Criminal Procedure 10th Edition Joel Samaha - Solutions

Should Osborne have a constitutional right to obtain the DNA evidence? Back up your answer with points made in the Court’s opinion.
Summarize the reasons the dissents argue that Osborne has a constitutional right to obtain the DNA evidence that the state of Alaska possesses.
Summarize the reasons the majority held that Osborne had no constitutional right to obtain the DNA evidence that the state of Alaska possesses.
Which opinion satisfies your own interrogation of the use of expert testimony? Refer to relevant criminal procedure ideals in your answer.
Summarize the majority, concurring/dissenting judges’ interrogation of the use of expert testimony.
Describe the police identification procedure during which the witnesses identified Clopten.
Describe the details of the basis for the two eyewitnesses’ identification of Deon Clopten.
How does SCOTUS address the innocence and evidence-based decision-making ideals? Explain your answer.
In your opinion should the Manson two-prong test apply to the show-up?Back up your answer with arguments from the facts and SCOTUS opinion(s).
Summarize Justice Sotomayor’s arguments that the Manson test should apply.
Summarize the majority opinions arguments supporting its decision that the Manson two-prong test does not apply to the show-up.
Was the show-up accidental? Explain your answer.
Does the majority opinion or the dissenting opinion come closest to achieving the innocence ideal? Explain your answer.
Would you side with the dissent or the majority in this case? Defend your answer.
Is the dissent’s stress on Brathwaite’s Barbados ancestry important? Explain.
Summarize the dissent’s argument in favor of the per se test and against the totality test. Is the dissent correct in arguing that the Court wrongfully evaluated the impact of the exclusionary rule and the totality of circumstances?Evaluate those arguments.
Do you think the circumstances demonstrate“a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification”?
List the facts in the same way and the dissent’s assessment of them.
List the facts in each of the five factors and the majority opinion’s assessment of them.
Which approach does the Court adopt? Why?
Describe the three approaches to dealing with misidentifications outlined by the majority opinion.
Do you agree with the majority that the confession was voluntary? If yes, what persuaded you? If no, do you agree with the dissent? Explain why.
What are the two parts of the test that the SCOTUS announced for determining whether confessions are voluntary?
List all the facts relevant to deciding whether Francis Connelly’s confession was voluntary.
After you’ve read the section “False Confessions” (p. 358), return to question 4.Would you now answer it differently?Explain why or why not, using the evidence-based decision-making ideal to support your answer.
Which side has the better arguments?Which side do you agree with more?Explain your answers.
Summarize the dissent’s arguments that Detective Helgert and his partner violated Thompkins’s right to remain silent.
Summarize the majority’s arguments for holding that Thompkins (a) didn’t invoke his right to remain silent, but, if he did, that (b) he later waived it.
List all the facts relevant to deciding whether Van Chester Thompkins (a) invoked his right to remain silent, and, if he did (b) whether he at some point waived it.
Which side do you agree with? The majority? The dissent? Back up your answer with facts and arguments in the opinion
Summarize the dissent’s arguments against the public safety exception.
List the facts the dissent relies on to conclude that Quarles posed no threat to public safety.
Summarize Justice O’Connor’s reasons for dissenting from the majority’s ruling on the public safety exception.
Summarize the Court’s arguments for creating the public safety exception.
State the Court’s “public safety exception” the Miranda warnings’ requirement.
List the facts the majority opinion relies on to support its conclusion that Quarles was a threat to public safety.
Summarize how the Court applied its definition of “custody” to the stop of Richard McCarty
According to the Court, when can a noncustodial traffic stop turn into a custodial stop for purposes of Miranda?
List the facts and circumstances in Miranda and McCarty that differ.
Summarize the arguments the Court gives for its rule that people stopped for traffic violations aren’t typically in custody.
List all the facts relevant to deciding whether Richard McCarty’s freedom was “limited in any significant way.”
Which is more consistent with the relevant criminal procedures ideals regarding the law of police interrogation, the majority’s bright-line rule, requiring warnings, or the dissent’s due process test, weighing the totality of circumstances on a case-by-case basis? Defend your answer.
How do the majority and the dissent explain the balance of interests established by the Constitution?
On what grounds do the dissenters disagree with the majority’s decision? What interests are in conflict, according to the Court?
Identify and explain the criteria for waiving the right against self-incrimination in custodial interrogation.
Why is custodial interrogation “inherently coercive,” according to the majority?
According to SCOTUS, what do the words “custody” and “interrogation” mean?
Which do you agree with more—the majority or the dissent? Back up your answer with specifics from the case excerpt.
Summarize the dissent’s arguments that this was enough of a non-law enforcement policy to make the testing a reasonable search and seizure.
Summarize the majority’s arguments supporting its holding that the policy was a law enforcement policy.
List the facts relevant to deciding whether this case is about law enforcement, some other need beyond law enforcement, or a combination.
Identify the special needs that the hospital was addressing in its policy of drug testing suspected pregnant “crack” users.
As they relate to the special needs/privacy ideal, should it matter whether the resident assistants, campus police, or city police conducted the search?Defend your answer.
Interrogate Ellis’s Fourth Amendment privacy ideal from his standpoint. Back up your answer.
Explain why the court’s interrogation of resident assistants’ actions were consistent with reasonable Fourth Amendment searches but the police officers’actions were unreasonable. Do you agree? Defend your answer.
List all the actions taken by the resident assistants and the Central State Police Department officers that invaded Ellis’s Fourth Amendment right of privacy in his dorm room.
