CT Bar Criminal Law & Evidence 5

Question 1

A grand jury subpoenas a corporate officer to produce company documents. The officer asserts Fifth Amendment privilege. Is the privilege valid?

Accepted Answer

No, because the Fifth Amendment privilege is personal and does not protect corporate records held in a representative capacity

Answer

The Fifth Amendment privilege is personal and does not extend to corporate records; a corporate officer who holds documents in a representative capacity cannot refuse production based on personal self-incrimination.

Question 2

A defendant is acquitted of robbery. He is later charged with felony murder based on the same robbery. Does Double Jeopardy bar the felony murder charge?

Accepted Answer

Yes, because the Blockburger test shows robbery is a lesser included offense of felony murder here

Answer

Under the Blockburger test and collateral estoppel principles, acquittal on the robbery charge precludes relitigation of the robbery element essential to the felony murder charge.

Question 3

Which Connecticut-specific rule governs the admissibility of polygraph evidence in criminal proceedings?

Accepted Answer

Polygraph results are generally inadmissible in Connecticut courts

Answer

Connecticut courts have consistently held polygraph evidence inadmissible due to questions about reliability and the risk of undue influence on the jury.

Question 4

A defendant charged with drug trafficking seeks to suppress evidence found in a search of a co-defendant's apartment where the defendant was a guest. Does the defendant have standing to challenge the search?

Accepted Answer

Yes, if the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched

Answer

Standing to challenge a search requires a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched; an overnight guest may have standing, but a casual visitor generally does not.

Question 5

Which element is NOT required to establish the crime of conspiracy under the traditional common law approach?

Accepted Answer

An overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy

Answer

At traditional common law, conspiracy was complete upon the agreement itself with the requisite intent; no overt act was required, though many modern statutes including Connecticut's require one.

(CT Bar) Connecticut Bar Exam Practice Test

(CT Bar) Connecticut Bar Exam Practice Test

CT Bar Criminal Law & Evidence 5