To successfully complete this order the writer must follow the instructions below in their ENTIRETY. The questions that need to be answered are on the following pages.
WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINES:
PLEASE NOTE:
- This final exam requires you to respond to two essay questions. The ONLY SOURCE YOU MAY USE is your textbook from class (Criminal Procedure: Theory and Practice by Jefferson L. Ingram, 2nd Ed.) that has been provided via PDF.
- You are to answer the 2 questions in essay format. You will be writing 2 separate essays. Carefully read through the facts provided and identify and address as many relevant issues as you can. You will be asked to identify the issues raised by the facts on behalf of your client (Component 1 for both essays) and you will also be asked to resolve or address those issues, pointing out the potential arguments made by your client as well as refuting any possible arguments made by your opponent and deciding how a judge would rule on the issue (Component 2 for both essays). The grading rubric that will be used as a reference for how points will be allocated has been provided via PDF, make sure to satisfy the “5” requirement for each category.
- The final exam must be double-spaced and size 12 font (Times New Roman). APA formatting must be used. This order does not need a title page or abstract, simply give each of the essay questions a title like heading.
- Please Note: I have placed this order for only 6 pages, 3 pages for each of the essay questions. You will most likely need more pages to completely answer all needed components/aspects of this paper, please send a request for additional pages needed to complete this order.
- You must include citations for all ideas that are not your own.
- For paraphrased sentences, you must cite to the text. For example: Security of the home was an important issue for the framers of the Fourth Amendment. (Ingram, 2009).
- For words taken directly from the text, you must include quotation marks and the page number. For example, “Since the Framers of the Fourth Amendment understood much of the legal philosophy of the English [. . . ] one of the reasons for adopting the Fourth Amendment was the security of one’s home.” (Ingram, 2009, p. 194).
Essay Question 1:
During Dave’s final year at the university, he worked in the Internet technology section of the school’s communication center. During this time, he became familiar with the security protocols used by the university. With his B.A in business administration, Dave happily set up a small corporation that sold widgets. Using his understanding of the university’s information technology security system to bypass the university’s security protocols, he managed to have the university pay the bill for the information technology that his company used by stealing computer resources.
Other students who remained at the university discovered Dave’s scheme and notified police. Dave’s widget business was not doing well, so Dave had to file bankruptcy at about the same time that the state filed an information charging him with felony theft of services.
An attorney was appointed to represent Dave at the preliminary hearing and the same attorney handled the felony trial at which Dave was convicted as charged. His attorney requested a jury trial during which a total of six jurors were seated to form the jury. They heard most of the case, but near the end of the trial, one of the jurors had to have emergency surgery and was excused by the judge. Since no alternate jurors were available at this point, the judge decided to allow the remaining five jurors to decide the case. As the judge noted, “Non-unanimous jury verdicts have been approved, so we will just have to go with five jurors. It will be almost like a non-unanimous jury verdict and it’ll be all right.” As it turned out, five jurors eventually voted to convict Dave of the charged offense.
Earlier, during the jury selection process, the prosecutor kept using peremptory challenges that had the effect of removing most members of Dave’s race from the jury. Dave’s attorney objected to the use of race as a standard for eliminating jurors, but the judge overruled Dave’s attorney. Dave’s attorney began eliminating members of the prospective jury based on a gender standard because he wanted more “geeky” types to hear the case. He was eliminating prospective jurors based on gender in a similar way to what the prosecutor had been doing with race. When the prosecutor objected to what Dave’s attorney was doing with respect to removing jurors based on gender, the judge said, “Well, that should even things out.”
At the conclusion of jury selection, Dave’s attorney was not happy with the panel that had been selected, so after consulting with Dave, he requested that the judge hear the case without a jury. The judge refused because he noted that the prosecution had the right to a jury trial based on the guarantees under the federal constitution.
The judge ordered that the case proceed, and the result was that the jury convicted Dave. The judge sentenced him to a year and a day in the state prison but did not order a fine or restitution. Following the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceedings, Dave did manage to scrape some money together and hired an appellate attorney to see what opportunities for legal relief might exist in the Court of Appeals. Dave explained as much of what happened as he could remember, and the appellate attorney read the trial transcript.
Component 1: What legal issues should Dave’s appellate attorney identify?
Component 2: How should those issues be resolved?
Essay Question 2:
Stella, a police officer, out of uniform, showed up at Andy’s house, knocked, and asked if she could enter to enact a warrant. Andy, dressed in his Elvis pajamas, opened the door. The warrant was a search warrant, issued by Magistrate McDuff, a former patrol cop for Graceland Police Department. The warrant stated that “the first-floor of Andy’s house will be searched for a gun used in connection with a robbery, as well as two very valuable paintings of Elvis which were stolen.” While looking in Andy’s house, Stella smelled what she thought to be gun powder coming from the second floor, and she quickly, without looking for anything else, walked to the second floor, and found a gun at the top of the steps, which she confiscated. The gun had a note attached to it which listed an address. Later that afternoon, police arrived at the address listed on the note, and it turned out that two stolen paintings were found there. As such, the police confiscated the paintings. The address was a known place where stolen paintings were hidden.
While at his house, Andy stated to Stella, that, “I do not know what you are here for, because I did not rob the Graceland Art Museum.” Nevertheless, Stella asked Andy to accompany her to the police station. Andy agreed, and as they walked in the station, Magistrate McDuff stated loudly: “Is that the person who stole the paintings?!” To which Andy stated, “I told Stella already that I did not rob the Graceland Art Museum, why are you harassing me, when you should be looking for the two valuable paintings of Elvis elsewhere, not in my home ?!” Later that afternoon Andy was subsequently charged with unlawful possession of a weapon and robbery of the Graceland Art Museum.
Component 1: Identify all applicable constitutional issues that Andy can allege prior to trial.
Component 2: How should those issues be resolved?
