
JAABLOG invites institutions of higher learning to utilize the following Ethics Hypotheticals in its curriculum:
CASE STUDY ONE:
DEFENDANT: Black Male.
CHARGE:
Possession of Cocaine.
HEARING TYPE: Motion To Suppress.
Officer testifies on cross examination that drug sniffing dog discovered the cocaine charged in the
Information approximately one half hour
after the initial traffic stop, minutes after arriving on scene. Upon repeated questioning, Officer reaffirms his answer.
Judge interrupts. Explains while making eye contact with Officer "the Court will exercise its right to question you on the most important issue of when the drug sniffing dog arrived. It is of the highest importance as to when the dog arrived. If you remember the dog arrived after the time it took to write the traffic citation, the evidence must be suppressed. Officer, when did the dog arrive?
Officer: "Oh, that's right, while I was writing the ticket, your Honor."
OUTCOME: Motion to Suppress denied.
SENTENCE: Mandatory prison sanction under the guidelines.
DISCUSS: Was this an improper line of questioning? Was there an ethical breach by the Court?
CASE STUDY TWO:
DEFENDANT: Black Male.
CHARGE: 3rd degree felony,
Battery On A Law Enforcement Officer. Defendant is
HOQ (meaning maximum potential sentence is doubled if the judge agrees with the State Attorney).
HEARING TYPE: Trial.
During State's case, the necessity for a
Richardson Hearing arises (potential discovery violation). Judge orders highly exculpatory evidence, not previously disclosed by the State, excluded. Guilty verdict follows after hours of deliberation.
SENTENCE: 10 years prison - the maximum.
DISCUSS: For purposes of discussion, does it matter if the Court of Appeals, in a strongly worded opinion, reverses the trial court based on the discovery violation? Does it matter if the Prosecutor, after the sentence was pronounced, laughs at the crying defendant and mimics his inner city dialect, in full view of the Defendant and Judge, who does not object? Does it matter if it is later alleged that the Judge and Prosecutor may have been involved in an inappropriate relationship during the trial proceedings? Are there ethics violations, and, if so, how should they be remedied?
CASE STUDY THREE:
DEFENDANT: Black Male
CHARGE: Violation of Probation for 3rd Degree Felony Offense of
Cannabis Distribution.
Defendant is charged with violating his probation for the first time. He has never had a felony except for the one he is currently serving probation. He is alleged to have committed the new law violation of
Trespass while on probation.
The State Attorney offers the maximum penalty under law, five years prison, despite the fact the Defendant does not score anywhere near mandatory prison sanctions. The Court, in an unusual move, refuses to make a counter offer which undercuts the State. The State explains at a later hearing that it wants the Defendant to provide information on cannabis dealers. The Defendant is unable to provide said information.
OUTCOME: Final Violation of Probation Hearing held. Multiple defense witnesses testify they gave valid legal permission to the Defendant for him to be on their premises. The Court, based on the "credibility of the witnesses", finds the Defendant to have commited the trespass violation.
SENTENCE: Five years prison - the maximum.
DISCUSS: For purposes of discussion, would it matter if the trespass allegation was later tried before a County Court judge who, after listening to the same witnesses, found the Defendant to be
Not Guilty? Would it matter if the Court of Appeals later affirmed the Circuit Court's finding, based on the differing standards of proof? As in #2, would it matter if it is later alleged that the Judge and Prosecutor in question may have been involved in an inappropriate relationship during the violation of probation hearings? If proven, what should the remedy be? If it can't be proven, what is the harm to future proceedings?
CASE STUDY FOUR:
DEFENDANT: Black Male
CHARGE:
Possession of Cocaine Residue (a crack pipe with the mere presence of the chemical molecules that make up cocaine)
HEARING TYPE: Trial
During the jury instructions, the Judge reads the lengthy charging instructions in the usual monotone, rapid pace, rarely looking up or making eye contact with the jury.
The following portion of the instruction, damaging to the defense based on the evidence presented at trial, is read (after a noticeable pause), accompanied by deliberate, sustained eye contact with each of the jurors:
"If a person has exclusive possession of a thing, knowledge of its presence may be inferred or assumed."
Judge returns to instructions without making sustained eye contact with the jurors again.
OUTCOME: Guilty after hours of deliberation.
SENTENCE: Five years prison - the maximum.
DISCUSS: Did the Judge violate standards of neutrality? Does it matter if the inexperienced Defense Attorney failed to make a record of the questionable eye contact? If wrongly convicted, is it ok because the Defendant had committed many other felony offenses in his lifetime for which he had not been caught?
KEEP YOUR EYES ON YOUR OWN PAPER - NO CHEATING ALLOWED