groups and corporations to local politicians' campaigns and recent state constitutional referendums have undermined the state's democratic process. To reduce the danger of corruption and the imbalance in the presentation of arguments posed by excessive contributions, the State legislature passed a law limiting corporate and institutional donors' contributions to candidates and ballot measures to $500. Is the state law constitutional?

No, because a law may not limit the contributions to ballot measures

One cold winter day, a senator was flying from one city to another in his home state to campaign for his reelection. On a commercial flight, he put his navy blue coat into the overhead bin. The flight was crowded, and many passengers also put their coats into the overhead bins. When he deplaned, the senator reached into the bin, took out a navy blue coat, and put it on. He then went to a campaign fundraising event, still wearing the coat. At the event, the senator was approached by the police and arrested for larceny. It turned out that the senator was wearing the wrong coat. The senator had taken a similar looking navy blue coat out of the bin, believing it to be his own. The true owner, a businessman, ended up with the senator's coat, which had the senator's business card in the inside pocket. The businessman disagreed with the senator's politics, so he reported him to the police for larceny. Will the senator be convicted of larceny?

No, because he thought the coat was his when he took it out of the bin

Last year, Congress enacted legislation providing for funding opportunities to eligible secular and religiously affiliated colleges and universities. The funding will be available through individual counties as each county's funding limitations allow. The legislation does not require that each county apply standard guidelines nor does it provide any suggested guidelines other than a statement that "all counties should track funding and compile guidelines in the event of a federal audit." A county awards a large grant to a religiously affiliated college that employs a substantial number of residents. The grant contract, signed by representatives from both the county and the college, states as follows: "All grant monies must be used in compliance with county regulations. Further, the college must track the allocation of grant monies throughout the grant term." Is the county's award of the grant constitutional?

No, because it does not require that the aid be used only for nonreligious purposes

A defendant was on trial for mail fraud in violation of federal law. The prosecutor presented evidence that the defendant had properly addressed letters to numerous victims and delivered them to the post office. Based on this, the prosecutor claimed that the letters were delivered and received by the victims, as required by the federal law. The letters were designed to elicit monetary payments from the recipients based on a fraudulent sweepstakes. The defendant did not submit any evidence demonstrating that the letters were not properly addressed or that the letters were not delivered to the post office. Due to the lack of a dispute on this issue, the judge informed the jury that absent any evidence to the contrary, they must presume that the letters were delivered and received. At the conclusion of all evidence, the judge instructed the jury as follows: "If you find that the defendant properly addressed the letters and delivered them to the post office, you must conclude that the letters were received by the victims." Is the judge's instruction to the jury proper?

No, because it improperly shifts the burden of proof regarding the use of the mail for fraud to the defendant

A suspect is charged with first-degree murder. At trial, the prosecution moves to introduce a statement the victim made to a paramedic who tended to the victim at the scene of the crime. The victim, believing he was going to die of his wounds, told the paramedic that the suspect attacked him with a knife. The victim died from his injuries on the way to the hospital. The defense objects to the entry of this evidence as hearsay. Should the court exclude the victim's statement?

No, because it is admissible as a dying declaration

A plaintiff was shot by the defendant while the two were hunting. The plaintiff filed a negligence action against the defendant to recover damages for injuries suffered as a result of the incident. In his case-in-chief, the plaintiff seeks to introduce the testimony of a mutual friend of both the plaintiff and the defendant that, in the friend's opinion, the defendant is habitually a careless person. Is this evidence admissible?

No, because it is inadmissible character evidence

A customer sued a home improvement store for damages due to an alleged back injury that occurred when an employee driving a forklift backed into the unsuspecting customer who was facing the opposite direction. The store asserted that the forklift accident had not caused the customer's injury. At trial, the customer seeks to introduce an affidavit of a physician, who has since died, that she examined the customer the day after the incident and concluded that the customer had suffered a back injury within the past 36 hours. Is this affidavit admissible?

No, because it is inadmissible hearsay

A public middle school principal requested the services of a clergy member in the school's graduation ceremony. The principal asked the clergy member to deliver a prayer at the beginning of the ceremony. A parent of one of the middle school children learned that the prayer would take place at the ceremony and immediately filed an injunction, claiming the prayer would be unconstitutional. Is the prayer constitutional?

No, because it violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution

As part of a woman's religion, she was required to burn a small amount of holy oil in an urn before consuming a meal. Although she was able to burn the holy oil before breakfast and dinner at home, she needed to conduct this ritual at work before her lunch break. The woman's supervisor asked her to burn the holy oil outside, but because she had several other religious accoutrements that she needed to use in conjunction with the ritual, she insisted on burning the oil in her cubicle. In addition, the woman stated that she had a flame snuffer in order to ensure that the fire did not pose a danger. A state fire statute prohibits any open fires in public buildings because they present a fire hazard. The woman has filed an action in state court challenging the constitutionality of this statute, claiming that it violates her right to the free exercise of religion. Assuming no relevant federal statute is applicable, should the court rule that the state statute violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?

No, because preventing fires inside of public buildings is rationally related to a legitimate government interest

Two men and a woman plotted to burn down a building. Before the men and woman took any overt act towards completion of the arson, the police discovered the plot and arrested the three plotters on charges of conspiracy to commit arson. For evidentiary reasons, the prosecutor decided that he could only charge the woman for the conspiracy and decided not to charge the two men. The woman is convicted of conspiracy in a jurisdiction that follows the common law. On appeal, should the woman's conviction be overturned?

No, because she and the men plotted to burn down a building

From across the street, a woman watched as a man exited a bank with a drawn gun and a bag. As she continued walking home, she realized that she knew the man. From subsequent news reports, she confirmed her suspicions that the man had robbed the bank and learned that the police were requesting that anyone with information about the robbery contact the police. The woman did not contact the police. Is the woman an accessory after the fact to the robbery?

No, because she did not help the man to escape arrest or conviction

A woman who was pregnant with her first child was driving a car when she thought that she was going into labor. As a consequence, she began speeding towards the local hospital. As she approached a four-way intersection, she saw no cars and decided to run the red light. She failed to see a pedestrian who was crossing the street. The woman's car struck the pedestrian, causing him serious injuries. Could the woman be properly charged with attempted murder?

No, because she did not intend to kill the pedestrian

A dog sitter customarily went into her clients' homes, with keys they provided to her, to care for their pets. Over the years, she grew to especially love one particular dog. She would regularly enter the home of her client on days she was not scheduled to watch the dog and would take the dog to the park. One afternoon, the dog she loved wandered into her yard as she was doing yard work. She did not immediately call her client, but instead decided to keep the dog for a few days. A week later when she returned him to the client, the client stated that she so enjoyed having the house to herself that she was going to sell him. The dog sitter immediately purchased him and brought him back to her home. Were the dog sitter's actions sufficient to meet the requirements of larceny?

No, because she was only going to keep the dog for a few days

Immediately after she arrived home from work, a woman found her husband engaged in sex with a female who worked in the husband's office. Enraged, the woman retrieved a handgun from her dresser drawer. She fired the gun, intending to shoot her husband's co-worker. Her shot missed the co-worker, and instead killed her husband. The woman was charged with common-law murder of her husband. Based on the foregoing facts, should she be convicted?

No, because the act was provoked

A man was properly arrested under suspicion of murder. While continuing their investigation of the case in preparation for trial, the police invited the man's brother to the station for an interview. The brother agreed and spent four hours in an interview room with two officers, sipping coffee and discussing the events surrounding the murder. The officers told the brother that they had not located the murder weapon yet. After some time, the brother said, "You seem like decent fellows, so I'm gonna tell it to you straight. I know my brother is innocent, but I also know he was scared that he would be a suspect. I know because he gave me a gun the day after the murder. He didn't tell me anything, but he didn't need to. I knew he wanted me to get rid of it, and I did." The officers immediately arrested the brother as an accomplice after the fact and read him his Miranda rights. At the brother's trial as an accomplice to murder, the defense attorney seeks to suppress the brother's statement as a violation of the brother's privilege against self-incrimination. Should the court grant the motion to suppress the brother's statement?

No, because the brother did not make the statement during a custodial interrogation

A defendant entered a convenience store wearing a Halloween mask and carrying a gun. He pointed the gun at the store clerk and told him to empty the cash register into a bag and hand it over. The clerk told the defendant that he needed a key from below the counter to unlock the cash drawer. He leaned over, pulled out a gun from behind the cash register, and quickly fired a shot. The defendant had seen the clerk reach for the gun, however, and jumped out of the way before the shot was fired. The bullet hit a customer, who later died from the injury. Is the defendant likely to be convicted of felony murder in a jurisdiction that follows the majority law?

No, because the clerk could not be considered the agent of the defendant

A defendant was charged with theft of a valuable watch belonging to an elderly resident at the retirement facility where he worked. The defendant argued that he was not a dishonest person. At trial, he sought to introduce the testimony of a resident of the facility that the defendant had found and returned her diamond wedding ring. Is the woman's testimony likely to be admitted?

No, because the defendant may not introduce specific instances of conduct to prove character

A border state had a large number of both legal and undocumented immigrants. During one election, the state's voters elected a number of candidates who ran on platforms focused on limiting access to state benefits to U.S. citizens. Shortly after the election, the state legislature passed a law that would limit enrollment at the state's public universities to U.S. citizens. Under the law, any applicant to a state university who is not a U.S. citizen is automatically denied admission. A legal U.S. resident alien who was denied admission to a state university based on the law brought a suit against the state, arguing that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause. Is the law likely to be upheld?

No, because the exclusion of non-citizens is likely not the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest

In a murder trial, the prosecutor plans to call an eyewitness to the stand to testify that he saw the defendant kill the victim. However, the witness recently suffered a severe head injury that seriously affected his memory. The witness can no longer remember witnessing the murder. Prior to the witness's injury, he testified to what he saw before the grand jury. The prosecutor would like to introduce the witness's grand jury testimony as substantive evidence that the defendant committed the murder. The defendant objects to the introduction of the evidence. Should the court admit the witness's grand jury testimony into evidence?

No, because the former testimony exception does not apply to these facts

Two police officers stopped a car for a minor traffic violation. While one of the officers dealt with the driver and the traffic violation, the other officer talked with the passenger. Seeking to question the passenger about gang involvement, but lacking reasonable suspicions of criminal activity, the officer ordered the passenger out of the car. As the passenger exited the car, the officer saw a bulge in the passenger's coat which the officer suspected might be a gun. Upon patting down the passenger, the officer felt the handle of a revolver and removed the gun. The passenger, who was a convicted felon, was charged with the possession of a gun by a prohibited possessor. Prior to trial, the defendant sought to suppress the gun as evidence, contending that its seizure was unconstitutional. Should the court suppress the gun as evidence?

No, because the gun was discovered as a consequence of a valid Terry stop and frisk

A man and a woman planned to rob a liquor store. The man entered the store while the woman stayed in the car to act as a lookout and getaway driver. As a police officer walked by the store, the woman turned on the car lights, which was the signal she had arranged to warn the man in the store if anyone was coming. Seeing the signal, the man ran out the door right into the police officer. Realizing that an armed robbery was in progress, the police officer shot and killed the man, after appropriate warnings. Should the woman be found guilty of felony murder of the man?

No, because the killing by the policeman was justifiable

A police officer had probable cause to believe that a defendant was involved in a robbery. The officer obtained a valid arrest warrant and went to the defendant's apartment to execute it. The officer decided to go to the defendant's apartment right when he believed the defendant would be home from work, so he could search the defendant's apartment before he had a chance to hide the stolen goods. When the officer arrived at the defendant's apartment, the door was ajar, but nothing else seemed out of the ordinary. The officer slowly opened the door and entered the apartment. He walked toward the back of the apartment, and when he heard the defendant in a bedroom, pushed open the door, loudly told the defendant to freeze, and arrested him. Did the officer properly execute the arrest warrant?

No, because the officer failed to "knock and announce" before he entered the defendant's apartment

A police officer obtained a valid warrant to arrest a woman for felonious credit card fraud. Having probable cause to believe that the woman was spending the afternoon at a friend's house, the officer went to the friend's house to serve the warrant. No one responded to the officer's knocking or to his identification of himself as a police officer. The officer, finding the door unlocked, opened the door and entered the house. Once in the house, the officer did not find the woman, but, while searching for her, did find illegal drugs in plain view on a kitchen counter. The friend was charged with the possession of illegal drugs. The friend challenged the officer's seizure of the drugs as unconstitutional. Will the court deny the challenge?

No, because the officer's search of the house was unreasonable

A state board of transportation ordered a railroad company to sell a parcel of land adjoining its railroad track. The parcel in question had been part of a much larger section of land transferred a number of years before from the state to the railroad company in exchange for the company's provision of railroad services to the citizens of the state. The state board fixed a reasonable price based on the land's fair market value to compensate the railroad company for the loss of its land. The railroad refused to sell the land to the designated buyer, a farmer's cooperative. The private cooperative planned to build a warehouse on the land in order to store its members' produce for shipment by rail and other means. In an action to compel the railroad to comply with the order of the state board, should the court rule in favor of the state board?

No, because the order violates the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation of the Fifth Amendment

A city council passed an ordinance prohibiting all police officers from working a second job. The council wanted to have its officers available in case of an emergency, such as a blizzard, or for certain major events, such as professional football games. Other city employees, including members of the city council, had no such restriction on secondary employment. A veteran and well-respected city police officer was upset because she would have to give up her well-paying second job as an exotic dancer at a local club. The club complies with all of the city's entertainment and liquor licensing regulations and employs the officer on an at-will basis. The officer challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance in the appropriate federal court. Is she likely to prevail?

No, because the ordinance is rationally related to the city's legitimate interest in public safety and social welfare

A teenager walking down the sidewalk noticed that a car had been left unlocked with the engine running. The car's owner, a security guard, had parked the car beside the curb in front of his house in order to run in and get a pistol, which he was licensed to carry. As the owner came out his front door with the pistol, the teenager was opening the driver's door. The owner warned the teenager not to enter the car or he would shoot the teenager. The teenager ignored the warning. The owner shot and seriously injured the teenager. The owner has been charged with aggravated battery, which includes battery committed with a deadly weapon. Can the owner successfully assert defense of property as a justification for the shooting?

No, because the owner used deadly force

One afternoon, a woman was walking down the street when a man walked up behind her, grabbed her purse, and ran away. That evening, as the woman and her husband dined at a restaurant, she recognized an identical purse hanging from the back of a chair upon which another woman was sitting at a table a few feet away. She pointed the purse out to her husband before going up to the table to confront the couple sitting there. The couple claimed that the purse was certainly not stolen and refused to give it to her, so the woman violently yanked it from the chair, knocking it and the woman sitting on it over, and returned to the table with her husband. Robbery charges were subsequently brought against her, and during trial, evidence indicated the purse did actually belong to her. Is the woman likely to be successfully convicted of robbery?

No, because the purse had been stolen from her earlier in the day

A group of parents of public school students proposed a new school rule that would require teachers to begin each school day by standing for a minute of silent prayer before lessons began. The rule would not require the teachers or students to pray during the minute of silent prayer, but would require teachers to say, "Please stand for a minute of silent prayer." Students who did not wish to participate could remain seated. Would the school rule be constitutional?

No, because the rule violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

A state statute was recently enacted prohibiting any grocery store or market within one mile of a school from displaying any posters advertising items for sale. The goal of the statute was to discourage minors from illegally purchasing alcohol or soliciting others to purchase alcohol for them after seeing posters advertising that it was for sale. Before the regulation, many affected stores that did not sell alcohol also advertised in this manner, and the stores that did sell alcohol often advertised non-alcoholic items for sale with posters as well. Is the statute constitutional?

No, because the statute was not narrowly tailored to serve the government's goal

In response to several violent and fatal confrontations, Congress enacted a law prohibiting all public speeches related to gun control inside government offices. Shortly thereafter, a protestor was arrested after displaying a large placard in a government office that said "GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM; GOVERNMENT IS." At trial, the protestor challenged the law as a violation of his free speech rights. The government replied by stating that the law served the legitimate government interest of preventing violence in government offices. Is the protestor likely to prevail in his challenge?

No, because the statute was viewpoint-neutral and reasonably related to a legitimate government interest

A local convenience store was robbed and the clerk on duty was shot. The next day, the police arrested a suspect and brought her into the police station for questioning. An officer read the suspect her Miranda rights, which she stated she understood. For an hour, a police officer questioned the suspect about her involvement in the robbery. The suspect did not respond to the questions, remaining silent. Learning that the clerk had died, the officer informed the suspect of the clerk's death, and told her that she should start talking if she wanted to get the best possible plea deal. She confessed to the robbery and shooting. At trial, the suspect sought to suppress her confession. Is the confession likely to be suppressed for violation of Miranda rights?

No, because the suspect waived her Miranda rights by making the statement

An employee sued her former employer, claiming that she was fired due to age discrimination. The employer asserted that the employee was fired because she did not meet her sales quota. At trial, the employee sought to introduce testimony from a senior manager in the employer's human resources department. The senior manager would testify that three female employees had filed sexual harassment claims against the employer during the previous year. The employer objected to introduction of the testimony. Is the testimony likely to be admitted?

No, because the testimony is not probative and material.

A wife discovered that her husband had been having an affair with her best friend for many months. Enraged, the wife decided to invite her best friend over for poolside cocktails, spike her drinks with a strong sedative, and then push her into the pool to drown after she passed out. The best friend agreed to come over, but because the wife was extremely nervous, she took ten times the recommended amount of her prescribed anti-anxiety medication. The best friend arrived to find the wife acting erratically, clearly under the influence of the drugs. However, the wife managed to add the sedative to the best friend's cocktails, and when she passed out, the wife pushed her into the pool. The best friend drowned. The police eventually arrested and charged the wife with first-degree murder. The jurisdiction defines first-degree murder as a deliberate and premeditated unlawful killing of another human being. Does the wife have a valid intoxication defense to the first-degree murder charge?

No, because the wife formed the intent to kill before she became intoxicated

For years, a federal agency regularly contracted with a construction company to perform renovations on federal government buildings within a state. The agency properly chose to contract with the company following a federally mandated competitive bidding process. Although representatives from the agency and the company would meet to discuss and negotiate contracts for the upcoming year every January, each individual renovation project was covered by a separate contract. The company made a political contribution to an interest group whose interests were adverse to the current administration. As a result, the agency decided to prohibit the company from participating in the bidding process and therefore terminated the possibility of contracting with the company at all. After the most recent competitive bidding process, the agency gave all of the upcoming renovation projects for the year to the company's competitor. The company brings a proper suit to enjoin the agency from contracting with the competitor. Did the agency's decision to stop contracting with the company violate the Contracts Clause?

No, because there was no state legislation that impaired the contract

A woman and a man were living together in a house owned by the man when they broke up. The man told the woman to leave and changed all the locks in his house. The woman, wanting to take the man's television to punish him, asked her friend to help her, telling her friend that the woman owned the television. One night, the friend helped the woman pick the lock on a back door while the boyfriend was away. Once inside, the woman pointed out the television. The friend carried the television out to the woman's car. She drove to her new apartment where her friend brought the television inside. When the man discovered the television was gone, he broke into the woman's new apartment one night, and retrieved the television. The jurisdiction continues to follow the common law with regard to the crime of burglary. Given these facts, which, if any, of these individuals is guilty of burglary?

Only the woman

In a trial for murder, defense counsel presented eyewitness testimony that the murder victim threatened the defendant with a baseball bat, and that the defendant acted in self-defense when shooting the victim. In rebuttal, the prosecution called a neighbor of the victim to testify regarding the victim's reputation for peacefulness. The defense objected to the testimony. How should the court rule on this objection?

Overrule the objection, because the defense contended that the defendant had acted in self-defense

A state narrowly adopted legislation allowing for same-sex marriage. A group of several individual talk-radio show hosts who vehemently opposed the legislation rented space on several large billboards around the state, all of which contend that the law is wrong and urge all who see it to take "any and all necessary steps" to get the law repealed. The billboards include a website address that contains the legislative steps for getting a state's law repealed, including gathering signatures on petitions and finding a legislator to sponsor new legislation repealing the law at issue. The billboards proved incredibly controversial, as slightly more than half of the state's population found the billboards extremely offensive, while the rest of the citizens were in favor of repealing the law. The state orders the talk-radio hosts to remove the billboards. The hosts bring proper suit alleging that the state's demand for removal of the billboards constitutes an infringement upon their free speech. Is the court most likely to rule that the billboards are protected or improper?

Protected, because there is no compelling or substantial government interest in removing the advertisements

A runner was in the midst of his morning run when the defendant jumped out from behind a bush and tripped the runner, intending to steal the runner's wallet. The runner was not carrying a wallet, however. Frustrated, the defendant tore off the runner's hat. The runner tried to grab the hat back from the defendant, but the defendant pulled it away and ran off. The struggle caused the defendant to lose his balance, and he dropped the hat a few feet from the runner. The runner then picked up his hat and completed his run. What is the most serious crime, listed in order of increasing seriousness, for which the defendant may be convicted?

Robbery

A 60-year-old driver received a traffic citation for his failure to use the headlights on his automobile after dark. He pled not guilty and requested a trial, at which he was found guilty. He requested that, in lieu of paying a fine, he be required to attend the driving school course that was offered by the municipal court for certain traffic offenses. The court program offering driving school in lieu of fine was rationally limited to drivers between the ages of 15 and 18 years old because they were the most likely to modify their driving habits and thereby benefit from the school. Based on this reasoning, the judge denied the driver's request solely because he did not qualify for driving school due to his age. The driver has challenged the judicial refusal to admit him into driving school as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Of the following reasons, which best supports the rejection of the driver's constitutional challenge?

The age limitation on the driving school option is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest of encouraging safe driving habits

A city ordinance provided that only applicants under the age of 50 would be considered for the city's fire department, even though the employees of the fire department may serve until they reach the age of 55. A 50-year-old man applied for a position in the fire department, and his application was rejected solely because he did not meet the age restrictions in the ordinance. The applicant sued the city, alleging that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. What statement most accurately describes the burden of proof?

The applicant must show that the ordinance is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest

A state enacted an intestacy statute that provided full inheritance rights for marital children from both parents. Under the statute, nonmarital children were permitted to inherit only through their mothers. The underlying purposes of the statute were to promote family relations and establish an accurate and efficient method of disposing property at death. The father of a nonmarital child recently died intestate. The nonmarital child brought suit challenging the constitutionality of the statute. Which of the following most accurately states the appropriate standard of review for the court?

The court must determine whether the statute is substantially related to an important government interest

The police obtained a warrant to arrest the defendant for the murder of his girlfriend. When they arrived at the defendant's house to serve the warrant, the defendant's neighbor informed the police that the defendant had left the previous day to visit his sister. The police drove to the sister's home. The defendant answered the front door, and the police promptly arrested him and placed him in the car. The police then asked the defendant's sister for permission to search the house, but she refused. Believing that the sister would likely dispose of any evidence, the police searched the guest room, where the defendant had been staying, without a warrant. During the search, the police found a knife that was later determined to be the murder weapon. The defendant was subsequently charged with murder, but was acquitted after he successfully pled self-defense. The girlfriend's parents later sued the defendant for wrongful death, and during those proceedings, the defendant moved to suppress evidence of the knife found during the search. What is the plaintiff's best argument that the evidence should be admitted?

The current proceeding is a wrongful death action

While riding home on his bike, a cyclist struck his next-door neighbor who was walking across the street. The neighbor suffered serious injuries and sued the cyclist to recover damages stemming from those injuries. The neighbor established, through eyewitness testimony, that the cyclist was travelling at an excessive speed at the time of the accident. On the witness stand, the cyclist was asked by his own attorney about the neighbor's tendency of carelessly crossing the street without looking. The defense has no other witness to corroborate this tendency. Which of the following is the neighbor's best argument to prevent the introduction of cyclist's testimony as habit evidence?

The evidence is not sufficiently specific

A recently enacted state statute prohibits drivers from using privately owned cars to pick up passengers at the airport for a fare; only cars-for-hire in a regulated industry, such as taxicabs, are permitted to do so. These cars-for-hire are required to obtain permits to pick up passengers and they must wait in a designated taxicab line. The stated purpose of the statute is to reduce the recent upswing of car congestion at the arrival deck of the airport, and to reduce the parking of the privately owned cars-for-hire on the arrival deck while drivers wait for their passengers to arrive. A driver who drives a privately owned car-for-hire challenges the constitutionality of this statute, claiming it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Which of the following tests is the most appropriate test to apply in determining the constitutionality of the statute?

The law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest

While shopping in a department store, a man saw an expensive wallet on display, and slipped it into his girlfriend's purse without her knowledge as a practical joke to embarrass her. He intended for her to find it as she reached into her purse to pay for other items at the cashier's station and turn it over to the cashier. The couple shopped for the next hour, and the man forgot about the wallet. Before they could pay for their purchases, the couple got into an argument, abandoned their intended purchases, and headed toward an exit. When they attempted to leave the store, they were detained by a store security officer who found the wallet in the purse. Both parties were charged with larceny. Of the following, which would provide the man with his best defense to larceny?

The man lacked the necessary intent to steal the wallet

A man was asleep at table in a food court at a mall. While he slept, his hand rested on his wallet. A passerby, who was in the mall to shop, seized the opportunity to steal the man's wallet, slightly lifted the man's hand, and took the wallet. The man, waking up as the passerby turned to leave, noticed that the passerby had the wallet. The passerby ran and the man gave chase. The passerby threw the wallet down in front of an industrial floor cleaning machine that was being used to clean the floor. The machine destroyed the wallet. The passerby was arrested and charged with robbery. Of the following, which would constitute the passerby's best defense?

The passerby did not use force or intimidation to gain possession of the wallet

A bicyclist filed a negligence action against a truck driver following a collision. At trial, the bicyclist's attorney called a pedestrian, who was present at the scene of the collision, as her first witness. During direct examination, the bicyclist's attorney asks the following question: "The truck driver's brake lights were not on when the truck driver's vehicle struck my client, were they?" The truck driver's attorney objected before the pedestrian could answer. Which of the following is the strongest basis for the objection?

The question improperly leads the witness

A local religious community constructed a place of worship on land that they owned. Several years later, the community's religion divided into two different sects, with one sect recognizing a new leader and a new interpretation of their religious tenets. The schism led to a dispute among the members of the local religious community as to which sect the local community should belong, with the majority in favor of joining the sect that recognized the new leader. The place of worship is now occupied and used by the members who voted to recognize the new leader of the religion. The minority, supported by the original leader of their religious sect, brought an ejection action in state court to gain possession of the place of worship. In determining who is entitled to ownership of the place of worship, which of the following courses of action may the state court take?

The state court may apply religiously neutral principles of law to determine ownership of the place of worship

A defendant was in jail for an aggravated assault charge after his attorney was unable to post bail for that offense. The police believed that the defendant had also been involved with other criminals in executing an unrelated series of bank robberies, and they placed an undercover officer in the jail to pose as the defendant's cellmate. They hoped to acquire information that might prevent further robberies from occurring. One afternoon, the undercover officer mentioned that he knew the victim of the assault with which the defendant had been charged. The defendant said that the victim had a beating coming to him, and that he was glad he had been the one to complete that task. The next day, the undercover officer mentioned the bank robberies. The defendant began bragging that he had a substantial amount of cash waiting for him once he got out of jail, noting that "all those bankers would hardly miss it." Which of the defendant's statements to the undercover officer are admissible against him at trial?

The statement regarding the robbery is admissible, but the statement regarding the assault is not admissible

A defendant is on trial for aggravated assault and battery. The defendant's attorney calls the defendant's longtime landlord as a witness to testify as to the defendant's reputation and character for honesty in the community. The landlord has no personal knowledge of the facts underlying the defendant's aggravated assault and battery charge. The prosecution did not call any character witnesses during its case in chief. The prosecution objects to the landlord's testimony. Which of the following is a valid objection to the landlord's testimony?

The testimony is not admissible because honesty is not pertinent to the crime charged

The driver of a car sued the driver of a truck for damages resulting from personal injuries and the destruction to his car as the result of an accident between the car and truck at an intersection. The driver of the car listed as eyewitnesses four sixth-grade students who were waiting for a school bus at the time of the accident. Each of the students was prepared to testify that the truck driver ran a red light immediately before striking the car and its driver in the intersection. On the day of the trial, one of the students was ill. After the three sixth-grade students who were present at trial testified, the driver of the car called another student, a first-grader, who was not on the car driver's witness list, but was also an eyewitness to the accident. The truck driver objected to this student's testimony under Rule 403. Which of the following is the truck driver's best argument for seeking to exclude this testimony?

The testimony of the student would be needlessly cumulative evidence

A wife was having an affair with her neighbor. The wife and her husband had a prenuptial agreement that prevented the wife from receiving any of the husband's sizable fortune in the event of a divorce. The wife and her neighbor formed a plan to murder the husband and run away together with the wife's inheritance. The neighbor shot the husband one evening, killing him instantly, then drove to a town 100 miles away and checked into a motel. Later that night, the police showed up at the motel with a valid warrant for the neighbor's arrest. After the neighbor was arrested and placed in a police car, the police asked the motel clerk for permission to search the room, and the clerk granted the request. The police found the gun hidden in the tank of the toilet. The wife and the neighbor were each charged with first-degree murder and tried separately. At her trial, the wife sought to suppress any evidence of the gun, arguing that it was seized illegally. What is the prosecution's strongest response to this argument?

The wife was not staying in the motel room where the gun was found

A bank teller confessed to his colleague that he was concerned about being fired. The colleague suggested that he had similar concerns himself and had been thinking of how he might acquire extra cash in case he lost his job. The teller suggested a plan to take several hundred dollars from their supervisor's cash drawer, because the supervisor often forgot to lock the drawer when he went to lunch. After the teller took the cash, he would hand it off to his colleague during his lunch break, and the colleague would bring the money to his car to avoid having money on his person at work. The next day, the teller noticed that his supervisor had neglected to lock his cash drawer at lunch, and he carried out the plan. The colleague waited outside the bank, and then took the cash from the teller on his lunch break. He then hid some of the money in a separate stash he intended to apportion to himself only, without the teller's knowledge, but he otherwise followed the plan exactly as he and the bank teller had discussed. In a case against the colleague, which of the following charges would most likely be successfully prosecuted?

Two charges of larceny only

Congress, without holding hearings or providing public notice, passed a bill immediately signed into law by the President. The bill terminated supplemental security income (SSI) payments to all resident aliens. The reason for the legislation was to address a budgetary shortfall. A resident alien who depended upon the payments to acquire food and shelter filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the law. How is the court likely to rule on the law's constitutionality?

Uphold it, because Congress has plenary power over aliens

A public university adopted the following policy: In order to be recognized as a student organization with rights to school facilities and funds, an organization must permit any student to be a member regardless of the student's status or beliefs. One student organization was a local chapter of a national organization that restricted membership in local chapters to members of a particular religious sect and denied membership to homosexual individuals. May the university apply its policy to the student religious group?

Yes, because a public university is a limited public forum and the policy is content neutral

A defendant was charged with stealing a rare artifact from a museum. The defendant was apprehended while leaving the museum. Although he did not have the artifact when he was searched, he did have gelatin fake fingertips attached to his fingers. When the fake fingertips were checked for fingerprints, the police were able to trace their copied prints back to an employee of the museum. The prosecution attempts to introduce evidence of a previous crime committed by the defendant during which he robbed a bank and used gelatin fake fingertips to frame a bank employee for the robbery. Is this evidence admissible?

Yes, because evidence of the past crime shows the defendant's preparation and plan for committing the current crime

A defendant was sued in civil court for assault. The defendant, as his first witness in his case in chief, called a friend to testify that, on the day before the day in question, the defendant had told her that he was leaving town that afternoon to drive across the country. Is this testimony admissible to show that the defendant was not in town when the assault allegedly occurred?

Yes, because it is a declaration of the defendant's present mental state

A suspect is on trial for the armed robbery of a gas station. During the robbery, the gas station's clerk was held at gunpoint and forced to empty the contents of the cash register into the robber's bag. Prior to trial, the clerk positively identified the suspect as the robber during a lineup at the police station. At trial, the clerk was called as a witness for the prosecution. On direct examination, the clerk was asked whether she could identify the robber. The clerk positively identified the suspect as the robber. The clerk then admitted, on both direct and cross-examination, that she had no memory of having identified the suspect at the lineup at the police station. The prosecution moved to enter the clerk's positive identification of the suspect at the lineup to prove that the suspect was the robber. The suspect's attorney objected to the admission of the clerk's identification of the suspect at the lineup as hearsay. Is the clerk's positive identification of the suspect at the lineup admissible as evidence of the robber's identity?

Yes, because it is not hearsay

A state passed legislation requiring professional gardeners to obtain a license to charge for gardening services within the state. To obtain the license, individuals must pay a $50 fee and complete an instructional class covering, among other things, how to avoid underground electric and gas lines when gardening. Although it was not the legislature's intent, the legislation disproportionately affects one race, as the majority of gardeners in the state are of the same race. Is the legislation constitutional?

Yes, because it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest

An accountant of a company sued her coworker for defamation after the coworker sent an e-mail to the entire company claiming that the accountant was having an extramarital affair with the company's CEO. The accountant testified that the CEO was planning on merging the company with another company, so the accountant and the CEO had been meeting outside of the office to discuss the possible merger plans. The coworker then sought to introduce e-mails between the accountant and the CEO tending to indicate a romantic relationship, although not explicitly. Is the coworker's proffered evidence admissible?

Yes, because it tends to prove that the coworker's statement was true

A state airport commission adopted a regulation prohibiting the solicitation of money inside airport terminals, but permitted the solicitation of money on the pathways outside the terminals where travelers were accessible. The commission adopted the regulation due to the disrupting effect solicitation had on travelers attempting to reach their gates, causing delays and congestion in the terminals. Fundraisers from an organization devoted to raising money to help cure cancer attempted to solicit donations in the airport terminal, and were detained for violating the regulation. The organization has challenged the constitutionality of the regulation. Is the regulation constitutional?

Yes, because the ban on solicitation is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest

A well-known celebrity gossip blogger made a post on his website that was highly critical of a famous celebrity. The blogger called the celebrity a "drug addict" in need of serious help. Upon learning of the post, the celebrity filed an action for defamation against the blogger. At trial, the blogger called a witness who testified that she had used cocaine with the celebrity on at least two occasions within the past two months. The celebrity objected to the witness's testimony. Is the witness's testimony admissible?

Yes, because the celebrity's character is an essential element in this trial

A city owned and operated a minor-league baseball park. The city sold advertising space on billboards above the park and along the walls of the baseball field. While most of the advertising space was purchased by beer and snack food companies that also sold their goods at the baseball games, a city ordinance allowed for the sale of space to political, charitable, and religious causes. All final decisions on the advertising were solely at the discretion of a particular city official. A modern-day temperance organization wanted to buy space on some of the billboards to warn of the dangers associated with drinking alcohol. The city official wanted the baseball games to remain light-hearted and fun events for the citizens, and also did not want to risk the beer companies pulling their advertisements from the ballpark. Accordingly, he denied the temperance organization's request for advertising space. The temperance organization sued the city and the official, claiming that the denial of the organization's request was unconstitutional. Is the temperance organization likely to succeed in its suit?

Yes, because the city official may not deny an organization's right to broadcast its message in a public forum on the basis of its content unless the denial is necessary to serve a compelling government interest

A landowner owned a large number of acres of land in a rural district fifty miles outside of a major metropolitan area and airport. Due to a field of vision problem pilots experienced in the vicinity of the landowner's property, the county determined it was necessary to erect a 75-foot tall aviation light signal on the landowner's property. Pursuant to its authority under a state law regarding air travel, the county installed the aviation light on a corner of the landowner's property that he did not use. The landowner requested compensation for the installation but the county refused. The landowner subsequently brought suit against the county. Is the landowner constitutionally entitled to just compensation?

Yes, because the county installed a permanent structure on the landowner's property

One night, while waiting to cross an intersection, a cowboy suddenly felt someone grab his shoulder and turn him around. The accoster mistook the cowboy for a man who had bullied the accoster in high school. The accoster decided to scare the cowboy, and so he pulled a large hammer out of his tool belt and screamed that he was going to smash the cowboy's skull. The cowboy was terrified and reasonably believed that the accoster would kill him if the cowboy did not stop him. Not knowing what else to do, the cowboy took a gun out of one of his holsters and fatally shot the accoster. The cowboy is charged with murder. If the cowboy claims self-defense, is he likely to be acquitted?

Yes, because the cowboy had a reasonable belief that the accoster was going to kill him

After being indicted for attempted murder, an indigent defendant was brought into the police station. While at the police station, the victim identified the defendant in a lineup. After the lineup but prior to trial, the defendant was appointed counsel. The lineup identification was admitted and used as evidence at trial. The jury found the defendant guilty of attempted murder. The defendant appealed this conviction, arguing that he was denied his right to counsel in the lineup. Can the court reverse the conviction?

Yes, because the defendant had a right to counsel upon indictment

A defendant is on trial for cocaine possession. The cocaine was found during a warrantless search of the defendant's car by a police officer. The search occurred immediately after the defendant was arrested for driving a car with an inoperative taillight, a misdemeanor punishable only by a fine. The defendant had been placed in a police car prior to the search. The cocaine was found inside a closed bag on the back seat of the passenger compartment of the defendant's car. The defendant now moves to suppress the cocaine. Will the defendant's motion be granted?

Yes, because the defendant was in the police car at the time of the search

Two landowners owned plots of land next to one another. One of the landowners sold his plot of land to a landscape architect, who immediately began building a home and landscaping the area that would surround the home. The other landowner sued the landscape architect for damages as a result of the landscaping because he claimed the landscape architect planted trees that were not indigenous to the area in violation of a local ordinance. The landowner contended that the trees planted by the landscape architect damaged the surrounding soil and caused the existing trees and other plants on the landowner's property to die. At trial, the landowner submitted the codified ordinance from the local government office, and asked the court to take judicial notice of the ordinance and its list of permitted indigenous trees. The court accepted the codified ordinance and instructed the jury to accept the ordinance's list of permitted indigenous trees as conclusive as to what is permitted by the ordinance. Did the court properly take judicial notice of the local ordinance?

Yes, because the fact can be accurately and readily determined from a reliable source

A husband and his business partner owned a large technology company together. After a personally tumultuous but professionally successful decade working together, the husband discovered that the business partner had been fraudulently transferring company funds to the business partner's personal account for years. Before he confronted his business partner about this, he called his own wife to tell her what he had learned. His wife reminded him that the company had a $2 million life insurance policy on the business partner. The couple formed a plan to murder the business partner for the insurance proceeds when he was alone in the office building. On the day that they planned to carry out the murder, the husband told the business partner that he had to leave early and asked the business partner to stay late to finish up a presentation. He knew that by doing so, the business partner would be alone at the office. Later that night, the wife went in and shot the business partner. She then panicked and fled the country. The husband was later charged with the murder and conspiracy to commit the murder, but the wife was never apprehended. The jurisdiction recognizes the majority rule regarding conspirator liability. Is the husband likely to be found guilty of conspiracy and murder?

Yes, because the husband persuaded the business partner to stay late at the office

From a distance, an individual witnessed an altercation between a friend, who was a fan of a local sports team ("local fan"), and a stranger who was a supporter of a rival team ("rival fan"). The local fan, upset with his team's loss to the rival team that day, attempted to punch the rival fan and missed. The rival fan responded by landing a punch to the local fan's stomach. The two continued to engage in fisticuffs without inflicting serious injury on one another until the rival fan displayed what the individual reasonably, but wrongly, thought was a knife followed by a threat to kill the local fan. The individual withdrew a gun and intentionally shot and killed the rival fan. The rival fan had actually displayed a pen, not a knife, and had offered to stop the altercation, rather than threatening to kill the local fan. The individual has been charged with the murder of the rival fan. Can the individual successfully defend against his conviction for murder?

Yes, because the individual reasonably thought that the rival fan threatened the local fan with deadly force

One night, when no one was home, an individual broke into a residence to steal a painting by a particular artist. Not finding the painting, the individual instead stole a drawing by the same artist. Can the individual properly be charged with burglary?

Yes, because the individual, when entering the residence, intended to steal the painting

A state law prohibited all outdoor advertisement of cigars within 1,000 feet of a school. The legislative history for the statute demonstrates that the prohibition was intended to combat cigar use by minors, which legislators believed was a pressing problem. Federal law does not prohibit state regulation of cigars. Moreover, in order to receive federal funding for state substance abuse programs, a state must prohibit the sale of tobacco products to minors. Cigar manufacturers, distributors and retailers have challenged the state law as unconstitutional. They note that the state prohibition on outdoor advertisement encompasses ads that are neither untruthful nor misleading. In addition, they point out that the law is not narrowly tailored to protect students while also permitting legal advertisement of cigars to adults because in certain cities, the law prevents outdoor advertising of cigars in almost all areas of the city. Is the court likely to strike down the law?

Yes, because the law is not narrowly tailored to achieve its purpose

A man bought a mile of beachfront property with the intent to build several high-rise condominium buildings and sell them for a substantial profit. As the man was working to get the requisite permits to build the condominiums, the state legislature passed a law prohibiting all construction on a stretch of beach that included the man's property. The legislation was intended to protect sea turtles, seabirds, and beach mice that inhabit the protected area. The man discussed his options with several local real estate agents, all of whom explained to him that the prohibition on development of his land made the land basically worthless. The man sued the state, claiming that the legislation resulted in a taking of the man's land, and sought just compensation from the state. Is the man entitled to compensation for his property?

Yes, because the legislation caused a permanent total loss of the economic value of the man's property

A man who suffered from a mental illness shot and killed his neighbor after making plans to do so. The man was arrested and charged with murder. At trial, the man admitted that he intended to kill the neighbor, and that he appreciated that what he was doing was illegal. However, he also testified that he performed the killing under orders from his pet goldfish, who was possessed by a demonic spirit, and that he was unable to resist the goldfish's constant urging to kill the neighbor. The Model Penal Code test of criminal responsibility applies in the applicable jurisdiction. If the man timely and properly pleads that he was not criminally responsible, can he be found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity?

Yes, because the man was unable to resist the goldfish's constant urging

A daughter babysat her neighbor's children every Thursday night. Her mother had coveted the neighbor's antique vase for many years. The mother bought a cheap replica of the vase, broke it, and gave the pieces to her daughter Thursday morning. The mother told the daughter to leave the broken pieces in the neighbor's trash, steal the antique vase, and claim that the children had broken it. The daughter reluctantly agreed. While she was babysitting that evening, the daughter put the pieces of the cheap replica in the garbage. However, before she actually stole the vase, her mother called her. The mother had changed her mind and told the daughter not to steal the vase. The daughter did not steal the vase, but forgot to take the pieces of the cheap replica out of the garbage. When the neighbor discovered the pieces of the replica in the garbage, she confronted the daughter, and the daughter confessed the whole plan. The neighbor called the police, who arrested the mother; she was subsequently charged with solicitation. Is the mother guilty of solicitation under the common law?

Yes, because the mother encouraged her daughter to steal the antique vase

The parents of a child sued a hospital for the child's wrongful death, which resulted from an alleged overdose of a drug administered to the child by a hospital nurse. An attorney for the hospital sought to introduce testimony from a member of the hospital's nursing staff explaining that it was the routine practice of the hospital's nurses to verify the dosage of the drug in question with another nurse before giving it to a patient, and for the other nurse to witness the drug being administered. The nurse called to testify was not present at the time that the drug was administered to the child. The attorney for the parents had earlier introduced into evidence the child's hospital chart on which the nurse who gave the drug to the child had written, as the amount administered, an amount in excess of the amount prescribed by the child's physician. The parents' attorney objected to the introduction of this evidence. Should the court admit the nurse's testimony?

Yes, because the nurse's testimony is evidence of the routine practice of the hospital

A police officer spotted a disheveled middle-aged male sitting on a bench in a public park. The officer did not recognize the man, but was aware that the park was frequently used as a site for illegal drug transactions. The officer approached the man who remained seated on the bench. The officer asked the man for his name. When the man refused, the officer arrested him. Under state law, it is a misdemeanor for an individual to intentionally refuse to give his name to a police officer who, having lawfully detained the person, has requested it. Although a search of the man revealed that he did not possess any drugs, he was charged with violating the law and fined. The man challenged his conviction as a violation of both the federal and state constitutions. The highest court in the state upheld the conviction as valid under both. The man sought review of his conviction in federal court on the grounds that it violated his federal constitutional rights. Should the federal court rule in favor of the man?

Yes, because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain the man

A defendant was charged with assault of a stranger. During her trial, the defendant informed her attorney that her friend was with her on the night of the alleged assault and was willing to testify about the details of the event. Coincidentally, the friend was going through a divorce. In her divorce proceedings, the friend testified that she had been with the defendant on the night in question to rebut a claim by her husband that she had been having an affair. Called to the stand in the assault prosecution by the defendant's attorney, the friend, out of fear that she would also be charged with assault, testified that she was not with the defendant on the night in question. May the defendant's attorney introduce into evidence the friend's prior statement about the night in question as substantive evidence?

Yes, because the prior statement is inconsistent with the friend's current testimony

A state enacted a law that prohibited the sale of violent video games to minors and imposed a fine for each violation. The legislative history demonstrated a concern that there was a correlation between playing such games and subsequent violent behavior. A maker of video games brought suit contending that this law violated its First Amendment right of free speech. Is this law unconstitutional?

Yes, because the state law is a content-based restriction

A truck was struck by a train while the truck was crossing railroad tracks. Although the crossing gate had malfunctioned, the train engineer had blown a warning whistle before entering the crossing. Among the legal actions precipitated by this accident, the trucking company sued the railroad for damages stemming from the destruction of its truck and the contents of the truck. The railroad sought to introduce a written statement given to police by a passenger in the truck, who alternated driving duties with the person driving the truck at the time of the accident, that the driver had left his hearing aids at a rest stop shortly before the accident. Both the passenger and the driver of the truck, who are employees of the trucking company, are available to testify. Is this statement admissible against the trucking company?

Yes, because the statement was made by the trucking company's employee

A Senate committee conducted an investigation into alleged corruption in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). After a thorough investigation, the committee concluded that five SEC agents had significant illegal interactions with organized crime members over the course of three years. Soon after, Congress, on the advice of the Senate committee, passed a statute that removed the agents from the SEC and barred them from any other federal employment. The five agents, whose employment permitted removal with or without cause, were named in the statute. The agents subsequently challenged the statute on the basis that it was unconstitutional. Will the agents' challenge to the statute be successful?

Yes, because the statute constitutes a bill of attainder

Relying on its Commerce Clause power, Congress enacted a statute that criminalized the knowing possession of sexually explicit visual displays of a minor. Congress adduced facts that possession of such displays substantially affected interstate commerce. Simulated displays, or those that use youthful looking adults or computer graphic techniques instead of minors, are not prohibited. Amalgamate displays, or those that contain actual minors but with the sexually explicit aspect created by using youthful looking adults or computer graphic techniques, are prohibited. The definition of the crime is neither vague nor overbroad. A defendant who possessed amalgamated displays in his home and did not sell or otherwise transfer them was convicted under this statute. He has challenged his conviction, contending that the statute is unconstitutional. Should an appellate court uphold his conviction?

Yes, because the statute does not violate the First Amendment Free Speech Clause

A city enacted legislation that required schools to automatically expel any male student who bullied another student, with bullying defined as "physical violence not used in self-defense." The legislation did not reference bullying committed by female students. The law was enacted in response to a high level of teen suicides that were linked to severe bullying, and it directly followed similar legislation in a neighboring state that was successful in the reduction of teen suicides over a five-year period. The in-depth analysis of the reduction of suicides in the neighboring state revealed, in those cases where bullying resulted in suicide, the vast majority involved bullying initiated by males, which was more severe than female bullying and less likely to stop without intervention. Would this statute likely survive a constitutional challenge?

Yes, because the statute is substantially related to preventing teen suicides

A defendant was on trial for murder. The defendant asserted that he acted in self-defense, testifying that the victim made the threatening statement, "I'm going to cut out your heart," shortly before the defendant killed the victim. Is this statement admissible?

Yes, to show the effect of the victim's statement on the defendant