FREE Bar Exam MBE (Constitutional Law II) Questions and Answers
Which provision of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech?
The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of speech, allowing individuals to express their opinions and ideas without government censorship or punishment.
A pizza and Italian food restaurant owner establishes a new site on a street where another restaurant owner operates a burger joint. The pizza shop owner notices that sales is slow and blames it on his competitor, the burger vendor. The pizzeria proprietor begins to make false claims about the burger joint's inferior ingredients, which he claims are causing ptomaine poisoning in some of the restaurant's patrons. Can a burger establishment owner sue for conversion if he loses customers and revenue to a pizza joint owner?
Conversion is the substantial and intentional interference with another person’s right of ownership over his personal property, such as goods or personal chattels. The unauthorized exercising of total control and dominion over it to the exclusion of the owner is the tort of conversion. The burger restaurateur may be able to sue for defamation, interference with business relationships, or a related tort, but not conversion because there was no interference with his ownership rights to personal property. The taking of "business" is not taking or converting personal property, such as goods or chattels.
At his cattle ranch, where he has a stable of prolific, fertile cows, a pet breeder is in the business of producing calves. The newborn calves require regular care and attention. One of the employees mistakenly leaves the fence door open one day, and a freshly born calf escapes to his neighbor's property. The breeder went to the neighbor's property to get the calf and ensure that it was secure. However, after accessing the property, he was detained for trespassing. The breeder filed an appeal. Will the charge be dismissed by the court?
Restatement 345 makes an exception for someone who enters another's territory under a public or private privilege. Under Restatement 198, one has the right to enter to collect chattel that he or she has immediate possession of and that was placed on the land without permission. "A person is entitled to enter or remain on land in the property of another if it is or reasonably appears to be required to avert substantial harm to... the individual, or his land or chattels," as per Restatement 197. The invader would be classified as a licensee in both cases.
A police officer in a small town stopped a motorist for speeding. He thought the driver was impatient and fidgety, but he couldn't put his finger on why. He checked the car nevertheless and discovered two boxes of freshly canned peaches that had been reported stolen from the driver's neighbor's porch 24 hours before. According to the state criminal law, he was charged with theft. His plea for the evidence to be suppressed due to an illegal search was refused. Will the appellate court likely overturn the lower court's denial of the motion to suppress on appeal?
A traffic stop for speeding is similar to a Terry stop in that it simply requires reasonable suspicion. The fact that the vehicle was pulled over for a suspected traffic violation does not imply that the vehicle was searched. However, probable cause to search a vehicle must be shown separately from the basis for the traffic stop. The officer did not have probable cause to search the vehicle in our example. There was no evidence or indicators that anything criminal was going on, according to the officer. As a result, the search was clearly illegal under the Fourth Amendment, and the evidence must be suppressed.
In criminal cases, the government must prove the defendant's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." Which Constitutional principle does this reflect?
The requirement that the government prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt reflects the defendant's right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
A witness to a murder in the park is summoned to testify in court. Is it permissible for the defense attorney to question her about her practice of feeding pigeons during cross examination? She was cited for illegally feeding the pigeons many times, according to the defense. “You have a long history of feeding the pigeons, don't you?” defense counsel tries to question. You've been ticketed countless times for feeding pigeons, haven't you, and you still do it?" Will the witness be questioned about these topics by the trial court?
The question is meaningless in terms of determining the witness's credibility or the defendant's guilt. There is no problem with feeding birds or seeing pigeons in this situation. The citations are far too little and irrelevant to call her veracity into question. The issues in the murder case have no bearing on this. It would also be a side issue that would cause the trial's flow to be disrupted for no reason. The question would be an illegal journey into foreign territory that would serve no good purpose
Due to intense agony, a patient who had surgery to correct a spleen rupture got a complete body MRI. The technicians discovered at least two distinguishable sponges in her body during the MRI. She needed to be admitted to the hospital for more surgery. The patient filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the hospital and the doctor. She failed to present the MRI printouts. Rather, she tried to testify about what she saw on the MRI scan. The defense raised an objection and demanded that she present the original MRI reports. What is the most likely outcome of the judge's decision on the objection?
The best evidence rule applies where a party attempts to introduce outside evidence to prove what the contents of a document are. In our hypothetical, the patient-plaintiff is trying to prove the contents and meaning of the diagnostic printout instead of using the correct procedure, which is to produce the printout or film and having a qualified professional explain its contents. The patient herself cannot identify or explain the medical content and meaning of diagnostic test documents. The best evidence rule was created to prevent fraud and inaccuracy in evidence.
Which amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures?
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring that searches be conducted with a warrant based on probable cause or under specific exceptions where a warrant is not required.
Which type of speech is given the least protection under the First Amendment?
Commercial speech, such as advertising, receives less protection than other forms of speech. It can be subject to government regulations as long as the regulations are narrowly tailored and directly advance a substantial government interest
Which Constitutional clause prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion"?
The Establishment Clause, found in the First Amendment, prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over others.
On a public street, an elderly woman was mugged and robbed. The victim only saw her assailant's eyes at the time of the crime. The remainder of his face was hidden by a hooded sweatshirt and a bandana. While waiting to be interrogated a few days later, the victim noticed the defendant being led through the courts in jail garb and restrained by handcuffs and leg irons. He was soon identified as the offender by her. Will the court accept such identification as proof?
When it comes to eyewitness testimony, the most important question is whether or not it can be trusted. It may be admitted without violating due process if it is proved to have adequate indicia of credibility. In this case, the circumstances revealed a past identification that was so impermissibly suggestive that there was a very high risk of irreversible misidentification. Eyewitness misidentification is now widely recognized as the major cause of erroneous convictions across the country.
A juvenile was on trial for illegally invading another person's property and stealing an automobile. For the prosecution, the witness can simply affirm that a car was stolen, the model and kind of automobile, and that it was taken from the property on a specific day. “Isn't it possible that my client did not steal the automobile, that someone else stole it, and that the police are lying about the charges against him?” the defense asks the witness. The question was opposed to by the prosecution. Will the objection be upheld by the court?
Cross-examination questions must be related to evidence or information already on the record. Leading inquiries are admissible, but random, non-case-related, or speculative questions are not permitted. Irrelevant, contentious, and speculative queries are likewise inefficient and waste time.
Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a state law that treats men and women differently will be subject to which level of scrutiny?
When a state law treats men and women differently, it will be subject to intermediate scrutiny. This standard requires the government to show that the law is substantially related to an important government interest.
A foreign visitor was accused of snatching a little child and was on trial. According to the prosecutor, the visitor knew the child personally, which is why the child accompanied him, and the culprit was aware that the child's parents were rich. “I am looking forward to visiting with the child and his parents,” the culprit told the witness, according to the prosecutor. The defense objected to the proposed testimony, saying, "They have a great luxurious mansion that I will enjoy staying there." Will the objection be upheld by the court?
All of the aforementioned purposes are material to the case and proper uses of a party admission, and impeachment is allowed for material problems in the case. Because the culprit made the statement, it is not hearsay but rather a party acknowledgment. Out-of-court statements are admissible if they are used against the person who made them.
A four-year-old tenant's daughter fell from their apartment building's second-floor outside stairwell. The renter sued the landlord for the negligent stairwell, step, and railing construction and maintenance. The stairwell was designed on a dangerously steep inclination, the steps were loose, and the railing was inadequate to prevent the baby from slipping over the edge. The jury determined that the landlord was negligent in the design and construction of the stairs, as well as in neglecting to keep the stairs, steps, and railing in good condition. The landlord appealed based on his immunity from suit and the tenant's inability to state any exception to his immunity. Will the appellate court uphold the jury's verdict against the landlord under modern rule?
The property was rented as-is under common law, and the rallying cry was "buyer beware." In general, landlords can now be held accountable for carelessness when they expose renters to hazardous situations. This is linked to the implied warranty of habitability that landlords are now required to provide.This is a seminal decision that ushered in a trend of state court rulings holding landlords liable for general torts.
A law that restricts the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude violates which Constitutional Amendment?
The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.