EVIDENCE HLP

FINAL EXAMINATION

PROFESSOR CRAWFORD                                                                                               

SUMMER 2005

 

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

 

1.         You have three (3) hours to complete this exam.

 

2.         This exam is closed book; no materials are allowed.

 

3.         There are two parts to this exam. Part I is to be answered on a ParScore form. Part II is to be answered in blue books (or typed). If you answer Part II in a blue book, please write on every other line.

 

4.         Darken the letter corresponding to the correct answer on the ParScore answer sheet.  If you change your answer, please be sure that your erasures are complete.  The exam will be scored by a machine and any ambiguities will be counted as a wrong answer.

 

Part I: Consists of 30 multiple-choice questions. Each question is worth 1.17 points.

 

Total for Part I: 35 points.

 

 

Part II: Consists of one essay question, which is worth 45 points.

 

 

Total for Part II: 45 points.

 

Total possible points in the exam: 80 points

 

 

 

5.         Write your exam number on our exam envelope and at the top of this page.  Do not use your name, student ID number, or Social Security Number on any exam materials.

 

6.         At the conclusion of the exam, return all test materials to the exam envelope and submit it to the proctor.  Do not seal the envelope.

 

 

Thanks for a great semester!

 

GOOD LUCK!

 PROFESSOR CRAWFORD

EVIDENCE - SUMMER 2005

 

 

PART II – ESSAY

Instructions:

You are to base your answers on the Federal Rules. However, in those areas where there are significant differences in the Federal Rules and the California Code, you should contrast how each would apply.

Deal with all issues raised ‑ even though you believe disposition of one is controlling.

 

 

PEOPLE V. JOHNNY FRANK

 

Johnny Frank is on trial for armed robbery and attempt murder of a police officer.  The State alleges Johnny Frank was outside of the bank dressed up as brownie (complete with a mask), along with Craig Hall, who was wearing a cookie costume.  Both men entered the bank, ultimately took out guns and demanded money from the tellers.  A police officer arrived on the scene during the robbery and a shoot-out ensued.  The man in the brownie costume dropped his gun and fled the scene.  Craig Hall was shot and did not get away. 

 

Craig Hall was ultimately released from the hospital into police custody.  He will be tried separately.  At the beginning of Frank’s trial, outside of the presence of the jury, Hall asserted his 5th amendment right not to testify.  The Court found that this was a legitimate assertion of his testimonial privilege.

 

At trial, the parties introduced the following evidence.  Discuss any objections that should have been made to the following evidence, the counter arguments (if any) and the likely ruling.  If additional information is needed, please identify what it would be and how it would affect the result.

 

 

1)      Security guard Smith testified that

a.       Just before the robbery, a man in a cookie costume approached him and explained that he and his friend were passing out flyers for a local bakery.  The man in the cookie costume then asked to use the restroom.  Security guard Smith said that he could.

 

b.       A few minutes later, a man in a brownie costume came in and asked, “Would you like to try a super duper deluxe brownie?”  Security Smith accepted the brownie, took a bite and immediately passed out on the floor.  He awoke to see the cookie man being placed into custody.

 

c.       Two weeks after the robbery, he went to police headquarters, where he listened to several men utter the words “would you like to try a super duper deluxe brownie?”  At the conclusion of the voice line-up, he turned to Detective Smart and said, “The 5th guy is the one who gave me the poisoned brownie.”

 

(The parties stipulate that the defendant was the 5th person in the voice line-up).

 

2)      On cross examination, Security Guard Smith admitted that, seven years ago, he pleaded guilty to charges of fraud.

 

3)      Madame Therese testified that

a.       She is a forensic psychic.  She is a member of the Far-Seekers, a global psychic association that is based in Romania.  She has written several articles on the emerging recognition of, and reliance on, psychic powers in crime solving efforts for newspapers such as the Enquirer, the Globe and the New York Post.  She also has a self-published book entitled, “Do You See What I See?  The Art of the Forensic Psychic”, which she sells on the Home Shopping Network.  She also runs a psychic hotline.

 

b.       She was in the bank during the robbery.  She saw the cookie man come in, followed shortly by the man in the brownie costume.  The two men pulled out guns and told everyone to get on the floor and close their eyes.  She complied.  She heard shooting, and opened her eyes just as the brownie threw his weapon to the floor and fled.

 

c.       She immediately picked up the gun and began rubbing it with her hands.  She had a vision of a man with black curly hair, a goatee, and two earrings in his ear.  She can testify within a reasonable degree of psychic certainty that the man she saw in the vision was the man in the brownie costume who had just been holding the gun. 

 

d.       She later viewed a line-up and identified the defendant as the man that she saw in her vision.

 

4)      Detective Smart testified that

a.       A few hours after the robbery, he went to the hospital to interview the man in the cookie costume, now known as Craig Hall.  Mr. Hall was in the Intensive Care Unit recovering from surgery.  When Detective Smart walked in, Mr. Hall said, “ugh- you pigs shot me and now I am going to meet my maker in the sky.  I told Dr. J that this hare-brained scheme of his would never work!”  In response to Detective Smart’s questions, Hall then told him that Dr. J was Johnny Frank and the entire plan was his idea. 

 

 

 

END OF EXAM