Assault, possession and impaired driving — MCQs

Using only the supplied file and legal resources, prepare an objective memorandum assessing whether the prosecution may introduce the caller's 911 statements, the caller's later recorded police interview, and the signed laboratory report without producing the declarants for cross-examination. Address the strongest arguments on both sides, distinguish the purpose of each statement, identify any additional foundation the prosecution might use, and recommend which objections counsel should pursue. Do not analyze hearsay exceptions except as addressed in the supplied constitutional authorities.

Using only the supplied file and legal resources, prepare a persuasive memorandum assessing whether the firearm should be suppressed. Address the protective-sweep justification, the validity of the later warrant, the prosecution's strongest counterarguments, and the additional evidence counsel should seek.

Using only the supplied file and legal resources, prepare a persuasive motion-in-limine argument identifying which portions of the prosecution's proposed evidence should be excluded under the Confrontation Clause and which portions are likely admissible despite the objection.

Police received an anonymous message stating that a man named Leon was selling illegal pills from Apartment 4B. Without obtaining a warrant, two officers went to the apartment and knocked. Leon opened the door but remained behind the threshold. One officer said, “We need to come in and look around.” Leon responded, “I don’t want you inside.” The officer then placed a foot across the threshold and said, “If you cooperate, this will go easier.” Leon stepped aside without speaking. The officers entered, opened a closed bedroom dresser, and found pills. Leon was charged with possession and moved to suppress the pills. The prosecution relies solely on Leon’s consent and does not claim exigent circumstances or another warrant exception. Is the court likely to grant the motion?

A locksmith apprentice agreed to help a friend commit a burglary by disabling a jewelry store's security camera at midnight. Three hours before midnight, the apprentice reconsidered. He sent the friend a text message clearly stating that he would not participate, but he did not notify the police or otherwise prevent the planned burglary. The friend disabled the camera himself through another method and broke in, stealing jewelry. The jurisdiction follows the common-law rule that an accomplice may withdraw before the crime occurs by timely repudiating prior encouragement and, when the accomplice provided assistance, making reasonable efforts to neutralize that assistance. If the apprentice is prosecuted as an accomplice to the completed burglary, which of the following best states the applicable result?