In your opinion, does the ideal of“remembering the innocent” apply to Norman Norris? Explain your answer.
Which argument best upholds the balancing ideal? If you were a judge deciding this case, where would you strike the balance between individual privacy and crime control/special needs searches?
Summarize the arguments in its interrogation that concluded that the drug test violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
Summarize the majority’s arguments in its interrogation of Norman Morris’s reduced expectation of privacy.
Both the Majority and Dissent use empirical evidence to support their decisions.Which argument best interrogates that empirical evidence? Explain.
Summarize the dissent’s argument that searches of parolees’ homes without either warrants or reasonable suspicion unduly invade parolees’ privacy ideal in their homes.
Summarize the interrogation of the majority that support its decision that the government’s special needs justify reducing the ideal of privacy in parolees’ homes without either warrants or reasonable suspicion.
Identify the government’s “special needs” and Donald Curtis Samson’s diminished expectations of privacy as they relate to the privacy ideal.
Assume Albert Florence had prevailed.What should he get? Lots of money?Some money? Something in addition to, or instead of money? If so, what should the “addition” or “instead of” be?
Now, interrogate the majority and dissenting opinions. Which more properly balances the ideals of individual privacy and the state’s special needs?Defend your answer.
Justice Alito voted with the majority, but he wrote a concurring opinion pointing out the following:It is important to note … that the Court does not hold that it is always reasonable to conduct a full strip search of an arrestee whose detention has not been reviewed by a judicial officer and who
Which side, the majority or the dissent, more effectively interrogates a commitment to the evidence-based decision-making ideal? Defend your answer.
Summarize the dissent’s reasons for concluding the searches were not reasonable.
Summarize the majority’s reasons for concluding the searches were reasonable.
List the facts relevant to determining whether the two searches were reasonable to further the “special needs” they were designed to further.
Identify the “special needs” that the searches were designed to further.
Interrogate the dissent’s arguments in favor of its conclusion that the Court’s result in this case elevates the conservation of property interests, indeed mere possibilities of property interests, above the privacy and security interests, protected by the Fourth Amendment.” Do you agree?
Summarize the dissent’s arguments for concluding that the inventory search was unreasonable.
Summarize the majority opinion’s arguments supporting the balancing ideal of public safety and the protection of property outweighing the individual privacy ideal.
List all of Opperman’s personal belongings the police inventoried, and state where they were found.
List all the actions taken by the Vermillion police department related to the inventory of Donald Opperman’s impounded car.
Should practical considerations matter?Explain your answer?
Consider your summaries. Which opinion do you believe most convincingly balances the law enforcement and individual privacy ideals?
Summarize the interrogations of the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in balancing the ideals of effective law enforcement and passengers’ privacy interest in the “containers”they may be carrying or are near them.
List the facts and circumstances relevant to interrogating the balance between the ideals of drug law enforcement and the privacy interests of passenger Diane Houghton in her purse.
Is this a domestic violence case or a battle in the drug war? Explain your answer and relate it to the balancing ideal and the ideal of sorting and protecting the innocent.
Now, you interrogate which side better applies the ideal balance between individual privacy and law enforcement needs. Defend your interrogation.
Summarize the third-party consent interrogations of both the majority and dissent.
List all the facts relevant to interrogating the balancing ideal in Gail Fischer’s consent to search Ed Rodriguez’s apartment.
Which rule do you believe better protects the Fourth Amendment ideal of balancing individual privacy and public safety? Defend your answer.
State the rule the dissent favors to interrogate and apply the scope of consent searches of a person.
State the rule the majority adopted to interrogate and apply the scope of consent searches of a person.
List all the facts and circumstances necessary to interrogate the individual privacy/law enforcement balance ideal in crotch searches.
In your opinion, which of the tests balances best the ideals of individual privacy public safety? Back up your answer.
State the elements of the waiver test the SCOTUS dissent advocates. Identify the criminal procedure ideals the test interrogates.
State the elements of the voluntariness test SCOTUS created. Identify the criminal procedure ideals the test interrogates.
According to Justice Marshall, do individuals ever voluntarily consent to police requests, or are all police requests polite orders?Do you agree with Justice Marshall?Defend your answer.
List all the facts and circumstances relevant to deciding whether Clyde Bustamonte consented to the search of the car.
Do you agree with Professor Jonas in the quotation at the opening of this section that pretext searches threaten individual rights too much? That they give the government too much power?Or do you believe that the government needs this power to fight the “war on drugs”?
What test did SCOTUS adopt? Did SCOTUS interrogate and apply the test to further the ideals behind the“could/would have” tests? Defend your answer.
Identify the criminal procedure ideals the case implicates. Explain the “could have” and “would have” tests to determine the reasonableness of the pretext search in light of the ideals. (Remember the innocents!)
For what violations did the officer have probable cause to arrest Whren and Brown?
List the relevant facts and circumstances relevant to interrogating whether Officer Soto and his partner had probable cause to arrest Whren and Brown.
Do you think SCOTUS retreated from its sweeping rule in U.S. v. Robinson? If so, do you think it’s a good idea that it did? Defend your answer.

Showing 100 - 200 of 833

Criminal Procedure 10th Edition Joel Samaha - Solutions

Step by Step Answers