You will notice that this week’s discussion is “different” from our prior discussions. In this discussion, you will be the “judge.” This assignment is an opportunity for you to see the law in action.
INSTRUCTIONS:
- Carefully read the fact pattern below, then answer the question.
- When answering the question, use the I-R-A-C structure for legal arguments.
- Issue: Briefly describe the most important issue for deciding the case.
- Rule: Describe and explain the most relevant legal rules that apply to the fact pattern. You should identify the relevant constitutional provision, describe the relevant legal test as well as any relevant Supreme Court cases. Consider only the material that has already been covered in this course — i.e., Do not look ahead in the book or Google cases or answers.
- Analysis: In your analysis section, consider both sides of the argument. What argument will the defendant(s) most likely make? What specific facts support the defendant(s)’ position? What argument will the government most likely make? What specific facts support the government’s position? Your analysis section should include specific facts (i.e., evidence) from the fact pattern (e.g., specific words used by people, where people are sitting, what was searched and when, what was found, etc.)
- Conclusion: Your conclusion should clearly state which party’s argument is strongest and what the court should do. (E.g., “The government most likely conducted an illegal search when ….” or “The agent’s actions were legal because …”)
- CITATIONS REQUIRED: You must use in-test citations and include a reference list.
Matthew Lippman. Criminal Procedure (5th edition) (Sage Publications 2022).
- Your initial post should include 2-3 paragraphs. Each paragraph should contain at least 4-5 sentences.
- After making your initial posts, respond to at least two classmates.
FACT PATTERN:
Bernie, an accountant, is suspected of masterminding a major tax fraud scheme. Armed with a warrant for his arrest, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agents went to Bernies home at 123 Main Street in Beverly Hills. After Bernies wife opened the door, the agents presented her with the warrant, entered the home and searched the entire house. Bernie was not there. Bernies wife said that she was not sure where Bernie was or when Bernie would be back. His wife also stated, Bernie may have gone to the gym or to the grocery store. Sometimes, he likes to visit with our next-door neighbor, Paul. Bernie wasnt here when I got home from work; so, I really have no idea where he is.
The agents went next door to Pauls house. A teenager named Jack answered the door. Jack is 13-years-old and looks young for his age. An agent said, We are looking for Bernie. May we come inside and look around? Jack said, Sure and let the agents inside. The IRS agents found Bernie and Paul in Pauls study. Paul was sitting at his own office desk. Bernie was sitting on the opposite side of the desk from Paul. One agent removed Bernie from his chair, cuffed him and searched him. A list of clients (many of whom were suspected of participation in the fraud scheme) was found in Bernies coat pocket. A second agent walked over to Paul’s side of the desk and opened the drawers of Paul’s desk. An illegally imported pistol was found in Pauls desk drawer. Paul was then also arrested. It was later determined that the pistol had Bernies (and only Bernies) fingerprints on it.
QUESTION:
Suppose that you are the judge at Bernie and Paul’s criminal trial. Bernie and Paul argue that the client list and gun should be “suppressed” (i.e., not used as evidence against them) on the ground that the agents performed an illegal search of Paul’s house.
- Would you allow the client list and gun into evidence? Explain why or why not. (Be sure to cite relevant legal tests and Supreme Court cases.)
- When responding to your classmates, answer the following questions: Do you reach the same conclusion? Do you cite the same cases? Did your classmate’s post persuade you to change your position? Why or Why not?
Requirements: 3 Pargraphs