Criminal Procedure Flashcards
7 cards from real Multistate Bar Exam practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 7 Criminal Procedure flashcards as text
Police conduct a warrantless search of a friend's apartment and find evidence used to prosecute a defendant who was not present. Under Rakas v. Illinois, the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence will:
Answer: Fail because the defendant lacks standing — he had no personal reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment
Under Rakas v. Illinois (1978), Fourth Amendment rights are personal; a defendant may only challenge a search if he had a personal reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched or the item seized, not merely because the evidence is used against him.
A suspect voluntarily consents to a search of his home after officers ask for permission. He was not informed of his right to refuse consent. Under Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, the consent is:
Answer: Valid if it was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances, even without knowledge of the right to refuse
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973) held that voluntary consent to search does not require police to inform the suspect of the right to refuse; voluntariness is assessed from the totality of the circumstances.
A defendant seeks to suppress evidence presented to a federal grand jury on the grounds that it was obtained through an illegal search. Under United States v. Calandra, this challenge will:
Answer: Fail because the exclusionary rule does not apply to grand jury proceedings
United States v. Calandra (1974) held that the exclusionary rule does not apply to grand jury proceedings; a grand juror may not refuse to answer questions or a grand jury may not be precluded from using illegally obtained evidence.
Under Barker v. Wingo, courts assess Sixth Amendment speedy trial claims using a four-factor balancing test. Which of the following is NOT one of the four Barker factors?
Answer: Whether the defendant was held in pretrial detention
The four Barker v. Wingo factors are: (1) length of the delay, (2) reason for the delay, (3) defendant's assertion of the speedy trial right, and (4) prejudice to the defendant; pretrial detention is relevant to prejudice but is not itself a standalone Barker factor.
A defendant pleads guilty under a plea agreement where the prosecutor promises to recommend a 5-year sentence. The judge, who made no promises, imposes 10 years without informing the defendant beforehand that the recommendation was not binding. The defendant seeks to withdraw the plea. The most likely result is:
Answer: The defendant may withdraw the plea because the judge failed to advise him that the recommendation was not binding before accepting the plea
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(3)(B), when a court rejects or declines to follow a non-binding recommendation plea agreement, the court must inform the defendant and give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea.
Police conduct a lineup in which the defendant is the only person matching the robber's height and is wearing a red jacket like the one described by the witness. The witness identifies the defendant. Under Manson v. Brathwaite, this identification is admissible unless:
Answer: The procedure was unnecessarily suggestive and, considering the totality of circumstances, created a substantial likelihood of misidentification
Under Manson v. Brathwaite and Neil v. Biggers, an identification obtained through an unnecessarily suggestive procedure violates due process only if the totality of circumstances creates a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, weighed against indicia of reliability.
A defendant convicted of robbery is sentenced to 5 years. After successfully appealing and obtaining a new trial, the defendant is convicted again. Under North Carolina v. Pearce, the trial court:
Answer: May impose any lawful sentence, provided the increase is not motivated by vindictiveness against the defendant for appealing
North Carolina v. Pearce permits a greater sentence on retrial, but due process prohibits vindictive sentencing; a court may impose an increased sentence only when based on objective information about conduct occurring after the original sentencing.