Blog

Criminal Litigation Fall 2015 You have three(3) ways to complete the exam. You may: 1) Complete Sections I and II, and three(3) of the questions from Section III; 2) Complete either Section I or II and four (4) questions from Section III; 3) Complete five (5) of the questions from Section III. 1. Impossibility of completing the crime is a not a good defense to an attempt charge. 2. Officer Johnson was patrolling in a rural area and as he drove down one country road he saw what he believed was marijuana growing in a soybean field. He stopped the car and walked across the field to get a closer look. It was a large cultivated patch of marijuana. The marijuana was seized and the owner of the field was arrested on the appropriate drug charges. The owner of the property challenged the search claiming that a warrant was needed to do a legal search in these circumstances. The prosecutor disagrees. The judge will agree with the prosecutor and include the evidence. 3. Officer Bob knocked on your door late on Saturday night, told you they are investigating a kidnapping, and asked if he may come in to talk and “look around.” You hesitated a moment but when Officer Bob stated that he hates to use the warrant because it will seem like you are being uncooperative and judges hate defendants who do not cooperate, you consent to letting him enter and look around. While he was talking to you, Officer Bob casually opened the desk in your living room and found a two-ounce bag of marijuana. Officer Bob seized the drugs and arrested you for possession. The search and seizure described will not withstand judicial scrutiny under the consent exception to the warrant requirement and will instead be excluded. 4. Bert is having dinner with his associates in a private room at a local steakhouse. The room has doors that close it off to the general public. Bert had asked that once dinner was served that the doors be closed and that the wait staff not enter the room until summoned by Bert. These instructions are followed just as Bert requested and once dinner is served and the staff has left, Bert and his associates begin to discuss their human trafficking business. In the middle of the conversation, another patron, Karen, mistakenly opens the door looking for a group she is joining for dinner. Karen hastily withdraws, but as she did she heard one of Bert’s associates how much they can expect to profit from the sale of each child. Karen is shocked and calls the police. The subsequent investigation yields sufficient evidence to arrest and charge Bert and his associates. Prior to trial, Bert’s attorney challenges the use of Karen’s statement at trial claiming that Bert had a reasonable expectation of privacy which was violated when Karen opened the door and overheard the conversation. The judge will find against Bert as Karen’s action and subsequent statements do not violate Bert’s Fourth Amendment rights. 5. Incrimina

ting testimony can not be compelled even when the statute of limitations has run on the crime. 6. If an otherwise criminal act is done for religious purposes, freedom of religion can be a defense if: a. the act does little to no harm to the community as a whole b. the defendant is a member of a religious body c. the act is done in good faith d. the act is common to the community 7. Sherry lost her home and was staying in Mark’s home while she tried to get back on her feet. One night the entire household was awakened by a pounding on the door. It was the police and they came into the house and searched for drugs that they believed were there. Sherry was very angry at the police action and wants to challenge the search. Sherry can challenge the search because a. Sherry has an ownership interest in the property. b. Sherry was an overnight (or several nights) guest in this home c. Sherry was a permanent resident in this home d. Sherry has automatic standing because she was present at the time of the search 8. Sheila put some of her personal belonging in a Wal-Mart bag to carry with her while she walked through a local park. She often walked in this park even though it was known as a place where drug deals were made. As Sheila was walking, she was approached by a police officer and while he spoke with her, he casually took the Wal-Mart bag and began looking through it. Sheila protested, but the officer continued to look. The officer’s actions were a violation of Sheila’s constitutional rights because a. Sheila objected and the officer should have honored this by stopping the search b. shopping bags and their contents are always protected from search without a warrant. c. both a and b d. both b and e e. she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bag and its contents 9. Sergeant Wilson was patrolling a local neighborhood when he observed two individuals standing by the doorway of a closed dry cleaning shop. The doorway was shadowed, but Wilson knew one of the men had been questioned regarding a local drug deal and knew that a lot of drug dealing occurred in that neighborhood. After a few minutes of observation, Wilson saw one man hand something to the other. Wilson then approached the two men, spoke to them, and approached them to have a conversation. One of them men turned and walked away quickly, but Wilson placed a hand on the other to detain him. Wilson then patted the man down, felt a hard object in the pocket of the man’s jacket and pulled out a weapon. The man did not have documentation or licensure for the weapon and was arrested on a concealed weapons charge. The officer’s pat-down was based on? and will be upheld in court if challenged. a. prior experience b. probable cause c. clear and convincing evidence d. reasonable suspicion 10. Improperly obtained confessions are barred from use at trial by the a. extradition rule b. exclusionary rule c. immunity rule d. impeachment rule