April 20, 2016

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 4/20, we began by going over Hubbard v. Greeson. We talked about what Indiana's choice of law rule had been for the previous 99 years, and what happened to that rule. We then turned to Land v. Yamaha, and saw how the Indiana choice of law rule got applied. I talked about federal trial court jurisdiction, including diversity jurisdiction, and the Erie Doctrine. We discussed removal from state courts to the federal courts. We went over statutes of repose versus statutes of limitation, and how Indiana's statute of repose had a devastating effect on the claim by the Lands. We discussed both Greeson and Land in terms of whether the decision to bring suit in Indiana in both cases appears to have been good lawyering or bad. On Friday, I plan to go over a few Maine cases about our conflict of laws rule. The assignment for Friday 4/22 is to read in the text through the end of Chapter III (through p. 122), including Finstuen v. Crutcher (p. 117).


POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Wednesday 4/20, I distributed Assignment #2, which is reproduced below. We went over the requirements of the assignment. Then we went back to the text, and reviewed exactly what the holding was in Powell v. Alabama. We went on to discuss Gideon v. Wainwright, going over both Black's opinion and Harlan's concurrence. We then discussed the post-Gideon cases regarding the appointment of counsel in cases less than felonies. The assignment for Friday 4/22 is to read in the text through p. 561, including Batson v. Kentucky.

Assignment due the beginning of class Friday, April 29, 2016

The assignment consists of a total of five questions. For each one:
a) answer the question that is posed, with a brief analysis (in other words, every question carries with it the implied ending “and why”); if a solution is not clear, and it could be argued either way, explain the pros and cons of both ways;
b) briefly tell what authority you’re relying on for your answer, with paragraph numbers if possible, and with a brief explanation of what that authority provides.

The overall goal is that you want to get a confession out of the suspect Andy, and, most importantly, you want that confession be admissible in the Maine courts.
When the question asks you to make a specific assumption, that assumption does not apply to previous facts, nor does it necessarily reflect the proper analysis for the prior facts (i.e., just because you’re told to assume that Andy was in custody (after Question 1), doesn’t mean that that’s the answer to Question 1). Not all of the facts given to you will necessarily be crucial to your answer.

Assume that officers Fife and Pyle are courteous, low-key, and non-threatening throughout, unless the specific facts indicate otherwise.

You’ve got a limited set of authority to work with: Ormsby, Prescott, Bragg, and Nightingale, as well as all the relevant background cases from the textbook. No additional cases are required or allowed.

A car has been spotted off the road about 9:00 pm at night, with clearly more than $1000 of damage to the car. No one is in the car, but by running a license plate check, the two law enforcement officers, Fife and Pyle, find that the registered owner is a college student (Andy) whose address is about a quarter mile from the scene.
They go to Andy’s house, and knock on the door until he comes to the door. Andy appears disheveled and disoriented. Once Andy sees who’s at the door, he tries to slam the door shut, but Officer Fife inserts his foot to prevent that, and tells Andy that they really need his cooperation. Andy asks whether he’s free to leave, and Officer Fife says “It’s your house, Andy”. Andy, confused, continues to stand in the doorway with the officers.
In response to their questions, Andy confirms that he is the owner of the car and that he was the operator of the car that night. In the course of that questioning, the officers smell alcohol on his breath. Also, he slurs his speech, and his eyes are red, and his explanation for the car being off the road (he hit an icy patch) makes little sense, since the temperature has been in the 60s.
The officers confer privately and decide that they are going to arrest Andy, but they don’t tell Andy that yet.

1) Has Andy been in custody for Miranda purposes (hereinafter, just “custody”) at any point so far that night?

Assume that Andy is in custody right after the officers decide to arrest him (and the officers realize this).
Officer Fife now wants to tell Andy that he’s under arrest, then Mirandize Andy, and then get him to admit that he’s been drinking. Since Andy hasn’t shown any eagerness to talk, both officers realize that the Miranda warnings at that point might cause Andy to quit talking.
On the other hand, Andy seems to answer the questions that are put to him. Officer Pyle wants to simply question Andy about whether he’s been drinking (without an arrest or Miranda) the same as he would have done if Andy had been in the car when they found it. If Andy admits to the drinking, Officer Pyle will then tell Andy that he’s under arrest, Mirandize him, and ask him to repeat what he’s already admitted (and there’s a good chance that Andy will do what he’s asked to do at that point).

2) Which officer has the better plan?

