OK Bar Criminal Procedure 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Officers rely in good faith on a search warrant later found to lack probable cause. Under United States v. Leon, the evidence seized is:
- Admissible, unless the affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that reliance was unreasonable (Correct answer)
- Inadmissible, because the warrant was invalid
- Admissible only if the magistrate testifies at a suppression hearing
- Inadmissible unless the officers re-apply for a valid warrant
Correct answer: Admissible, unless the affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that reliance was unreasonable
Leon's good-faith exception allows evidence obtained under an objectively reasonable reliance on a facially valid warrant.
Question 2: A defendant is arrested without a warrant. Under County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, a judicial probable cause determination is presumptively prompt if held within:
- 48 hours of arrest (Correct answer)
- 24 hours of arrest
- 72 hours of arrest
- One week of arrest
Correct answer: 48 hours of arrest
McLaughlin establishes a presumption that a probable cause determination within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest satisfies the Fourth Amendment.
Question 3: During plea negotiations, defense counsel fails to inform the defendant of a favorable plea offer, which expires; the defendant is later convicted at trial and receives a harsher sentence. Under Missouri v. Frye, the defendant:
- May claim ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel must communicate formal plea offers (Correct answer)
- Has no claim because there is no right to a plea bargain
- Has no claim because he received a fair trial
- May only claim prosecutorial misconduct
Correct answer: May claim ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel must communicate formal plea offers
Frye holds that defense counsel's failure to communicate a formal plea offer can constitute deficient performance under Strickland.
Question 4: Police place an undercover informant in a defendant's jail cell after indictment, and the informant deliberately elicits statements about the charged crime. The statements are:
- Inadmissible, because deliberate elicitation after formal charges violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (Correct answer)
- Admissible, because Miranda warnings are not required for undercover agents
- Admissible, because the defendant spoke voluntarily
- Inadmissible only if the informant was paid
Correct answer: Inadmissible, because deliberate elicitation after formal charges violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel
Under Massiah, the Sixth Amendment bars deliberate elicitation of statements about charged offenses from an indicted defendant absent counsel.
Question 5: In Oklahoma, a felony defendant demands a jury trial. How many jurors sit on a felony jury, and what verdict is required for conviction?
- Twelve jurors, and the verdict must be unanimous (Correct answer)
- Six jurors, and the verdict must be unanimous
- Twelve jurors, and a 10-2 verdict suffices
- Six jurors, and a 5-1 verdict suffices
Correct answer: Twelve jurors, and the verdict must be unanimous
Oklahoma felony trials use twelve jurors, and Ramos v. Louisiana requires unanimity for criminal convictions.
Question 6: The prosecution fails to disclose material exculpatory evidence that the defense never requested. Under Brady and its progeny, the conviction must be reversed if:
- There is a reasonable probability the result would have been different had the evidence been disclosed (Correct answer)
- The defense can show the prosecutor acted in bad faith
- The evidence would have been admissible at trial regardless of weight
- The defense made at least a general discovery request
Correct answer: There is a reasonable probability the result would have been different had the evidence been disclosed
Brady materiality turns on a reasonable probability of a different outcome, and no defense request or bad faith is required.
Question 7: A traffic stop passenger is ordered out of the car. He argues only the driver was suspected of wrongdoing. Under Maryland v. Wilson, the order was:
- Lawful, because officers may order passengers out of a lawfully stopped vehicle without individualized suspicion (Correct answer)
- Unlawful, because passengers are not seized during a traffic stop
- Unlawful without reasonable suspicion as to the passenger
- Lawful only if the stop occurred at night
Correct answer: Lawful, because officers may order passengers out of a lawfully stopped vehicle without individualized suspicion
Wilson extends Pennsylvania v. Mimms to passengers, permitting officers to order them out of a stopped car for officer safety.
OK Bar Criminal Procedure 3
Officers rely in good faith on a search warrant later found to lack probable cause.
Under United States v.
Leon, the evidence seized is: