JUS-631: Topic 5 – 5th Amendment Exercise Instructions: Read through the following

JUS-631: Topic 5 – 5th Amendment Exercise

Instructions: Read through the following examples and determine whether the requirements of a grand jury have been met, whether double jeopardy may apply or whether the right of self-incrimination has been violated. Be sure to cite your sources, including specific court cases.

Note: Each scenario has a required word count of at least 60 words.

A prosecuting attorney calls a grand jury. The prosecuting attorney wishes to prosecute a well-known, high profile drug dealer for distribution of illegal narcotics. The drug dealer has been consistently involved in drug crimes since the age of 16, and has been linked to other serious crimes such as murder and armed robbery, although no charges for those crimes have been filed.

During the review of police reports, it appears some evidence suggests that the drug dealer was not involved in the crimes, but rather a rivaling drug dealer. Despite this potential exculpatory evidence, the prosecutor calls a grand jury.

Is the prosecutor in violation of the law with regard to calling a grand jury? Why or why not?

Search Incident to Lawful Arrest

A defense attorney files a motion to suppress evidence related the prosecution of a client for which an indictment was issued by a grand jury for the distribution of illegal narcotics. The attorney believes that any evidence obtained as a result of the indictment should be excluded because he was never informed of the calling of a grand jury, and the attorney is a well-known attorney on retainer for the suspected drug dealer.

Is the attorney correct that the evidence should be excluded because of a tainted grand jury process? Why or why not?

Kenny Lawson was caught and convicted for armed robbery of a 1st National Bank in Phoenix, Arizona by Arizona courts. Following that conviction, federal prosecutors for the 9th Circuit filed paperwork to prosecute Mr. Lawson for the same armed robbery of 1st National Bank.

Mr. Lawson’s attorney files a motion to terminate the federal prosecution based upon the fact that the State of Arizona has already prosecuted Mr. Lawson for the same crime, arguing that filing such a lawsuit is double jeopardy.

Is Mr. Lawson’s attorney’s argument correct? Why or why not?

Billy Perkins is in prison for armed robbery. The police have reason to believe that Mr. Perkins was involved in a murder of a 73-year-old woman during a burglary of a residential home.

The police utilize an undercover police officer disguised as a transferred cell inmate with the assumed name of John William. Following Mr. William’s introduction to Mr. Perkins’s cell, over the next several weeks, Mr. William and Mr. Perkins get to know one another and Mr. William gains Mr. Perkins’s trust. Mr. William asks Mr. Perkins if he has been involved in any other crimes, to which Mr. Perkins reveals he had been involved in the murder of the 73-year-old woman. The police utilize this information to put Mr. Perkins on trial for murder.

At trial, Mr. Perkins attorney, Mr. Whineglass, makes a motion to suppress the evidence gathered by Mr. William. Mr. Whineglass argues that Mr. Perkins was subject to interrogation by a police agent and therefore subject to an interrogation in violation of his Miranda warnings and in violation of Mr. Perkins right against self-incrimination.

Regarding Mr. Perkins right against self-incrimination, is Mr. Whineglass’s argument correct? Why or why not?

Tran Nguyen was placed under arrest for grand theft auto. During his interrogation by the police, the police ask for his name. Mr. Nguyen claims that he does not have to provide the police with his name because that would be a violation of his right against self-incrimination.

Is Mr. Nguyen’s assertion correct? Why or why not?

Thomas Adams is pulled over while driving a vehicle because of suspicion of DUI. After a series of field sobriety tests on the roadside, Mr. Adams is transported to a DUI van for a blood draw.

At the van, Mr. Adams refuses to voluntarily submit to the blood draw and eventually the police are required to constrain Mr. Adams. At trial, prosecution introduces evidence of Mr. Adams’s refusal to voluntarily submit to the test and evidence of the blood samples drawn.

Mr. Adams’s attorney, Ms. Kendro, argues that the evidence of the refusal to submit to the blood draw and the blood draw itself are violations of Mr. Adams’s right against self-incrimination and moves that the evidence be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.

Are Ms. Kendro’s two assertions correct? Why or why not?

Mr. Lowerson has been arrested by City of Cornville, MN police officers for the suspected molestation of several pubescent girls. During the interrogation, the police utilize lit cigarette butts to burn Mr. Lowerson’s legs in order to compel him to confess to the crimes.

During pretrial proceedings, Mr. Lowerson’s attorney, Ms. Kendro, argues that the confession was not voluntarily given and, therefore, a violation of Mr. Lowerson’s 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and should therefore be suppressed. The judge hearing the motion denies Ms. Kendro’s motion.

Was the judge’s refusal to grant Ms. Kendro’s motion correct? Why or why not?

John Barrows is arrested after a car he was driving strikes and kills a pedestrian. Mr. Barrows is tried on charges of reckless homicide and driving while intoxicated. Mr. Barrows’s attorney, Ms. Kendro, argues that the second trial for driving while intoxicated constitutes double jeopardy, because the crime trials arise out of the alleged impetus of crime.

Is Ms. Kendro’s assertion that the trial is in violation of her client’s right against double jeopardy correct? Why or why not?

Although there may be a showing of probable cause, it was not made by sworn testimony or affidavit, and the warrants issued are invalid.

Susan Smith is convicted of felony murder of a store clerk during an armed robbery. Ms. Smith is then placed on trial by the same jurisdiction for the armed robbery of the store. Ms. Smith’s attorney, Ms. Kendro, argues that the second trial for armed robbery cannot occur because it is a violation of Ms. Smith’s right against double jeopardy.

Is Ms. Kendro’s assertion correct? Why or why not?

Prosecutors call a grand jury, seeking an indictment for money laundering. Several of the members of the grand jury are active members of the local police department. Is the calling of this grand jury proper because it includes members of local law enforcement?

Week 6 Day 1