Because of their outstanding work in the traffic division, Officers Fife and Pyle are promoted months later to the homicide squad. Their first case involves a report that a car has been found in the Penobscot River, and there’s a body inside the car. As it turns out, the car is Andy’s car, and the body turns out to be Andy’s roommate Opie. The medical examiner concludes that Opie’s death is the result of foul play, and Officers Fife and Pyle immediately have a hunch that Andy is the perpetrator. DNA from the scene matches Andy’s but that doesn’t help much, since the car belongs to him.
They call Andy and tell him that they need him to come down to police headquarters to identify the car (which has been brought to headquarters after it was recovered from the river). That’s a small part of the reason for having him come in, though, since the overriding reason is to squeeze a confession out of Andy.
As soon as Andy comes down to the station, and he identifies the car, the Officers tell him that Opie’s body was found inside. Andy says that Opie often borrows the car, and has seemed kind of depressed lately. Officer Fife wants to tell Andy that they’ve got some additional questions for him, but that he’s free to leave if he wishes. Fife thinks (with good reason) that Andy won’t feel the need to leave at that point, because he doesn’t know that he’s already the focus of an investigation. Fife also wants to Mirandize Andy right from the start. Fife thinks (again with good reason) that there’s little danger of Andy clamming up at this point, again because Andy has no idea that he’s already the focus of an investigation. If Andy asks about why he’s being Mirandized, Fife will just tell Andy that Miranda warning are routine when there’s a dead person involved.
Officer Pyle agrees with the part about telling Andy that he’s free to leave (before they give Andy any reason to leave), but he doesn’t want to Mirandize Andy before they have to.

3) Assuming that Andy is not in custody at this point, which officer has the better plan?

Assume that Fife and Pyle do tell Andy that he’s free to leave, and do Mirandize him, and that he’s still not in custody during the following interrogation:

Fife and Pyle start by telling Andy that they realize that Opie was a bad person. They get Andy talking about all the bad things that Opie did (dealing drugs, not cleaning the bathroom shower, etc.). Once Andy’s comfortable, they tell him that they know what Andy knows, and that soon he’ll know that they know what he knows. Andy just looks confused, just as most reasonable people would be on hearing that.
Fife and Pyle then tell Andy that Opie’s dead was a homicide, and they start to make up lots of lies that tend to incriminate Andy in Opie’s murder. They tell Andy that people have seen the two roommates arguing (the two had argued, but Andy hadn’t thought that anyone had seen them). Fife and Pyle tell Andy that Opie had called his parents and told them that he was afraid of Andy (a total fabrication, but somewhat believable to Andy). They told Andy that confessing would be good for his soul, and that he would feel better if he told them everything.
Andy gets very distressed at this point, and tells the officers that he wants to talk to an attorney. They told him that sure, he could do that, but why don’t they all just take a break for a while. They tell Andy again that he’s free to leave, but they offer to get Andy his favorite pizza. Andy likes the sound of that, and he sticks around, and then he feels much better after the pizza.

4) Is there any problem with continued interrogation after Andy has asked for an attorney?

The questioning has gone on for five hours already, and the officers feel that Andy’s resistance is breaking. Pyle plays the bad cop. Jabbing Andy with his finger, and with an intimidating tone, he repeats that confessing would be good for Andy’s soul, and that Andy would finally feel better if he told them everything. He says that things will go better in court for Andy if he tells the truth now.
Andy breaks down and confesses that he killed Opie after a fight about Opie eating Andy’s leftover pizza from the refrigerator.
Assume that Andy has not been in custody at any time prior to the confession.


5) Is Andy’s confession voluntary?

When you’re done, you should have 5 sections (clearly marked 1-5). Don’t repeat the questions - just give the answers. I anticipate that your paper will be roughly 2 or 3 pages long.

Here’s a sample answer to #1, which illustrates the format and citation form (but try not to emulate the degree of confusion exhibited below):

1) Andy was not in custody. The test for whether Andy was in custody is whether a reasonable person would feel free to terminate the investigation and leave. Nightingale, ¶15. Even though Prescott was in custody at her house, since her parents made her speak with the officers (Prescott, ¶12), Andy was not in custody at his, because his parents were too drunk to come to the door. The scene of the questioning was the suspect’s home, just the same as in both Prescott and Nightingale, and, since there was no custody in either of those cases, there should also be no custody in this case. Also, Andy was told that he was free to leave, and, as in Prescott (¶16), this is the most important factor in deciding custody. Unlike Prescott, Andy was the focus of the investigation, and like Prescott, he was intimidated into continuing to speak with the officer. In fact, Andy’s custody is clearer than Prescott’s, because there were two officers questioning him, while Prescott only had one. Since Andy suffered only a “brief, limited intrusion” (Prescott ¶13) into his liberty, this was really like a Terry stop, and so Andy was not in custody.

The assignment will be graded on both the structure and the content of your paper. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts (don’t be like my sample answer). I like short clear sentences better than long complicated ones. I like correct grammar.

Please make two copies of your paper, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.

You may e-mail me if you have specific questions about the assignment. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.

If you cannot be in class on Friday 4/29, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the paper. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.

The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. Do not show your paper to anyone. Do not look at anyone else’s paper. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.


IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your assignment to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If you do not get a reply, then I have not received the assignment.