Criminal Law & Procedure Flashcards

Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, unlawfully obtained evidence is admissible if:

Answer: The evidence would have been discovered through independent lawful means

Nix v. Williams held that the exclusionary rule does not bar evidence that the prosecution can prove would inevitably have been discovered through lawful investigative procedures.

The entrapment defense (federal subjective test) focuses primarily on:

Answer: Whether the defendant had a predisposition to commit the offense before government inducement

Under the federal subjective test, entrapment exists only if the government induced the crime and the defendant lacked predisposition to commit it prior to government contact.

Which element distinguishes first-degree murder from second-degree murder in most U.S. jurisdictions?

Answer: Premeditation and deliberation

First-degree murder typically requires proof of premeditation and deliberation—a prior formed intent to kill—whereas second-degree murder involves intentional killing without those elements.

Which Fourth Amendment doctrine permits officers who lawfully arrest a person to search the area within the arrestee's immediate control without a warrant?

Answer: Chimel search incident to arrest

Chimel v. California authorizes a warrantless search of the area within the arrestee's immediate reach to protect officer safety and prevent destruction of evidence.

A defendant charged under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) must be shown to have committed at least how many predicate acts within a ten-year period?

Answer: Two

18 U.S.C. § 1961(5) defines a 'pattern of racketeering activity' as at least two predicate acts within ten years, showing continuity of criminal activity.

Under the MPC, a person is legally insane if, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to:

Answer: Appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform his conduct to the law

MPC § 4.01 excuses a defendant who, due to mental disease or defect, lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to legal requirements.

The Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial hearsay from an absent declarant unless the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, per:

Answer: Crawford v. Washington

Crawford v. Washington overruled Ohio v. Roberts and held that the Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial hearsay unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine.