Crim Pro

Question 1

D’s Affirmative defense

Answer 1

The state may impose
the burden of proof upon the defendant regarding an affirmative defense, such as insanity or self-defense.

Question 2

D’s Defensive Defense

Answer 2

Due process requires the burden to remain with the prosecution because the defendant has the right to
present defensive evidence, including an alibi defense that raises a reasonable doubt as to an element of the crime.

Question 3

Warrant Exception (Emergency Aid)

Answer 3

The emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement allows officers to enter in order to render emergency assistance to an occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury. The officer needs a reasonable belief that a warrantless entry is necessary to keep someone from harming themselves or others.

Question 4

Warrant Exception (Public schools)

Answer 4

To be valid, the school itself must have a reasonable suspicion that the student is involved in shady activities. NOTE: Police officers cannot circumvent Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches by having a private party conduct the otherwise illegal search.

Question 5

Grand Jury (Wild West)

Answer 5

A witness cannot be compelled to provide potentially incriminating testimony unless the witness is granted at least use and derivative use immunity. Use and derivative use immunity guarantees that the testimony obtained and evidence located by means of the testimony will not be used against the witness.

Question 6

Insanity Defense (Facts)

Answer 6

No state is constitutionally
required to recognize any form of insanity defense. And if a state does recognize an insanity defense, it is permissible to shift the burden to the defendant to prove it as an affirmative
defense.

Question 7

Eighth Amendment (Juveline)

Answer 7

The Eighth Amendment prohibits punishment that is disproportionately excessive in relation to the committed crime. Consequently, it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment to impose mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole on a person who was a minor when the crime was committed.

Question 8

5th Amendment (Self-Incrimination x Corp.)

Answer 8

The Fifth Amendment protects persons from being compelled to give self-incriminating testimony by the
government. This privilege is personal and individual; it does not apply to corporations.

Question 9

5th Amendment (Self-Incrimination)

Answer 9

In order to successfully assert the privilege against self-incrimination, a witness must demonstrate that the information
sought by the government is: (i) compelled; (ii) incriminating; and (iii) testimonial. A witness’ statement is testimonial when it relates to an assertion of fact. Business records are not testimonial.

Question 10

5th Amendment (Self-Incrimination) (Grand Jury Subpoena)

Answer 10

Witnesses compelled by subpoena to appear before a grand jury are entitled to receive immunity in exchange for their testimony. The grant of immunity impairs the witness’s right to invoke the Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination as a legal basis for refusing to testify.

Question 11

Feds v. State in Criminal Proceedings

Answer 11

States may provide greater protections in their criminal justice system than required by the federal Constitution. Thus, the state police cannot excuse their lack of compliance with the lower standard set by the feds when their state has a higher standard.

Question 12

Eigth Amendment (Intellectually Disabled People)

Answer 12

The cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment prohibits imposing the death penalty
on a person with a severe intellectual disability.

Question 13

Fourth Amendment (DNA Samples)

Answer 13

A statute requiring collection of DNA samples from felony arrestees does not violate the
Fourth Amendment.

Question 14

Eighth Amendment [Felony Murder]

Answer 14

The death penalty may not be imposed as a punishment for felony murder upon an accomplice who “did not take or attempt or intend to take life, or intend that lethal force be employed.” But the death penalty may be imposed on someone if he participated in major ways in the underlying felony.

Question 15

Warrant Exception (Plain View)

Answer 15

The plain view doctrine, allows the police to make a warrantless seizure when they: (i) are legitimately on the premises; (ii) discover evidence, fruits, or instrumentalities of a crime, or contraband; (iii) see such evidence in plain view; and (iv) have probable cause to believe or it is immediately apparent that the item is evidence, contraband, or a fruit or instrumentality of a crime. Note: If the police must do something (e.g., lift a stack of paper to find evidence) the plain view doctrine will no longer work.

Question 16

Arrest Warrant (Limitations)

Answer 16

When the police have a valid arrest warrant, however, they are not authorized to forcibly enter the home unless there is probable cause to believe the person named is on the premises.

Question 17

Directed Verdict in Criminal Cases

Answer 17

A directed verdict is a ruling entered by a trial judge after determining that there is no legally sufficient evidentiary
basis for a reasonable jury to reach a different conclusion. The judge can order a directed verdict for the defense if
she believes that the jury could not possibly find that the state met its burden of proof as to the guilt of the defendant.
A judge presiding in a criminal case, however, can never direct a verdict for the state on an issue that is for the jury to
decide, including the defendant’s guilt or innocence.

Question 18

Miranda Warning (Parolees)

Answer 18

A Miranda warning is required whenever a suspect is in custody and being subjected to custodial interrogation. For parolees, the “in custody” requirement is not met because a probationer or parolee is under a general
obligation to appear and answer questions truthfully.

Question 19

Miranda Warning (Hot Pursuit of Suspect)

Answer 19

A Miranda warning is required whenever a suspect is in custody and being subjected to custodial interrogation. E.g., If police is chasing a suspect and pin him down, the suspect is likely in custody at that point. Asking the suspect questions that will elicit an incriminating response before giving him the Miranda warning is a violation.

Question 20

Sixth Amendment (Right to Counsel)

Answer 20

Once a defendant is indicted, the right to counsel attaches, and the prosecution and/or police may not use deception to deliberately elicit statements related to the crime unless he is
given access to counsel or provides a valid waiver to have counsel present.

Question 21

Double Jeopardy

Answer 21

Jeopardy attaches during a jury trial at the empaneling and swearing of the jury, not at the returning of a verdict. Subsequently, it does not matter that a verdict was not entered here. Once jeopardy attaches at the swearing of the jury and no other exception exists (manifest necessity–a hung jury or misconduct by the defendant), the defendant may not be tried twice without
violating double jeopardy.

Question 22

Fourth Amendment (Open Field Doctrine)

Answer 22

A person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in objects held out to the public. Further, under the open
fields doctrine, areas outside the curtilage (dwelling house and outbuildings) are subject to entry and search and
unprotected by the Fourth Amendment. Even buildings such as barns are considered to be outside the curtilage of a
house.

Question 22

Good Faith Exception

Answer 22

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that if the police reasonably believe that the warrant they have been
issued is valid, the exclusionary rule will not apply to bar the items seized from being introduced at the trial of the
person whose rights were violated by the search (even if the warrant ends up being invalid).

Question 23

Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)

Answer 23

The Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, although presumptive and powerful, is not absolute. A
defendant can forfeit that right by behaving in an unruly and disruptive manner, and by refusing to heed a warning to abide by the court rules.

Question 24

Protective Sweep Pursuant to a Valid Arrest Warrant

Answer 24

When the police enter an area pursuant to a valid warrant and make an arrest, they may make a protective sweep of the area beyond the defendant’s wingspan if they believe accomplices may be present. This exception is based on protecting the officers’ safety.

Question 25

Miranda Right (Right to Counsel)

Answer 25

The prohibition against questioning a detainee after he has invoked his right to counsel lasts the entire time the detainee is in custody for interrogation purposes, plus 14 more days after the detainee has returned to his “normal life.” After returning to his “normal life,” the detainee can be questioned regarding the same matter upon receiving a fresh set of Miranda warnings.

Question 26

Confrontation Clause

Answer 26

Under the Confrontation Clause, an accused has the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him. A hearsay statement will not be admitted-even if it falls within a hearsay exception-when: (i) the statement is offered against the accused in a criminal case; (ii) the declarant is unavailable; (iii) the statement was testimonial in nature; and (iv) the accused had no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant’s “testimonial” statement prior to trial.

Question 27

Confrontation Clause (testimonial v non-testimonial)

Answer 27

The Supreme Court has established that if the primary purpose of police interrogation is to enable the police to help in an ongoing emergency, statements made in the course of the interrogation are nontestimonial. When the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to a later criminal prosecution, statements are testimonial.