ASSIGNMENT
Peter, an undercover police agent, was trying to locate a laboratory where it was believed that methamphetamine, or “speed”—a controlled substance—was being manufactured illegally. Peter went to Mary’s home and said that he represented a large organization that was interested in obtaining methamphetamine. Peter offered to supply a necessary ingredient for the manufacture of the drug, which was very difficult to obtain, in return for one-half of the drug produced. Mary agreed and processed the chemical given to her by Peter in
Peter’s presence. Later, Peter returned with a search warrant and arrested Mary. Charged with various narcotics law violations, Mary asserted the defense of entrapment. Should Mary prevail? Why or why not?
7. The police obtained a search warrant based on an affidavit that contained the following allegations: (a) Donald was seen crossing a State line on four occasions during a five-day period and going to a particular apartment, (b) telephone records disclosed that the apartment had two telephones, (c) Donald had a reputation as a bookmaker and as an associate of gamblers, and (d) the Federal Bureau of Investigation was informed by a “confidential reliable informant” that Donald was conducting gambling operations. When a search was made based on the warrant, evidence was obtained that resulted in Donald’s conviction of violating certain gambling laws. Donald challenged the constitutionality of the search warrant. Were Donald’s constitutional rights violated? Explain your answer.
8. A national bank was robbed by a man with a small strip of tape on each side of his face. An indictment was returned against David. David was then arrested, and counsel was appointed to represent him. Two weeks later, without notice to David’s lawyer, an FBI agent arranged to have the two bank employees observe a lineup, including David and five or six other prisoners. Each person in the lineup wore strips of tape, as had the robber, and each was directed to repeat the words “Put the money in the bag,” as had the robber. Both of the bank employees identified David as the robber. At David’s trial, he was again identified by the two, in the courtroom, and the prior lineup identification was eli- cited on cross-examination by David’s counsel. David’s counsel moved the court to grant a judgment of acquittal or alternatively to strike the courtroom identifications on the grounds that the lineup had violated David’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Decision
