CA Bar Exam 練習答案: Criminal Law & Procedure (Feb 2001)

Bar Review CourseのEssay答案は完璧すぎ＆長すぎて参考にならないという方向けに、過去に書きためた答案を公開していきます。公開するのは、私が実際に1時間計って解いた答案を、ギリギリ合格ラインまたは合格ライン少し上になるように手直ししたものです。手直しにあたっては、某Bar Review Courseの採点表を参照して、自己採点しています。

問題

February 2001 Question 3
https://sites.google.com/site/easybarpasser/past-exams/2001#TOC-Criminal-Procedure-

Duce and Cody were arrested for an armed robbery. Duce was taken to the police station, where she was interrogated without Miranda warnings. After three hours of questioning, a police officer asked Duce if she would consent to a search of her automobile. Duce consented, and a search of her car revealed a handgun and items stolen in the robbery, which were seized by the officers. When told what the officers found, Duce confessed to driving the getaway car in the robbery.

Cody, who did not know that Duce had confessed, then confessed and named Duce as the driver of the getaway car.

At their joint trial on a charge of robbery, Duce moved to exclude her confession from evidence based solely on the failure of the police to give her Miranda warnings. Based only on that violation, the court granted the motion to exclude her confession.

Duce also moved to exclude from evidence the handgun and the stolen items seized from her automobile, claiming that she was not aware that she had a right to refuse consent to search. The prosecutor conceded that the police had no authority to search the car absent consent, but asserted that Duce's consent was obtained without coercion. The court denied the motion, finding that the consent was voluntary.

The handgun and the stolen items seized from Duce's car were admitted into evidence at the joint trial of Duce and Cody over objections by each defendant. Cody's confession, redacted to eliminate any reference to Duce, was admitted into evidence against Cody.

At trial Duce testified, denying that she drove the getaway car and that she knew the handgun or the stolen items were in her car. She testified that she had loaned her car to Cody on the day of the robbery. In rebuttal the prosecutor called a police officer who testified, over objection by Duce, to the contents of Duce's confession and to the contents of Cody's complete unredacted confession implicating Duce as the driver of the getaway car.

Assume that in each instance all appropriate constitutional and evidentiary objections were made.

1. Did the court err in admitting the handgun and the stolen items seized from Duce's car against Duce and Cody? Discuss.

2. Did the court err in admitting the police officer's testimony about Duce's confession? Discuss.

3. Did the court err in admitting the police officer's testimony about Cody's complete unredacted confession? Discuss.

少々古い問題のため、いつものサイトでは過去問のデータを見つけられず、異なるサイトへのリンクを貼っています。リンク先の答案は、CA BARが公開した優秀答案ではなく、サイトの持ち主が作成したもののようです。

答案