Even the smartest students need writing assistance at some point during their academic career. Should you lock yourself in a room and spend the entire weekend trying to write a paper? We promise you that the paper that you pay for won’t be resold or submitted elsewhere. It will also be written according to the instructions that you and your professor provide. Our excellent essays stand out among the rest for a reason. Don’t just take our word, check them out by yourself.

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

I have critical thinking questions which I have already answered the questions. I need help with providing a brief explanation as to why this is the correct answer. Again, I am not asking for you to answer the question, but only to provide a brief explanation as to why this is the correct answer. Thanks!! These questions come from chapter 15-18 of textbook Scheb, John, Criminal Law and Procedure, 8th edition,

ISBN 9781285070117, Cengage Publisher

Chapter 15

A local police department suspects that three individuals, Alvin, Simon, and Theodore, are growing marijuana on their property and selling it around town.The officers, though, do not have probable cause to obtain a warrant.As a result, the officers begin discussing some creative avenues for acquiring information about these individuals and their activities.A rookie officer who majored in Political Science in college offers three options: 1) looking through trash left outside of the suspects’ home; 2) flying over the suspects’ backyard and using standard binoculars to search for marijuana plants; and 3) using a newly developed piece of equipment that can scan the suspects’ house and detect the presence of large quantities of organic plants.Answer the following questions about these options and explain your choices.

  1. The Supreme Court’s decision in Kyllo v. United States has implications for which option?

    1. Option 3

2. Which of these Supreme Court cases has direct implications for Option 1?

    1. Californiav. Greenwood

3. Which of these options is most likely to be deemed unconstitutional?

    1. Option 2

4. If the police had probable cause suggesting that these three individuals were growing and selling marijuana in their home, then which of the following would be true:

b. Police would likely be granted a search warrant by a magistrate

Three college students are travelling from upstate New York to Florida for spring break.In Buford, Georgia, they come to a stop at DUI checkpoint.An officer approaches the driver’s side window, determines that the driver is sober, and tells the college students to head on their way.However, a second officer, suspicious of the out-of-state license plate, attaches a GPS locator to the car’s rear bumper just before the students drive off.Police conduct surveillance on the car’s movements for the next week, and after determining that the car went to Florida—movements that the officers deem consistent with drug trafficking—the Buford police determine that they will stop this vehicle the next time it enters their jurisdiction.Sure enough, as the car enters Buford on the college student’s trip home after a week in Florida, it is pulled over by an officer.As the driver hands the officer a driver’s license, the officer says that he smells marijuana in the car and initiates a search of the vehicle.Inside a zipped backpack on the backseat, he finds contraband and makes an arrest. Explain your choices.

1. An officer’s act of visually inspecting the inside of the car at a DUI checkpoint is:

g. not a unconstitutional, according to Supreme Court precedent

  1. The act of placing a GPS locator on the rear bumper of the car and conducting surveillance on its movements is:

    1. a violation of the Fourth Amendment according to the decision in U.S. v. Jones

2. Assume that the traffic stop on the student’s return trip had in fact been a valid one.Further assume that an officer legitimately smells marijuana.Evaluate all of the statements below and determine which is true.

b. The officer could search a closed backpack sitting on the backseat because the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Ross permits a comprehensive search of a vehicle’s contents when probable cause exists.

Chapter 16:

Billy is driving home from a bar on a Friday night when he comes upon a DUI checkpoint.At the checkpoint, an officer smells alcohol on Billy’s breath and asks him to step out of the car.Billy stumbles out of the car and slurs his words when asked a few basic questions about who he is and where he is going.Billy refuses to consent to a breathalyzer, but the officer does have a video camera record Billy as he is stumbling and slurring his words.Billy is arrested on suspicion of DUI and taken to the police station.At the station, a sample of Billy’s blood is taken.Although Billy does not consent to this, he is too drunk to put up much resistance.At his trial, officers play a video of Billy slurring his words and also introduce the blood evidence.He is convicted of DUI.Give your opinion of the best outcome.

  1. The lack of Miranda warnings in this situation will:

b. likely lead to the confession being thrown out even though this was patently not a custodial interrogation—since he was arrested for DUI, not murder.

2. Let’s assume that an appellate court throws out the confession because Billy was not read his Miranda rights.The gun and any DNA evidence found next to the dead body could be considered:

c. Valid evidence derived from a reasonable suspicion search

3. Based on the Supreme Court’s decision in _____________, if other officers had already made plans to send a search party into the woods first thing in the morning, then police might be able to invoke the inevitable discovery doctrine in order to use the evidence found on and around the body at trial.

c. Nix v. Williams

4. Let’s now assume that Billy was in fact read Miranda warning before he was brought into the interrogation room.Let’s also assume that, before he broke down and gave his confession, he had been through three grueling hours of interrogation, during which time he remained mostly silent.Which of the following is true?

d. The Miranda Rights were read for his DUI arrest and he should have been read a new set before being interrogated for murder.

Chapter 17

In the year 2035, you graduate from law school at Emmett Brown Polytechnic University.The university’s “Department of Space-Time Inquiry” decides to send you back to the year 1935 in its newly-created time machine. Unfortunately, the machine malfunctions and you enter a cycle that has you bouncing from the year 1935 to the year 1965 to the year 1995.At each stop, you land in a public defender’s office.Your ability to return to your normal life in 2035 is dependent on your ability to successfully assist three indigent criminal defendants—one at each of your time travel stops.If you can accomplish this task, the cycle of time travel will be broken. Thankfully, your legal education has afforded you an exceptional knowledge of case law related to the “right to counsel”—and this will come in handy! Explain the options you chose.

  1. At your first stop, in the year 1935, a judge could appoint you to serve as a counsel for an indigent defendant if which of the following criteria is met:

d. There are no criteria by which to determine when counsel should be appointed at this point in time, because the Supreme Court has never addressed the issue.

2. At your second stop, in the year 1965, the rules have changed as a result of which important Supreme Court case related to appointing counsel for indigent defendants:

a. Gideon v. Waiwright

3. By 1995, as a result of cases like Scott v. Illinois, the range of indigent clients that you could represent as appointed counsel has expanded to include which of the following:

a. Only those facing life in prison.

Chapter 18:

.Explain the options you chose.

Famous football star Oxford Jack Wilson is about to stand trial for murdering his brother-in-law, a man who had also served as his agent and accountant. Just before jury selection is about to begin, you are hired as a consultant to assist his legal team. You immediately offer three suggestions. Your first is that the legal defense team attempt to get as many men—preferably football fans—on the jury as possible. Your next suggestion is to make sure that the courtroom is packed with members of the media, in the hope of making Oxford Jack appear to be a celebrity. Your final suggestion is that the attorneys do whatever they can to have potentially-damaging DNA evidence excluded before trial. The lawyers get to work on immediately implementing your ideas.

  1. The attempt to exclude women from the jury could be deemed inconsistent with the principles articulated in what Supreme Court case?
    1. Taylor v. Louisiana

2. If prosecutors attempt to exclude African-Americans from the jury by use of peremptory challenges, then:

d. This could serve as grounds for appeal, as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Batson v Kentucky

3. If the media that pack the courtroom become unruly and detract from the orderly procession of the trial, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sheppard v. Maxwell and Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, indicate that which of the following statements is true:

b. Although there is a presumption of openness, a judge has some discretion for excluding the press, particularly if there is a prejudicial impact on the defense.

4. Let’s say that the DNA evidence in this case was derived from a small sample of blood that had to be genetically replicated before it could be tested. The technique for doing so has not achieved “general acceptance” in the scientific community, but it is a testable and could be subjected to peer review. Evaluate these statements: 1) In a state that uses the Frye standard, the evidence is likely to be excluded at trial; 2) In a state that uses the Daubert standard, there is a chance that the evidence could be permitted at trial.

c. Both statements are false.

5. The opportunity for lawyers to ask questions of prospective jurors to determine whether they may or may not be football fans with previous perceptions of the defendant would occur during:

b. cross-examination

The trial of famous football star Oxford Jack Wilson, accused of killing his brother-in-law, is underway. Prosecutors, frustrated by a pre-trial decision that excluded their key DNA evidence, begin taking some risks. On direct examination, they ask a doctor the following question: “So when you read a report of DNA results from the night of the murder, you saw that the defendant’s DNA matched blood evidence at the scene, correct?” Next, while questioning a police officer on direct examination, the prosecutors play an audiotape of a phone conversation between Oxford Jack’s wife and her now-deceased brother. This audiotape includes the wife discussing fears that her husband might be a violent man. However, Oxford Jack’s wife is not actually able to appear in person because she has fled the country, fearing for her safety. Finally, during closing arguments, the prosecutor refers to Oxford Jack as a “monster both on and off the football field.” Answer the following questions about what has taken place in this trial.

6. As to the prosecutor’s comment made during closing argument:

b. This is grounds for a judge to admonish the prosecutor and to instruct a jury to disregard the remark.

7. Which of the following is the most likely grounds for defense counsel to invoke when objecting to the question asked of the doctor?

c. Leading question

8. The playing of the audiotape is likely to be excluded as a violation of:

d. No privilege would apply here because we can assume the wife would want it played.

9. The audiotape could also be problematic for violating which of the following:

a. The 6th Amendment, provided that it is considered testimonial evidence

10. There is a way that a clever prosecutor might be able to include the audiotape. This would have to rely upon:

b. Crawford v. Washington, and the fact that the witness is not available

Do you need help with this or a different assignment? In a world where academic success does not come without efforts, we do our best to provide the most proficient and capable essay writing service. After all, impressing professors shouldn’t be hard, we make that possible. If you decide to make your order on our website, you will get 15 % off your first order. You only need to indicate the discount code GET15.

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper