The police execute a valid arrest warrant and detain Donny Defendant. They read him his Miranda warnings and begin questioning him. He is silent at first until the police officer beats in Defendant's head with a crowbar. Donny Defendant confesses to the crime.
Is the statement admissible?
a) No, because Defendant's confession is inadmissible hearsay.
b) No, because the crowbar was purchased through interstate commerce.
c) Yes, because he was read his Miranda rights and the interrogation was therefore valid.
d) Yes, because all criminal confessions are admissible. What are you, some sort of pinko criminal-lover? Answer (d), you sissy.
Then you start looking for option (e)
5 comments:
You forgot the random "doctrine of equitable conversion" response that pops up in all fields, whether or not it has anything to do with anything.
Interstate Commerce! I loved that choice. All I have to say about the MBE is that a certain Evidence professor would have been very ashamed of me. Hope all is well with you Waco test takers!
Before arresting Donny Defendant, the officer gives him a quitclaim deed for his house in Reno. How will this impact the validity of the Defendant's confession?
Luv,
Leigh
Donny Defendant is hired by Big Fish to steal a wallet from Penelope Plaintiff, a naturalized citizen of Stankonia. Penelope Plaintiff doesn't notice because she drank a glass of vodka, which was 180 proof. State Red only allows alcohol within its border to be sold at 130 proof; however, the bar at which Penelope bought the alcohol was on the border of State Red. Years ago, a surveyor of State Red had incorrectly labeled the plot containing the tavern as part of State Blue, as noted in a quitclaim deed between the tavern owner and an Indian reservation on the border of State Red. The Indian Reservation had given the land to tavern owner in exchange for tavern owner's agreement to deliver FOB Blue State twenty cases of 180 proof vodka on June 1. After the agreement, the tavern owner assigned the vodka contract to Big Fish. Big Fish refused to deliver the vodka because Blue State had levied a 120% sales tax on all alcohol sold on the Indian Reservation. In Red State, it is a crime to "knowingly sell vodka of over 130 proof within the borders of State Red or to put vodka of over 130 proof into interstate commerce." At a trial on the merits, the court will MOST likely find that:
A) The doctrine of equitable conversion estops Donny Defendant and Big Fish from fulfilling the vodka contract.
B)Big Fish is personally liable to Penelope Plaintiff for a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
C) Big Fish and Donny Defendant are guilty of battery, if Penelope Plaintiff had sobered up by the time of the theft of her wallet and the Prosecutor could admit their subsequent confessions into evidence over a hearsay objection.
D) Big Fish must sell the vodka to the Indian Reservation, because selling the vodka would serve a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to meet a rationally related purpose of the taxing powers of Congress granted in an executive agreement between the George Bush and the President of Stankonia.
Phi phi love and mine,
the neighbor
I am kind of still waiting for a post that says you are alive.
Post a Comment