OH Bar Criminal Procedure 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Police arrest a driver, handcuff him, and place him in the patrol car, then search his vehicle's passenger compartment. Under Arizona v. Gant, the search is valid only if:
- The arrestee could access the car at the time of the search, or it is reasonable to believe the car contains evidence of the offense of arrest (Correct answer)
- The arrest was for any offense, since search incident to arrest always covers the passenger compartment
- Officers had probable cause to arrest, regardless of the offense
- The vehicle was parked on a public street
Correct answer: The arrestee could access the car at the time of the search, or it is reasonable to believe the car contains evidence of the offense of arrest
Gant limits vehicle searches incident to arrest to situations where the arrestee can access the vehicle or the vehicle may contain evidence of the offense of arrest.
Question 2: A jailhouse informant, acting on police instructions, deliberately elicits incriminating statements from an indicted defendant about the charged crime. The statements are:
- Inadmissible, because deliberately eliciting statements from an indicted defendant without counsel violates the Sixth Amendment under Massiah (Correct answer)
- Admissible, because Miranda warnings are not required for undercover questioning
- Admissible, because the defendant spoke voluntarily
- Inadmissible only if the informant was paid
Correct answer: Inadmissible, because deliberately eliciting statements from an indicted defendant without counsel violates the Sixth Amendment under Massiah
Under Massiah, once formal charges attach, government agents may not deliberately elicit statements about the charged offense outside counsel's presence.
Question 3: During plea negotiations, defense counsel fails to tell the defendant about a favorable plea offer, which lapses; the defendant is later convicted at trial and receives a longer sentence. Under Missouri v. Frye, the defendant:
- May claim ineffective assistance, because counsel must communicate formal plea offers and prejudice can be shown by a reasonable probability he would have accepted (Correct answer)
- Has no claim, because there is no constitutional right to a plea bargain
- Has no claim, because he received a fair trial
- May claim ineffective assistance only if the prosecutor confirms the offer would have been honored without change
Correct answer: May claim ineffective assistance, because counsel must communicate formal plea offers and prejudice can be shown by a reasonable probability he would have accepted
Frye holds that failing to communicate a formal plea offer can constitute ineffective assistance where the defendant shows a reasonable probability he would have accepted it.
Question 4: In Ohio, before accepting a guilty plea to a felony, the trial court must personally address the defendant under Crim.R. 11 and determine all of the following EXCEPT:
- That the defendant is factually guilty based on evidence presented at a mini-trial (Correct answer)
- That the plea is voluntary and the defendant understands the nature of the charges and maximum penalty
- That the defendant understands he is waiving the rights to jury trial, confrontation, and compulsory process
- That the defendant understands the effect of the plea and that the court may proceed to judgment and sentence
Correct answer: That the defendant is factually guilty based on evidence presented at a mini-trial
Crim.R. 11(C) requires a personal colloquy on voluntariness, penalties, and waived rights, but does not require the court to hold an evidentiary mini-trial establishing factual guilt.
Question 5: A witness identifies a suspect after police show her a single photo saying, "This is the guy we arrested." The identification's admissibility turns on:
- Whether the unnecessarily suggestive procedure created a substantial likelihood of misidentification under the totality of the circumstances (Correct answer)
- Whether counsel was present at the photo display
- Automatic exclusion, because single-photo showups are per se inadmissible
- Whether the witness was under oath during the identification
Correct answer: Whether the unnecessarily suggestive procedure created a substantial likelihood of misidentification under the totality of the circumstances
Under Manson v. Brathwaite, even suggestive identifications are admissible if reliable under the totality of the circumstances, weighing factors like opportunity to view and certainty.
Question 6: The prosecution fails to disclose a deal promising leniency to its key witness in exchange for testimony. The defense learns of it after conviction. Relief is warranted if:
- The impeachment evidence was material, meaning a reasonable probability exists that disclosure would have changed the outcome (Correct answer)
- The defense can show the prosecutor acted in bad faith
- The witness's testimony was the only evidence of guilt
- The deal was in writing
Correct answer: The impeachment evidence was material, meaning a reasonable probability exists that disclosure would have changed the outcome
Under Brady and Giglio, impeachment evidence must be disclosed, and suppression violates due process when the evidence is material to the outcome regardless of prosecutorial good faith.
Question 7: A trial judge, over defense objection, closes the courtroom to the public during the entire testimony of a police informant without making specific findings. This most likely violates:
- The Sixth Amendment public trial right, requiring an overriding interest, narrow tailoring, alternatives considered, and adequate findings under Waller (Correct answer)
- Nothing, because judges have inherent authority to manage courtrooms
- The Fifth Amendment due process clause only
- The First Amendment rights of the defendant
Correct answer: The Sixth Amendment public trial right, requiring an overriding interest, narrow tailoring, alternatives considered, and adequate findings under Waller
Waller v. Georgia requires an overriding interest, a closure no broader than necessary, consideration of alternatives, and findings adequate to support the closure.
OH Bar Criminal Procedure 3
Police arrest a driver, handcuff him, and place him in the patrol car, then search his vehicle's passenger compartment.
Under Arizona v.
Gant, the search is valid only if: