UT Bar Criminal Procedure 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: An officer arrests a driver for DUI, handcuffs him, and secures him in the patrol car. The officer then searches the passenger compartment of the driver's car and finds a gun. Under Arizona v. Gant, the search is:
- Valid as a search incident to any lawful custodial arrest
- Valid only if it was reasonable to believe the vehicle contained evidence of the DUI offense (Correct answer)
- Invalid, because vehicle searches always require a warrant
- Valid, because the gun was in plain view once the door was opened
Correct answer: Valid only if it was reasonable to believe the vehicle contained evidence of the DUI offense
Gant limits vehicle searches incident to arrest to when the arrestee can access the car or when it is reasonable to believe it contains evidence of the offense of arrest.
Question 2: A defendant is charged with both a state robbery offense and a federal firearms offense arising from the same incident. He argues double jeopardy bars the second prosecution. The argument fails because:
- Robbery and firearms offenses always have different elements
- Double jeopardy applies only to capital cases
- He has not yet been acquitted in either case
- Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, separate sovereigns may each prosecute the same conduct (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, separate sovereigns may each prosecute the same conduct
The dual sovereignty doctrine, reaffirmed in Gamble v. United States, allows state and federal governments to separately prosecute the same conduct.
Question 3: Police place an undercover informant in a defendant's jail cell after the defendant has been indicted. The informant deliberately elicits incriminating statements about the charged crime. The statements are:
- Inadmissible, because deliberate elicitation after indictment 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, because all jailhouse informant testimony is barred
Correct answer: Inadmissible, because deliberate elicitation after indictment violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel
Under Massiah v. United States, the government may not deliberately elicit statements from an indicted defendant about the charged offense without counsel present.
Question 4: A defendant requests a jury trial for a misdemeanor carrying a maximum sentence of five months in jail. The request is denied. On appeal, the denial is:
- Improper, because all criminal defendants have a jury trial right
- Improper, because misdemeanors involving jail time require juries
- Proper, because the constitutional jury right applies only to offenses punishable by more than six months' imprisonment (Correct answer)
- Proper, only if the defendant was ultimately sentenced to probation
Correct answer: Proper, because the constitutional jury right applies only to offenses punishable by more than six months' imprisonment
The Sixth Amendment jury right applies only to non-petty offenses, meaning those punishable by more than six months' imprisonment.
Question 5: At a lineup conducted after indictment, the defendant's lawyer is not present, and a witness identifies the defendant. At trial, the witness identifies the defendant in court. The in-court identification is admissible if:
- The lineup was not unnecessarily suggestive
- The prosecution shows by clear and convincing evidence that it has an independent source untainted by the lineup (Correct answer)
- The witness testifies she is certain of her identification
- The defendant cross-examines the witness about the lineup
Correct answer: The prosecution shows by clear and convincing evidence that it has an independent source untainted by the lineup
Under United States v. Wade, an in-court identification following an uncounseled post-indictment lineup is admissible only upon clear and convincing proof of an independent source.
Question 6: A prosecutor fails to disclose to the defense a witness's plea deal in exchange for testimony. The defendant is convicted. The conviction must be reversed if:
- There is a reasonable probability the result would have been different had the impeachment evidence been disclosed (Correct answer)
- The prosecutor acted in bad faith
- The defense specifically requested the evidence before trial
- The witness's testimony was the only evidence of guilt
Correct answer: There is a reasonable probability the result would have been different had the impeachment evidence been disclosed
Brady and Giglio require disclosure of material exculpatory and impeachment evidence, with materiality judged by a reasonable probability of a different outcome.
Question 7: Officers without a warrant enter a home after hearing screams and sounds of a violent struggle inside. Once inside, they see illegal weapons in plain view. The entry is:
- Invalid, because home entries always require a warrant
- Valid only if the officers had probable cause of a specific crime before entering
- Invalid, because exigent circumstances apply only to hot pursuit
- Valid under the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Valid under the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement
Under Brigham City v. Stuart, police may enter a home without a warrant when they reasonably believe an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened.
UT Bar Criminal Procedure 3
An officer arrests a driver for DUI, handcuffs him, and secures him in the patrol car.
The officer then searches the passenger compartment of the driver's car and finds a gun.
Under Arizona v.
Gant, the search is: