Criminal Procedure

Criminal Procedure

Internet Resources

Resource URL
WCU Home Page www.rcdu.org
Exam Submission Email Address www.rcdulawschool.org
Exams Listed at the end of the syllabus infra.

Objectives:

To acquaint the student with the procedures involved in the criminal law process. Procedurally, this would include arrest detention, advisement, presence of counsel, line-ups, pre-trial motions, trial, appeal, and other post judgment remedies.

Requirements:

  • Text - Complete textbook reading assignments
  • Roadmap Outline - Complete outline reading assignments and lessons
  • Audio - Listen to audio lectures
  • Practice Exam - Complete practice questions listed under "Practice Examinations" section below
  • Study Record - Return monthly study record by mail

Evaluation:

  • Faculty assessment of midterm examination. Answer 25 multiple-choice questions on-line and submit 2 essay questions for grading. Resubmitting essays can raise midterm grades. Essays will be graded and returned in 7-10 working days depending on each professor’s schedule.
  • Faculty assessment of final examination. Answer 50 multiple-choice questions on-line and submit 4 essays questions for grading. Essays will be graded and returned in 7-10 working days depending on each professor’s schedule.

Required Materials:

Text:
Comprehensive Criminal Procedure; Ronald J. Allen, William Stuntz, Professor, Joseph Hoffman, and Debra Livingston; Published March 15, 2001 Aspen Publishers, Inc.; ISBN: 0735519595

Roadmap Outline:
Criminal Procedure: Aspen RoadMap Law Course Outline; James J. Tomkivicz; Published July 7, 1997 Aspen Publishers, Inc.; ISBN: 156706504X

Supplemental Material:
“Nailing the Bar, A Guide to Essays” by Tim Tyler, America’s Legal & Professional Bookstores Publishing, ISBN# 1-879563-49-5

Audio:
Law School Legends: Criminal Procedure; Professor Charles H. Whitebread; ISBN: 0159002818

CALI:
The Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction Library of Lessons (CALI) is a collection of over one hundred interactive, computer-based lessons covering twenty-seven legal education subject areas. The lessons are designed to augment traditional law school instruction.

The lessons are written by law faculty and librarians and are regularly reviewed and revised. The format of the individual lessons varies according to the educational objectives of the author. Some authors use the setting of a simulated trial to provide students with an opportunity to test their understanding of an area of law. Other lessons drill students through a series of questions requiring them to identify relevant issues and apply recently learned concepts.

You may wish to purchase the lessons in CD-ROM format from the CALI website for $19.95 including shipping and handling.

CALI Password: learnthelaw

 

CRIM PRO 201 & 202 COURSE SCHEDULE


 

Week #1-4

Material Subject
Text

Read Chapter 1 “Introduction to the Criminal Justice ‘System’” from “Comprehensive Criminal Procedure” by Allen, Stuntz, Hoffman, and Livingston

Read Chapter 2 “The Idea of Due Process” from “Comprehensive Criminal Procedure” by Allen, Stuntz, Hoffman, and Livingston

 
Roadmap Outline

Read Chapter 1 “The Study of Criminal Procedure” and Complete Exercises from “Criminal Procedure: Aspen RoadMap Law Course Outline”

Read Chapter 2 “The Processes of the Criminal Justice System” and Complete Exercises from “Criminal Procedure: Aspen RoadMap Law Course Outline”

 
Audio Listen to “Criminal Procedure” by Charles H. Whitebread (no notes) 

 

End of Week #4

Study Record Study Record Due (include any Roadmap Assignments)

 

Week #5-8

Material Subject
Text Read Chapter 4 “The Rise and Fall of Boyd v. United States” from “Comprehensive Criminal Procedure” by Allen, Stuntz, Hoffman, and Livingston 
Roadmap Outline Read Chapter 3 “Foundational Concepts and Principles” and Complete Exercises from “Criminal Procedure: Aspen RoadMap Law Course Outline” 

 

End of Week #8

Study Record Study Record Due (include any Roadmap Assignments)

 

Week #9-12

Material Subject
Text

Read Chapter 5 “The Fourth Amendment” from “Comprehensive Criminal Procedure” by Allen, Stuntz, Hoffman, and Livingston

Read Chapter 6 “The Fifth Amendment” from “Comprehensive Criminal Procedure” by Allen, Stuntz, Hoffman, and Livingston

Roadmap Outline

Read Chapter 4 “Fourth Amendment Regulation of Searches and Seizures” and Complete Exercises from “Criminal Procedure: Aspen RoadMap Law Course Outline”

Read Chapter 5 “Government Involvement in the Commission of Crimes” and Complete Exercises from “Criminal Procedure: Aspen RoadMap Law Course Outline”

Read Chapter 6 “Due Process Clause Regulation of Confessions” and Complete Exercises from “Criminal Procedure: Aspen RoadMap Law Course Outline”

 


 

End of Week #12

Study Record Study Record Due (include any Roadmap Assignments)

 

Week #13-16

Material Subject
Text

Read Chapter 6 “The Fifth Amendment” from “Comprehensive Criminal Procedure” by Allen, Stuntz, Hoffman, and Livingston

Read Chapter 7 “Investigating Complex Crimes” from “Comprehensive Criminal Procedure” by Allen, Stuntz, Hoffman, and Livingston

 
Roadmap Outline

Read Chapter 7 “The Privilege Against Compulsory Self-Incrimination and Confessions: The Doctrine of Miranda v. Arizona” and Complete Exercises from “Criminal Procedure: Aspen RoadMap Law Course Outline”

Read Chapter 8 “The Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel: A Foundation” and Complete Exercises from “Criminal Procedure: Aspen RoadMap Law Course Outline”

 

 

1st TRIMESTER COMPLETED

Study Record Study Record Due (include any Roadmap Assignments)

 

Week #17-20

Material Subject
Text

Read Chapter 7 “Investigating Complex Crimes” from “Comprehensive Criminal Procedure” by Allen, Stuntz, Hoffman, and Livingston

Read Chapter 8 “The Charging Decision” from “Comprehensive Criminal Procedure” by Allen, Stuntz, Hoffman, and Livingston

 
Roadmap Outline

Read Chapter 9 “The Right to Counsel and Confessions” and Complete Exercises from “Criminal Procedure: Aspen RoadMap Law Course Outline”

Read Chapter 10 “The Right to Counsel and Identification Methods” and Complete Exercises from “Criminal Procedure: Aspen RoadMap Law Course Outline”

 

End of Week #20

Study Record Study Record Due (include any Roadmap Assignments)

 

Week #21-24

Material Subject
Text

Read Chapter 9 “Bail, Detention and the Right to a Speedy Trial” from “Comprehensive Criminal Procedure” by Allen, Stuntz, Hoffman, and Livingston

Read Chapter 5 “The Fourth Amendment” from “Comprehensive Criminal Procedure” by Allen, Stuntz, Hoffman, and Livingston

 
Roadmap Outline

Read Chapter 11 “Due Process and Identification Methods” and Complete Exercises from “Criminal Procedure: Aspen RoadMap Law Course Outline”

Read Chapter 12 “Exclusionary Rules” and Complete Exercises from “Criminal Procedure: Aspen RoadMap Law Course Outline”

Practice Exam #1

Complete Questions Listed Below

 

End of Week #24

Study Record Study Record Due (include any Roadmap Assignments)

 

Week #25-28

Material Subject
Text Read Chapter 11 “Discovery and Disclosure” from “Comprehensive Criminal Procedure” by Allen, Stuntz, Hoffman, and Livingston  
Roadmap Outline

Read Chapter 13 “Discovery and Disclosure” and Complete Exercises from “Criminal Procedure: Aspen RoadMap Law Course Outline”

Read Chapter 14 “Bail and Preventive Detention” and Complete Exercises from “Criminal Procedure: Aspen RoadMap Law Course Outline”

 

 

End of Week #28

Study Record Study Record Due (include any Roadmap Assignments)

 

Week #29-32

Material Subject
Text

Read Chapter 9 “Bail, Detention and the Right to a Speedy Trial” from “Comprehensive Criminal Procedure” by Allen, Stuntz, Hoffman, and Livingston

Read Chapter 10 “Guilty Pleas and Plea Bargaining” from “Comprehensive Criminal Procedure” by Allen, Stuntz, Hoffman, and Livingston

 
Roadmap Outline

Read Chapter 15 “Plea Bargaining and Guilty Pleas” and Complete Exercises from “Criminal Procedure: Aspen RoadMap Law Course Outline”

Read Chapter 16 “The Right to A Speedy Prosecution” and Complete Exercises from “Criminal Procedure: Aspen RoadMap Law Course Outline”

 

 

2nd TRIMESTER COMPLETED

Study Record Study Record Due (include any Roadmap Assignments)

 

Week #33-36

Material Subject
Text Read Chapter 12 “The Jury and the Criminal Trial” from “Comprehensive Criminal Procedure” by Allen, Stuntz, Hoffman, and Livingston 
Roadmap Outline Read Chapter 17 “The Right to A Public Trial” and Complete Exercises from “Criminal Procedure: Aspen RoadMap Law Course Outline” 

 

End of Week #36

Study Record Study Record Due (include any Roadmap Assignments)

 

MIDTERM EXAMINATION
Answer and submit the Midterm Examination Questions listed infra.

