MBE _ Crim Pro Flashcards
Validity of a Search Warrant - What are the requirements? Can a D invalidate the warrant?
A search warrant is presumptively valid if it (1) is issued by a neutral and detached magistrate based on probable cause, (2) is supported by a sworn oath or affidavit, and (3) particularly describes the place to be searched and items to be seized.
However, a defendant may invalidate the warrant if the defendant can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the application contained a false statement necessary to the finding of probable cause and (2) the officer knew that the statement was false or recklessly disregarded its falsity.
Is testimony given under a grant of immunity voluntary?
Testimony given under a grant of immunity is coerced and therefore involuntary. Any criminal-trial use of such testimony outside the context of a perjury prosecution (e.g., for impeachment) is a denial of due process.
A person subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury who has invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination can be compelled to testify if he/she is granted use and derivative use immunity. This prevents the person’s testimony, and any evidence derived from it, from being used against him/her in any way that could lead to a criminal prosecution. But the government may still prosecute the person using evidence obtained from independent sources.
However, in New Jersey v. Portash, the U.S. Supreme Court held that testimony given under a grant of immunity is coerced and therefore involuntary. And any criminal-trial use of such testimony outside the context of a perjury prosecution constitutes a denial of due process. As a result, it is not constitutionally proper for the prosecutor to impeach the mayor’s testimony with a statement that he made before the grand jury.
Can inconsistent verdicts be challenged by a D?
A guilty verdict cannot be challenged on the ground that it is inconsistent with another verdict rendered by the same jury.
Inconsistent verdicts are those that are logically incompatible. For example, a jury that finds a defendant not guilty of one offense but guilty of another that was predicated upon commission of the first offense has rendered an inconsistent verdict. In such circumstances, the guilty verdict cannot be challenged based upon the inconsistency. The rationale behind this rule is that the jury may have reached its decision to acquit through mistake, compromise, or leniency and that its decision should not be disturbed.*
*While a challenge based solely on verdict inconsistency is not permitted, a criminal defendant may still challenge the conviction on the ground that the evidence was legally insufficient to convict.
Is there a right to demand a jury trial in civil cases?
Civil litigants in federal court may demand a jury trial for any legal claim in which the amount in controversy exceeds $20. A legal claim is a claim that seeks a monetary remedy to compensate for loss (e.g., punitive damages).
The demand must be (1) served within 14 days after the last pleading directed to that issue is served, and (2) filed with the court within a reasonable time thereafter. See FRCP 38. The demand can be included in a pelading or set forth in a separate document. And the right to a jury trial is waived if the aforementioned requirements are not met.
Under what circumstances is counsel required at a probation-revocation proceeding?
- Due process requires counsel at a probation-revocation proceeding if the person (1) denies committing the alleged violation or (2) asserts that complex reasons justified or mitigated it.
- The Sixth Amendment guarantees this right if a sentence for the underlying offense (1) has not been imposed and (2) will be imposed if the probation is revoked.
