UT Bar Criminal Procedure 3

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:

Accepted Answer

Valid only if it was reasonable to believe the vehicle contained evidence of the DUI offense

Answer

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:

Accepted Answer

Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, separate sovereigns may each prosecute the same conduct

Answer

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:

Accepted Answer

Inadmissible, because deliberate elicitation after indictment violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel

Answer

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:

Accepted Answer

Proper, because the constitutional jury right applies only to offenses punishable by more than six months' imprisonment

Answer

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:

Accepted Answer

The prosecution shows by clear and convincing evidence that it has an independent source untainted by the lineup

Answer

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.

(UT Bar) Utah Bar Exam Practice Test

(UT Bar) Utah Bar Exam Practice Test

UT Bar Criminal Procedure 3