IN Bar Criminal Procedure 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A grand jury indicts a defendant based partly on hearsay and illegally seized evidence. His motion to dismiss the indictment on these grounds will:
- Fail, because grand juries may consider hearsay and evidence that would be inadmissible at trial (Correct answer)
- Succeed, because the exclusionary rule applies to grand jury proceedings
- Succeed, because hearsay cannot support probable cause
- Fail only if the prosecutor acted in good faith
Correct answer: Fail, because grand juries may consider hearsay and evidence that would be inadmissible at trial
Under Costello and Calandra, grand jury indictments may rest on hearsay and illegally obtained evidence.
Question 2: In Indiana, a person charged with murder is entitled to bail unless:
- The proof is evident or the presumption strong that the defendant committed the offense (Correct answer)
- The defendant has any prior felony conviction
- The State requests detention in writing
- Bail is never available for murder in Indiana
Correct answer: The proof is evident or the presumption strong that the defendant committed the offense
The Indiana Constitution makes murder and treason bailable except when the proof is evident or the presumption strong.
Question 3: During a lawful Terry stop, an officer pats down a suspect and feels a soft bag that, only after squeezing and manipulating it, he believes contains drugs. Under Minnesota v. Dickerson, the drugs are:
- Inadmissible, because the incriminating nature was not immediately apparent without further manipulation (Correct answer)
- Admissible under the plain feel doctrine
- Admissible because the frisk itself was lawful
- Inadmissible because frisks may never yield admissible contraband
Correct answer: Inadmissible, because the incriminating nature was not immediately apparent without further manipulation
Plain feel applies only if the contraband's identity is immediately apparent during a lawful frisk, without additional manipulation.
Question 4: A defendant pleads guilty in an Indiana court. He later seeks to appeal the trial court's earlier denial of his motion to suppress. He may:
- Not challenge the suppression ruling on direct appeal, because a guilty plea waives the right to appeal pre-plea constitutional rulings (Correct answer)
- Appeal the ruling as of right within 30 days
- Appeal only if the State consents
- Raise the issue on direct appeal because suppression rulings are jurisdictional
Correct answer: Not challenge the suppression ruling on direct appeal, because a guilty plea waives the right to appeal pre-plea constitutional rulings
In Indiana, an unconditional guilty plea waives appellate review of prior rulings such as suppression denials.
Question 5: The prosecution fails to disclose a witness's plea deal that could have impeached the State's key witness. The defendant is convicted. Under Brady and Giglio, reversal is required if:
- The evidence was material, meaning a reasonable probability exists that disclosure would have changed the result (Correct answer)
- The prosecutor acted in bad faith in withholding it
- The defendant specifically requested the evidence
- Any impeachment evidence was withheld, regardless of effect
Correct answer: The evidence was material, meaning a reasonable probability exists that disclosure would have changed the result
Brady violations require suppression of favorable, material evidence; materiality means a reasonable probability of a different outcome.
Question 6: Police obtain a confession after a deliberate two-step interrogation: they question first without Miranda warnings, get a confession, then give warnings and have the suspect repeat it. Under Missouri v. Seibert, the post-warning confession is:
- Inadmissible, because the deliberate question-first tactic rendered the midstream warnings ineffective (Correct answer)
- Admissible, because warnings were ultimately given
- Admissible under Oregon v. Elstad in all circumstances
- Inadmissible only if physical coercion was used
Correct answer: Inadmissible, because the deliberate question-first tactic rendered the midstream warnings ineffective
Seibert condemns the deliberate two-step strategy because midstream warnings cannot effectively convey the right to remain silent.
Question 7: A jury of six convicts a defendant of a serious felony by a 5-1 vote in state court. Under Supreme Court precedent, this verdict is:
- Unconstitutional, because six-person juries must be unanimous and Ramos requires unanimity for serious offenses (Correct answer)
- Constitutional, because states may set their own verdict rules
- Constitutional, because only federal juries must be unanimous
- Unconstitutional only in capital cases
Correct answer: Unconstitutional, because six-person juries must be unanimous and Ramos requires unanimity for serious offenses
Burch v. Louisiana requires unanimity for six-person juries, and Ramos v. Louisiana extends the unanimity requirement to state serious-offense verdicts.
IN Bar Criminal Procedure 3
A grand jury indicts a defendant based partly on hearsay and illegally seized evidence.
His motion to dismiss the indictment on these grounds will: