LGSEV_W5_DQ1&2
Hearsay is a very important concept in the law of
evidence. In this question we examine potential hearsay in the context
of a criminal confession. Remember to think of possible exceptions to
the hearsay rule.
Douglas, the defendant, is on trial for robbing Donna, the plaintiff. Bob is a bouncer at a nightclub. Stephen is a witness willing to testify. According to Stephen, Bob told Stephen that Douglas had confessed to Bob about committing the robbery.
Examine all possibilities in this case:
In this question we will discuss the constitutional limits placed upon evidence in a search and seizure situation. Please research this issue to locate some case law addressing similar warrantless searches.
A police officer receives a phone call from an anonymous caller. The caller claims to know the location of goods stolen from a jewelry store. The address the caller provides is on the police list of suspected places. The officer goes to the location without a warrant and finds a map of the area where the jewelry store is located.
After the first inspection the officer calls the court and the station for issuing a warrant. During the second inspection of the property, with a warrant, the officer does not find anything.
The police arrest the suspect and charge him with robbery.
Based on the above information, answer the following questions:
Douglas, the defendant, is on trial for robbing Donna, the plaintiff. Bob is a bouncer at a nightclub. Stephen is a witness willing to testify. According to Stephen, Bob told Stephen that Douglas had confessed to Bob about committing the robbery.
Examine all possibilities in this case:
- Can Stephen’s testimony be considered hearsay? Why or why not?
- Would the court allow Stephen’s testimony? Why or why not?
- In what situation would the court allow Stephen’s testimony?
- What would the impact on the case be if Bob testifies?
In this question we will discuss the constitutional limits placed upon evidence in a search and seizure situation. Please research this issue to locate some case law addressing similar warrantless searches.
A police officer receives a phone call from an anonymous caller. The caller claims to know the location of goods stolen from a jewelry store. The address the caller provides is on the police list of suspected places. The officer goes to the location without a warrant and finds a map of the area where the jewelry store is located.
After the first inspection the officer calls the court and the station for issuing a warrant. During the second inspection of the property, with a warrant, the officer does not find anything.
The police arrest the suspect and charge him with robbery.
Based on the above information, answer the following questions:
- Locate the rule of evidence about improperly obtained evidence.
- Evaluate the rights of the officer and the accused.
- When is improperly obtained evidence admissible, and when it is not?
- Illustrate your discussion by citing similar cases and other legal authorities.
No comments:
Post a Comment