Constitutional Protections of Accused Persons Flashcards
A defendant was lawfully arrested for bank robbery, without an arrest warrant. He was not given Miranda warnings but was immediately taken to a police station, where he and five other men were placed in a lineup to be viewed by the bank teller who had been on duty at the time of the robbery. Each man was required to say the words spoken by the bank robber: “Give me all your money. I’ve got a gun.” After all the men in the lineup spoke those words, the teller identified the defendant as the robber.
The defendant subsequently moved to suppress the teller’s testimony, claiming that the lineup violated his privilege against self-incrimination. At the suppression hearing, the teller testified that she had not gotten a good look at the robber’s face, because the robber had been wearing a hat pulled down over most of his face, but that she was certain the defendant was the robber because she had recognized his voice at the lineup.
Should the defendant’s motion be granted?
A. No, because being required to speak at the lineup, while compelled, was not testimonial or communicative.
B. No, because testimony of a witness based on firsthand observation is not subject to exclusion as the fruit of the poisonous tree.
C. Yes, because the defendant was never informed that he could refuse to make a statement and that any statement could be used as evidence against him.
D. Yes, because the defendant was compelled to speak at the lineup, and this compelled speech led to the witness’s identification testimony.
A. No, because being required to speak at the lineup, while compelled, was not testimonial or communicative.
A defendant was charged with the capital offense of first-degree murder, for which the only available penalties were death or life in prison without parole. During jury selection, the trial court, over the defendant’s objection, granted the prosecution’s for-cause challenge of five prospective jurors who indicated upon questioning by both parties that they personally were opposed to the death penalty and were unsure if they could ever vote to impose it. The jury convicted the defendant and, following a separate sentencing hearing, sentenced him to death.
On appeal, the defendant’s only argument was that excusing the prospective jurors violated his federal constitutional right to be tried by a jury chosen from a fair cross section of the community.
How should the court of appeals rule on the conviction and the death sentence?
A. Affirm both.
B. Affirm the conviction, but reverse the death sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing before a judge.
C. Affirm the conviction, but reverse the death sentence and remand for resentencing to life in prison.
D. Reverse both.
A. Affirm both.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to be tried by an impartial jury.
Impartiality requires: 1) a jury made up of a fair-cross section of the community and 2) an unbiased impaneled jury.
In order to ensure an impartial jury during the guilt and sentencing phase in a capital punishment case, a prosecutor can challenge jurors for cause.
A federal statute designed to stop organized crime enumerated certain activities as crimes and provided that, in addition to charging these activities as the crimes they constitute, the activities would also constitute the criminal act of intentional furtherance of the goals of organized crime. Among the enumerated activities was the interstate distribution of cocaine. The statute’s constitutionality has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
The defendant was arrested by federal agents after having driven a truck containing cocaine from Florida to Illinois, where he delivered his illicit cargo as directed. At trial, the defendant is convicted of interstate distribution of cocaine in violation of federal law, and convicted of a violation of the federal statute above.
How may the defendant be sentenced?
A. Under either statute, but not both.
B. Under both statutes.
C. Only under the statute that carries a lesser maximum sentence.
D. Only under the statute that carries a greater maximum sentence.
B. Under both statutes.
