Criminal Law and Procedure homework

Our professional writers will address all you homework
requirements and provide a quality paper with guarantees of 100% plagiarism free.
We provide 24/7 customer Support.

Order Research Paper In a Few Clicks



Get my paper done

By clicking “Get my paper done”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related emails.

Criminal Law and Procedure homework

CRIMINAL LAW PROFESSOR FERGUSON FINAL EXAM FALL 2019 DIRECTIONS: This exam consists of five questions. You are to answer each question. Your grade will be based on the issues you identify and analyze, your demonstration of your understanding of the relevant rules of law and on the clarity, precision and persuasiveness of your answers. You may only use your textbook, handouts and class notes on this exam. Consider the following situation. Nell Anderson parked her Ford Fusion in front of the bank and left her infant child, Christine, in the back seat while she quickly ran into the bank to use the ATM. When she returned outside, her car was gone. Nell frantically asked Jimmy Walsh, a teenaged boy standing nearby, if he had seen who had stolen

CRIMINAL LAW PROFESSOR FERGUSON FINAL EXAM FALL 2019 DIRECTIONS: This exam consists of five questions. You are to answer each question. Your grade will be based on the issues you identify and analyze, your demonstration of your understanding of the relevant rules of law and on the clarity, precision and persuasiveness of your answers. You may only use your textbook, handouts and class notes on this exam. Consider the following situation. Nell Anderson parked her Ford Fusion in front of the bank and left her infant child, Christine, in the back seat while she quickly ran into the bank to use the ATM. When she returned outside, her car was gone. Nell frantically asked Jimmy Walsh, a teenaged boy standing nearby, if he had seen who had stolen her car. Walsh responded that “an old guy in red suspenders was hanging around the car, but I didn’t see him get in.” Anderson telephoned the police and reported the incident. A few minutes later, police officer Julia Boms arrived at the scene; however, she was unable to determine the whereabouts of the car or the child. Six hours later, an anonymous individual called 911 and reported that an old man was sitting on a park bench near Duck Pond lamenting that he had “ripped off a neat car but found a real surprise inside.” Police officers Deronn Bowen and Paul Weiner went to the pond and saw an elderly man sitting on a park bench. The man was wearing red suspenders. While Bowen pointed his gun at the man’s head, Weiner demanded that the man identify himself. The man identified himself as John McKay. Weiner then screamed that “you better tell us where the baby is before my partner blows your head off.” McKay replied, “how was I supposed to know there was a kid in the car when I took it?” Weiner then ordered McKay to “take us to the kid right now.” McKay responded, “the baby’s in my apartment on Elm Street, but I don’t know if she is still alive.” The officers then grabbed McKay, handcuffed him, placed him in the back of their car and raced to the apartment. When they arrived at the apartment, they demanded that McKay give them the keys to his apartment. McKay told the officers that he did not have the keys; as a result, the officers broke down the door. Inside they found Christine, who was cranky, but otherwise healthy. The officers took the baby and McKay back to the police station. At the station, Bowen and Weiner learned that two other police officers had later responded to the apartment in response to a neighbor’s call that an infant had been crying inside loudly all day. McKay was taken into an interrogation room where Bowen administered the requisite Miranda warnings to him. At the conclusion of the warnings, Bowen urged McKay “to tell the whole story now and he would do what he could to make the D.A. go easier on him.” McKay, however, stated that he wanted to talk to a lawyer first. Bowen replied, “that’s really going to slow things down.” McKay was then placed in a holding cell.
Meanwhile, Boms picked up Walsh and brought him to the station. En route, Boms told Walsh that “they had made an arrest in the kidnapping but needed him to make an identification.” At the station, Boms brought Walsh to McKay’s single occupancy cell. Walsh immediately identified McKay as the man he had seen around Anderson’s car. An hour later, a dejected McKay, who had not been provided any sustenance, asked, “how long is it going to take to get me a lawyer?” Bowen responded, “why don’t we just talk this through?” Appearing distraught, McKay reluctantly agreed to answer Bowen’s questions. During this interrogation, McKay confessed to stealing the car with Christine inside. Based on the statements, Weiner located Anderson’s car on the outskirts of town. McKay’s fingerprints were recovered from the steering wheel of the car. Which, if any, of the following pieces of evidence would be admissible at McKay’s trial for kidnapping and larceny:
1. McKay’s statement at Duck Pond; 2. McKay’s statement in his jail cell; 3. The police entry into McKay’s apartment and the recovery of Christine inside; 4. The discovery of Anderson’s car and the recovery of McKay’s fingerprints; 5. Walsh’s identification of McKay at the police station.
NOTE: You must do more than simply provide an affirmative or negative conclusion. You need to provide a reasoned explanation for your conclusion, supported by the relevant principles of law. Your exam must be e-mailed to me at fergusonh@montclair.edu by 11pm on Thursday, December 19th.