Reference no: EM133612525

Problem I. List AND explain 3 concepts one must learn about Confessions and admissions: Miranda v. Arizona.

Problem II. List AND explain 3 concepts one must learn about Basic Constitutional Rights of the Accused during trial.

Problem III. What is most interesting one can learn about Confessions and admissions?

Problem IV. Discuss the responsibility of a defense lawyer in the US. system of Justice.

Problem V. Sam, a university student, ran a red light and was stopped by the police. He was asked to get out of his car and was questioned about why he ran a red light and was speeding. Sam gave unsatisfactory answers. The police looked around the car and saw a suspicious package. They asked if they could open it; Sam said yes. The package turned out to contain drugs. The police asked Sam for the source of the drugs. Sam said he got it from his dormitory roommate. The police then went to Sam's room and found more drugs. During the trial, Sam claimed he should have been given the Miranda warnings by the police. Based on the officer's failure to give the Miranda warnings, are any of the drugs confiscated admissible in evidence? Justify your answer.

Problem VI. Officer Peters went to Greg's house, a 19-year-old gang member. Greg's family knew Officer Peters because he lived in the same neighborhood and was a family friend. Officer Peters talked to Greg's parents and told them he had information about Greg's involvement in a murder. The officer asked the parents to appeal to their son to cooperate with the police. The parents called Greg into the room and asked him to "tell Officer Peters the truth." At first Greg denied involvement, but after repeated questioning by his parents, Greg admitted his part in the murder, which he committed with two other gang members. During the trial, Greg sought exclusion of his statement, saying he should have been given the Miranda warnings by Officer Peters. You are the judge. Will you exclude or admit the statement? Justify your answer.

Problem VII. Assume you are a lawyer for Defendant Will in a prosecution for bribery against a high government official. Your client, a codefendant, is given a choice by the prosecutor between transactional immunity and use and derivative use immunity. Which immunity would you advise your client to take and why?

Problem VIII. Do you believe public defenders/court appointed attorneys are generally viewed as "ineffective" by society? Do "hired" criminal defense attorneys have a more prestigous/reptuable appearance to society? Explain.

Problem IX. List a set of facts that you believe would be adequate for a court of appeals to award a defendant a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. (List out the behaviors and omissions of the attorney that you believe would qualify as "ineffective")