 

Week #37-40

Material Subject
Text

Read Chapter 14 “Double Jeopardy” from “Comprehensive Criminal Procedure” by Allen, Stuntz, Hoffman, and Livingston

Read Chapter 13 “Sentencing” from “Comprehensive Criminal Procedure” by Allen, Stuntz, Hoffman, and Livingston

Read Chapter 14 “Double Jeopardy” from “Comprehensive Criminal Procedure” by Allen, Stuntz, Hoffman, and Livingston

Read Chapter 15 “Appellate and Collateral Review” from “Comprehensive Criminal Procedure” by Allen, Stuntz, Hoffman, and Livingston

 
Roadmap Outline

Read Chapter 20 “The Guarantee Against Double Jeopardy” and Complete Exercises from “Criminal Procedure: Aspen RoadMap Law Course Outline”

Read Chapter 21 “Appeals of Criminal Convictions” and Complete Exercises from “Criminal Procedure: Aspen RoadMap Law Course Outline”

 

 

End of Week #40

Study Record Study Record Due (include any Roadmap Assignments)

 

Week #41-44

Material Subject
All Review Material for Final Exam
Audio Listen to all (taking notes)

 

End of Week #44

Study Record Study Record Due (include any Roadmap Assignments)

 

Week #45-48

Material Subject
CD-ROM Video Lecture Series #1 thru #15 (review notes)
Audio Listen to all (review notes)
Practice Exam #2 Complete Questions Listed Below

 

FINAL EXAMINATION
Answer and submit the Final Examination Questions listed infra.

3rd TRIMESTER - SUMMER SESSION - COMPLETED

 


 

MIDTERM EXAMINATION ESSAY QUESTIONS

Essay Examination Instructions
Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts in the question, to tell the difference between material facts and immaterial facts, and to discern the points of law and fact upon which the case turns. Your answer should show that you know and understand the pertinent principles and theories of law, their qualifications and limitations, and their relationships to each other.

Your answer should evidence your ability to apply the law to the given facts and to reason in a logical, lawyer-like manner from the premises you adopt to a sound conclusion. Do not merely show that you remember legal principles. Instead, try to demonstrate your proficiency in using and applying them.

If your answer contains only a statement of your conclusions, you will receive little credit. State fully the reasons that support your conclusions, and discuss all points thoroughly.

Your answer should be complete, but you should not volunteer information or discuss legal doctrines that are not pertinent to the solution of the problem.

Unless a question expressly asks you to use California law, you should answer according to legal theories and principles of general application.  

 

Criminal Procedure Question 1

Pat was living in State X when he was arrested and charged with violating a State X criminal statute. Because of overcrowding in State X Penitentiary, however, Pat was forced to await trial while incarcerated in the security wing of Delta Hospital (D), a private hospital for persons with psychiatric disorders, located and incorporated in the neighboring state of Y.

Pat filed a class action complaint against D in a federal district court in State X on behalf of himself, on behalf of 25 similarly situated inmates who were incarcerated at D awaiting trial in State X and on behalf of all such future inmates. The complaint alleged violations of the State Y Prisoners’ Rights Act, which guarantees prisoners, inter alia, the right to safe food. The complaint alleged that the food served at D was often spoiled and contaminated with vermin droppings and that, as a result he suffered continual gastrointestinal disorders. Pat requested $70,000 in damages and an injunction prohibiting D from serving tainted food. D was properly served with a copy of the complaint.

Before D responded to the civil complaint. Pat’s brother paid Pat’s bail. As a result, Pat is no longer detained at D and has returned to State X.  

The federal district court:

  1. Denied a motion by D to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction;
  2. Declined to certify the class on the ground that the class was not large enough;
  3. Denied a motion by D to change venue to a federal district court in state Y; and
  4. Granted a motion by D to dismiss the action as moot.

Was each of the rulings correct? Discuss.

 

Criminal Procedure Question 2

Dan and Vicki had lived together for five years when Vicki ended the relationship. Vicki moved into an apartment with Ann and Ann's boyfriend, Charles. Dan called Vicki repeatedly begging her to come back. She refused. Depressed because of Vicki's refusals, Dan ingested marijuana, cocaine and alcohol. After doing so, he drove to the home of his friend, Frank. He entered the open door and, seeing no one, picked up a knife from the kitchen counter, and walked out. Just as Dan was about to enter his car, Frank returned from the garden and called out to him. Dan turned and brandished the knife. Frank saw that the knife was his but believed Dan's gesture was a wave and a request to borrow the knife. He waved back and Dan drove away.

Dan drove to the apartment where Vicki was staying. As he was about to knock he noticed Charles's name on the mailbox next to Vicki's name. Seething in a jealous rage, he broke the door lock, entered, and assaulted Vicki, stabbing her multiple times with the knife he had taken from Frank's house. Ann and Charles tried to subdue Dan, but he stabbed them too. Eventually, by agreeing to go with him, Ann, who was not seriously injured, persuaded Dan to leave. Vicki died before help arrived. Charles was hospitalized for several days but survived.

Dan drove back to Frank's house and told him what had happened. Frank was horrified but agreed to say nothing and buried the knife in his garden. Frank men called a cab and gave Dan money to pay the fare. Dan directed the cab to take him and Ann to the hospital, where Dan was arrested. Later, at the police station, Dan claimed to remember nothing of what had occurred.

Based on evidence of the above facts what crimes can be charged against Dan and Frank, separately, on what theories might each of the crimes be charged and what defenses might Dan and Frank each reasonably raise? Discuss.  

 


 

FINAL EXAMINATION ESSAY QUESTIONS

 

Criminal Procedure Question 1

Duce and Cody were arrested for an armed robbery. Duce was taken to the police station, where she was interrogated without Miranda warnings. After three hours of questioning, a police officer asked Duce if she would consent to a search of her automobile. Duce consented, and a search of her car revealed a handgun and items stolen in the robbery, which were seized by the officers. When told what the officers found, Duce confessed to driving the getaway car in the robbery.

Cody, who did not know that Duce had confessed, then confessed and named Duce as the driver of the getaway car.

At their joint trial on a charge of robbery, Duce moved to exclude her confession from evidence based solely on the failure of the police to give her Miranda warnings. Based only on that violation, the court granted the motion to exclude her confession.

Duce also moved to exclude from evidence the handgun and the stolen items seized from her automobile, claiming that she was not aware that she had a right to refuse consent to search. The prosecutor conceded that the police had no authority to search the car absent consent, but asserted that Duce’s consent was obtained without coercion. The court denied the motion, finding that the consent was voluntary.

The handgun and the stolen items seized from Duce’s car were admitted into evidence at the joint trial of Duce and Cody over objections by each defendant. Cody’s confession, redacted to eliminate any reference to Duce, was admitted into evidence against Cody.

At trial Duce testified, denying that she drove the getaway car and that she knew the handgun or the stolen items were in her car. She testified that she had loaned her car to Cody on the day of the robbery. In rebuttal the prosecutor called a police officer that testified, over objection by Duce, to the contents of Duce’s confession and to the contents of Cody’s complete unredacted confession implicating Duce as the driver of the getaway car.

Assume that in each instance all appropriate constitutional and evidentiary objections were made.  

  1. Did the court err in admitting the handgun and the stolen items seized from Duce's car against Duce and Cody? Discuss.
  2. Did the court err in admitting the police officer's testimony about Duce's confession? Discuss.
  3. Did the court err in admitting the police officer's testimony about Cody's complete unredacted confession? Discuss.

 

 

Criminal Procedure Question 2

Information gained from a constitutionally proper wiretap gave law enforcement agents a reasonable suspicion that Deft was a cash courier in a money-laundering scheme associated with distribution of narcotics. To obtain probable cause to arrest Deft and to build their case against other participants, the agents placed Deft under surveillance. They saw her drive into an office park complex and legally park the car. She left a male companion in the car and walked into the complex carrying a soft cloth briefcase. As she walked Deft engaged in evasive actions the agents recognized as moves designed either to reveal or lose any potential surveillance.

Deft walked into a building where the agents lost sight of her for a few moments. When she emerged and approached the car, it became apparent to the agents that she was aware of the surveillance. The agents approached Deft and asked her questions about the money-laundering scheme. During this conversation, agent Able seized and squeezed the briefcase held by Deft. When he felt a lump he could not identify, Able reached into the briefcase and felt a heavily taped bound object about three inches in diameter which he removed from the briefcase. Able will testify that he has seen such objects in the past, and they frequently contained drugs. Able cut the package open and discovered a substance that a field test indicated was cocaine. He arrested Deft.

Without Miranda advice and waivers, Able asked Deft if she owned an automobile. She replied that she did and pointed to the car the agents had seen her park. She refused Abel’s request that she consent to a search of the car. The agents nonetheless searched the car, finding a loaded handgun concealed under the dashboard.

Deft is awaiting trial on charges of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and unlawful possession of a handgun.

On what ground or grounds under the United States Constitution might Deft move to suppress:  

  1. The narcotics? Discuss.
  2. Deft's statement that she owned the car? Discuss.
  3. The handgun? Discuss.

 

 

Criminal Procedure Question 3

A Picasso sketch was taken from Town museum by a burglar. The sketch was recovered three weeks later when an art dealer in Switzerland read about the theft. The dealer recognized the sketch described in the article as the sketch he had purchased from a young woman with an American accent.

Police had been unable to identify the burglar or match fingerprints found at the scene of the theft. Sally is a petty thief with convictions for burglary. Tec, a Town police investigator, believed Sally had knowledge of the theft. He decided to trick Sally into providing information. Tec went to Sally’s home, told her he was arresting her for the museum burglary and theft and handcuffed her. After Tec advised Sally of her Miranda rights, Sally immediately replied: “Hey, come on. I didn’t do the museum job. Donna did. She told me she broke in and took a drawing. She said she sold it in Switzerland.”

Based on Sally’s information, the grand jury issued a subpoena ordering Donna to appear, submit to fingerprinting, and produce her passport. After the court denied Donna’s motion to quash the subpoena and ordered her to comply, she submitted to fingerprinting and turned over her passport. Her fingerprints were found to match those in the museum. Her passport bore a date stamp showing that the holder had entered Switzerland two days after the museum burglary.

Sally has left Town and cannot be located. Donna has been charged with burglary and theft. Donna moved to exclude the following evidence:

  1.  Sally's statement to Tec, which Donna claims: (a) is hearsay, the admission of which would violate her rights under the Sixth Amendment, and (b) was obtained in violation of Sally's rights under the Fourth Amendment;
  2. The fingerprints she provided, which Donna claims were obtained in violation of her rights under the Fifth Amendment and are the "fruits" of an unlawful search and seizure; and
  3. Donna's passport, which she claims was obtained in violation of her rights under the Fifth Amendment.

What should the prosecutor argue in opposition to Donna's motions, and how should the court rule on each? Discuss.

 

Criminal Procedure Question 4

Al, Bob, and Charlie planned to bring 50 cases of whiskey ashore from a ship anchored in the harbor near their town and sell it to a local bar owner. They believed the whiskey had been produced abroad and was subject to a federal import duty. They also knew that smuggling items into this country without paying duty required by the Tariff Act is a crime. In fact, however, the whiskey in this shipment had been produced in the United States.

The three met at Al’s house on Monday and agreed to bring the whiskey ashore by row-boat on Friday night. On Wednesday, however. Bob called Al to say that he and his wife were going to visit relatives that weekend and Bob would not be able to help bring the whiskey ashore. Al said that was all right, that he and Charlie could handle the boat and the whiskey, but that Bob would naturally be cut out of the profits on this job.

When Charlie learned from Al that there would be just the two of them he became apprehensive, but he was afraid of what Al might do to him if he tried to back out. Therefore, on Thursday, Charlie informed the police of Al’s plan and did not show up on Friday night. Al was arrested on Friday night as he came ashore, alone, with the whiskey and was loading it into a truck he had stolen from a nearby Coast Guard parking lot.

Al, Bob, and Charlie have been charged with theft of the truck and conspiracy to import dutiable goods without payment of duty.

Al has also been charged with attempt to import dutiable goods without payment of duty. He has told Len, his attorney that he plans to testify that he knew all along that the whiskey was produced in the United States.

Based on the above facts:

1. Should Al, Bob or Charlie be convicted of:

(a) Conspiracy to violate the tariff Act? Discuss.
(b) Theft of the truck? Discuss.

2. Should Al be convicted of attempt to import dutiable goods without payment of duty in violation of the Tariff Act? Discuss.

3. If Al insists on testifying that he knew the whiskey was produced in the United States, what, if anything, should Len do? Discuss.

 


 

 

 

2nd Year Multi-State Method MBE

Multiple Choice Questions Midterm & Final

 

Criminal Procedure

Midterm:  #1 - 8
Final:  #9 - 19

 

Question 1

Jack and Paul planned to hold up a bank. They drove to the bank in Jack's car. Jack entered while Paul remained as lookout in the car. After a few moments, Paul panicked and drove off. Jack looked over the various tellers, approached one and whispered nervously, "Just hand over the cash. Don't look around, don't make a false move - or it's your life." The teller looked at the fidgeting Jack, laughed, flipped him a dollar bill and said, "Go on, beat it." Flustered, Jack grabbed the dollar and left. Soon after leaving the scene, Paul was stopped by the police for speeding. Noting his nervous condition, the police asked Paul if they might search the car. Paul agreed. The search turned up heroin concealed in the lid of the trunk.

The prosecution's best argument to sustain the validity of the search of Jack's car would be that

A. the search was reasonable under the circumstances, including Paul's nervous condition
B. the search was incident to a valid arrest
C. Paul had, under the circumstances, sufficient standing and authority to consent to the search
D. exigent circumstances, including the inherent mobility of a car, justified the search

 

Question 2

Detective received information from Informant, who had given reliable information many times in the past, that Harry was a narcotics dealer. Specifically, Informant said that, two months before, he had visited Harry's apartment with Bill and that on that occasion he saw Harry sell Bill some heroin. Detective knew that Informant, Harry, and Bill were friends. Thereafter, Detective put all this information into an affidavit form, appeared before a magistrate, and secured a search warrant for Harry's apartment. The search turned up a supply of heroin. Harry's motion to suppress introduction of the heroin into evidence will most probably be

A. granted, because a search warrant cannot validly be issued solely on the basis of an informant's information.
B. granted, because the information supplied to Detective concerned an occurrence too remote in time to justify a finding of probable cause at the time of the search.
C. granted, because a search for "mere evidence" alone is improper and illegal.
D. denied, because Informant had proven himself reliable in the past and the information he gave turned out to be correct.

 

Question 3

Defendant sold heroin to Morgan. Morgan was later stopped by police for speeding. The police searched Morgan's car and found the heroin concealed under the rear seat. Defendant is charged with illegally selling heroin.

Defendant's motion to prevent introduction of the heroin into evidence will most probably be

A. granted, because the heroin was not in plain view
B. granted, because the scope of the search was excessive
C. denied, because Defendant has no standing to object to the search
D. denied, because the search was proper as incident to a valid full custodial arrest

 

 Questions 4-5 are based on the following fact situation

While Defendant was in jail on a procuring charge, his landlord called the police because rent had not been paid and because he detected a disagreeable odor coming from Defendant's apartment into the hallways. The police officer that responded to the call knew that Defendant was in jail. He recognized the stench coming from Defendant's apartment as that of decomposing flesh and, without waiting to obtain a warrant and using the landlord's passkey, entered the apartment with the landlord's consent. The lease to these premises gave the landlord a right of entry, at any reasonable hour, for the purpose of making repairs. The police officer found a large trunk in the bedroom, which seemed to be the source of the odor. Upon breaking it open, he found the remains of Rosette, Defendant's former mistress.

 

Question 4

The landlord's consent to the police officer's search of Defendant's apartment is

A. a waiver of Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights because a landlord has implied consent to enter a tenant's apartment
B. a waiver of Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights because the lease gave the landlord express authority to enter the premises
C. not a waiver of Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights because the landlord lacked probable cause to believe a crime was then in the process of commission
D. not a waiver of Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights because the landlord had neither actual nor apparent authority to permit the entry

 

Question 5

If Defendant undertakes to challenge the search of his apartment, he has

A. standing because the items seized in the search were incriminating in nature
B. standing because he still has a sufficient interest in the apartment even while in jail
C. no standing because his landlord authorized the search
D. no standing because he was out of the apartment when it occurred and had not paid his rent

 

Questions 6-7 are based on the following fact situation

In 1971 two police officers in a squad car received a radio message from headquarters to be on the lookout for a large green sedan occupied by two men who had just committed a bank robbery. An hour later they saw the car heading out of town. They had the car pull to the side of the road and walked over to the car. One of the officers told the occupants that they were under arrest for bank robbery. Thereupon Dean, the driver, suddenly put the car in gear and drove off. One officer clung to the car. The other officer pursued in the squad car. Unable to overtake the car and afraid he would lose sight of it in heavy traffic, the officer fired, first a warning shot and then at the car. He struck Evans, the passenger sitting next to Dean. Dean was caught five minutes later. Evans died from loss of blood. Dean was taken to the police station. The bank robbers had handed the teller a handwritten note, demanding the money. Dean was required over his protest, to write out the words of the note and have his fingerprints taken. He was then, for the first time, allowed to telephone a lawyer, who thereafter represented him. Dean was charged with the murder of Evans.

 

Question 6

The prosecution, after introducing the robbers' note to the teller, also offers in evidence Dean's writing of the words on the note at the request of the police. On appropriate action, the court should rule this

A. Admissible
B. Inadmissible, because he was not advised that his handwriting sample could be admitted into evidence against him
C. Inadmissible, because he was not advised of his right to refuse to give a handwriting sample
D. Inadmissible, because he had not been informed he had a right to have counsel present

 

Question 7

Suppose the jury finds Dean guilty of the murder of Evans. Before passing sentence, the judge hears argument by both parties. The prosecutor introduces the criminal record of Dean, showing two prior convictions for felony. Defense counsel admits the correctness of the record. The court imposes the maximum sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, the appellate court should hold that this sentence

A. Violated Dean's right to due process, in that it deprived him of a fair and unbiased tribunal
B. Was in error because the introduction of new evidence after the trial deprived Dean of a fair trial
C. Was not in error
D. Deprived Dean of the right to confront the witness against him

 

Question 8

A grand jury was investigating a bank robbery. The only information known to the prosecutor was a rumor that Taylor might have been involved. The grand jury subpoenaed Taylor. He refused to answer questions about the robbery and was granted use immunity. He then testified that he and Simmons had robbed the bank. The grand jury indicted both Taylor and Simmons for the bank robbery. The prosecutor had no evidence as to the identity of the robbers except the testimony of Simmons and Taylor.

At Taylor's trial, his objections to Simmons' being permitted to testify should be

A. Sustained, because the prosecutor may not bargain away the rights of one co-defendant in a deal with another
B. Sustained, because Simmons' testimony was acquired as a result of Taylor's grand jury testimony
C. Overruled, because the police suspected Taylor even before he testified in the grand jury hearing
D. Overruled, because a witness cannot be precluded from testifying if his testimony is given voluntarily

 

Question 9

Davison was driving through an apartment building area plagued with an unusually high incidence of burglaries and assaults. Acting pursuant to a police department plan to combat crime by the random stopping of automobiles in the area between midnight and 6:00 a.m., a police officer stopped Davison and asked him for identification. As Davison handed the officer his license, the officer directed a flashlight into the automobile and saw what appeared to be the barrel of a shotgun protruding from under the front seat on the passenger side of the car. The officer ordered Davison from the car, searched him, and discovered marijuana cigarettes and a shotgun.

At Davison's trial for unlawful possession of narcotics, his motion to suppress the use of the marijuana as evidence should be

A. Sustained, because the marijuana was discovered as a result of the unlawful stopping of Davison's automobile
B. Sustained, because the use of the flashlight constituted a search of the interior of Davison's automobile without probable cause
C. Denied, because the officer's conduct was consistent with the established police plan
D. Denied, because the discovery of the gun in plain view created the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the arrest and search of Davison

 

Question 10

Dillon held up a gasoline station. During the robbery he shot and killed a customer who attempted to apprehend him. Dillon was prosecuted for premeditated murder and convicted. Thereafter, he was indicted for armed robbery of the station. Before the trial, his attorney moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that further proceedings were unconstitutional because of Dillon's prior conviction.

The motion to dismiss should be

A. Granted, because once Dillon was convicted on any of the charges arising out of the robbery, the prosecution was constitutionally stopped from proceeding against Dillon on any charge stemming from the same transaction
B. Granted, because the double jeopardy clause prohibits a subsequent trial on what is essentially a lesser included offense
C. Denied, because there is no constitutional requirement that all known charges against Dillon be brought in the same prosecution
D. Denied, because estoppel does not apply when the defendant is charged with violating two different statutes

 

Question 11

Alford was a suspect in a homicide committed during a robbery of a liquor store. Barber was a friend of Alford. Police telephoned Barber and asked if he would help locate Alford. Barber agreed and met the police officers at headquarters later that night. After a discussion during which police asked questions about Alford and the homicide, Barber said that he wanted to get something "off his chest" and advised the officers that he was in on the robbery but that Alford had shot the owner of the store without his permission or prior knowledge. The officers then for the first time gave Barber his Miranda warnings.

Barber was indicted for felony murder. He moved to prevent the introduction of his statement into evidence. His motion should be

A. Granted, because Barber was effectively in custody and entitled to receive Miranda warnings at the beginning of the discussion
B. Granted, because Barber's rights to counsel and to due process were violated by the interrogation at police headquarters
C. Denied, because his statement was freely and voluntarily given and he was not entitled to Miranda warnings
D. Denied, because by visiting headquarters voluntarily, Barber waived his right to have Miranda warnings at the beginning of the discussion

 

Question 12

Downs was indicted in state court for bribing a public official. During the course of the investigation, police had demanded and received from Downs's bank the records of Down's checking account for the preceding two years. The records contained incriminating evidence.

On the basis of a claim of violation of his constitutional rights, Downs moves to prevent the introduction of the records in evidence. His motion should be

A. Granted, because a search warrant should have been secured for seizure of the records
B. Granted, because the records covered such an extensive period of time that their seizure unreasonably invaded Downs's right of privacy
C. Denied, because the potential destructibility of the records, coupled with the public interest in proper enforcement of the criminal laws, created an exigent situation justifying the seizure
D. Denied, because the records were business records of the bank in which Downs had no legitimate expectation

 

Questions 13-14 are based on the following fact situation

Police received information from an undercover police officer that she had just seen two men (whom she described) in a red pickup truck selling marijuana to schoolchildren near the city's largest high school. A few minutes later, two police officers saw a pickup truck fitting the description a half block from the high school. The driver of the truck matched the description of one of the men described by the undercover officer. The only passenger was a young woman who was In the back of the truck. The police saw her get out and stand at a nearby bus stop. They stopped the truck and searched the driver. In the pocket of the driver's jacket, the police found a small bottle of pills that they recognized as narcotics. They then broke open a locked toolbox attached to the flatbed of the truck and found a small sealed envelope inside. They opened it and found marijuana. They also found a quantity of cocaine in the glove compartment. After completing their search of the driver and the truck, the police went over to the young woman and searched her purse. In her purse, they found a small quantity of heroin. Both the driver and the young woman were arrested and charged with unlawful possession of narcotics.

 

Question 13

If the driver moves to suppress the use as evidence of the marijuana and cocaine found in the search of the truck, the court should

A. Grant the motion as to both the marijuana and the cocaine
B. Grant the motion as to the marijuana but deny it as to the cocaine
C. Deny the motion as to the marijuana but grant it as to the cocaine
D. Deny the motion as to both the marijuana and the cocaine

 

Question 14

If the young woman moves to suppress the use as evidence of the heroin, the court should

A. Grant the motions because she did not fit the description given by the informant and her mere presence does not justify the search
B. Grant the motion, because the police should have seized her purse and then obtained a warrant to search it
C. Deny the motion, because she had been a passenger In the truck and the police had probable cause to search the truck
D. Deny the motion, because she was planning to leave the scene by bus and so exigent circumstances existed

 

Question 15

Suspecting that Scott had slain his wife, police detectives persuaded one of Scott's employees to remove a drinking glass from Scott's office so that it could be used for fingerprint comparisons with a knife found near the body. The fingerprints matched. The prosecutor announced that he would present comparisons and evidence to the grand jury. Scott's lawyer immediately filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the fingerprint comparisons to bar its consideration by the grand jury, contending that the evidence was illegally acquired. The motion should be

A. Granted, because, if there was no probable cause, the grand jury should not consider the evidence
B. Granted, because the employee was acting as a police agent and his seizure of the glass without a warrant was unconstitutional
C. Denied, because motions based on the exclusionary rule are premature in grand jury proceedings
D. Denied, because the glass was removed from Scott's possession by a private citizen and not a police officer

 

Question 16

Dan entered the police station and announced that he wanted to confess to a murder. The police advised Dan of the Miranda warnings, and Dan signed a written waiver. Dan described the murder in detail and pinpointed the location where a murder victim had been found a few weeks before. Later, a court appointed psychiatrist determined that Dan was suffering from a serious mental illness that interfered with his ability to make rational choices and to understand his rights and that the psychosis had induced his confession.

Dan's confession is

A. Admissible, because there was no coercive police conduct in obtaining Dan's statement
B. Admissible, because Dan was not in custody
C. Inadmissible, because Dan's confession was a product of his mental illness and was therefore involuntary
D. Inadmissible, because under these circumstances, there was no valid waiver of Miranda warnings

 

Question 17

Miller was indicted in a state court in January 1985 for a robbery and murder that occurred in December 1982. He retained counsel, who filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Miller had been prejudiced by a 25-month delay in obtaining the indictment. Thereafter, Miller, with his counsel, appeared in court for arraignment and stated that he wished to plead guilty. The presiding judge asked Miller whether he understood the nature of the charges, possible defenses, and maximum allowable sentences. Miller replied that he did, and the judge reviewed all of those matters with him. He then asked Miller whether he understood that he did not have to plead guilty. When Miller responded that he knew that, the judge accepted the plea and sentenced Miller to 25 years.

Six months later, Miller filed a motion to set aside his guilty plea on each of the following grounds. Which of these grounds provides a constitutional basis for relief?

A. The judge did not rule on his motion to dismiss before accepting the guilty plea
B. The judge did not determine that Miller had robbed and killed the victim
C. The judge did not determine whether Miller understood that he had a right to jury trial
D. The judge did not determine whether the prosecutor's file contained any undisclosed exculpatory material

 

Question 18

A grand jury Indicted Alice on a charge of arson, and a valid warrant was issued for her arrest. Paul, a police officer, arrested Alice and informed her of what the warrant stated.

However, hoping that Alice might say something incriminating, he did not give her Miranda warnings. He placed her in the back seat of his patrol car and was driving her to the police station when she said, "Look, I didn't mean to burn the building; it was an accident. I was just burning some papers in a wastebasket." At the station, after being given Miranda warnings, Alice stated she wished to remain silent and made no other statements. Alice moved to suppress the use of her statement to Paul as evidence on two grounds: first, that the statement was acquired without giving Miranda warnings, and second, that the police officer had deliberately elicited her incriminating statement after she was in custody.

As to Alice's motion to suppress, the court should

A. Deny the motion
B. Grant the motion only on the basis of the first ground stated
C. Grant the motion only on the basis of the second ground stated
D. Grant the motion on either ground

 

Question 19

Miller's, a department store, had experienced a growing incidence of shoplifting. At the store's request, the police concealed Best, a woman who was a detective, at a vantage point above the women's apparel fitting rooms where she could see into these rooms, where customers tried on clothes. Detective Best saw Davis enter a fitting room, stuff a dress into her pocketbook, leave the fitting room, and start for the street door. By prearranged signal, Best notified another police officer near the door, which detained Davis as Davis started to go out into the street. Davis was placed under arrest, and the dress was retrieved from her purse. Davis is charged with shoplifting.

Her motion to prevent the introduction of the dress into evidence will be

A. Granted, because the police should have secured a search warrant to search her bag
B. Granted, because a customer has a reasonable expectation of privacy while using a department store fitting room
C. Denied, because the search and seizure were made incident to a valid arrest based on probable cause
D. Denied, because Detective Best could see into the room and thus Davis's activities were legitimately in plain view

Log in