Category: Constitutional law

Please look at the instructions below. This assignment is measuring your ability to “think” like a judge, taking the facts of a hypothetical (below) and applying the Constitutional standards as well as key precedent in coming to a decision. The key part of this is to show how you APPLY facts from the hypoethical to rules/ideas from previous cases, and how you REASON to reach your conclusion. At the end of the hypothetical I have provided a list of relevant cases (some we have seen already, some we have not). This is the only “research” you need to do, to look at those cases as well as anything covered in the textbook. 
Specified additional info from instructor: If you look at the instructions (please do so), you will notice that I have listed a pile of cases with links in order to help you.  THOSE are the cases you should use. You do not need to use any other case for your project (this is what we call a closed world hypothetical).  You should read those cases (and, while some of them we read selections in our book, it is worth going to read review the whole case).
Then, let me offer you some organizational advice:
Some general advice on style
Your opening paragraph should NOT have any rhetorical questions.  It should state what the issue of law being examined as exemplified in the present set of facts, i.e., “The question before this court is whether Dr. Higgins’s 3rd and 5th amendment rights were violated by the police camping out in Dr. Higgins’s guest room after the completion of a legal warrant”.  You then should have a very clear statement/answer “Yes, the actions of spending three days in Dr. Higgins’ guest room violate the 3rd amendments illegal quartering of soldiers as well as his fifth amendment rights of search and seizure”. You will need to point to specific “facts” of the current hypothetical as the basis for your decision.
That is all in your first paragraph: I.e., What is the question before this court, how do the current facts exhibit that question, and what is the answer!  In most of the hypotheticals, I gave there are TWO questions.  You can answer yes to both, no to both, or yes to one, not to the other.
Then, you should address the legal issues.  What case provides the guiding principle/test.  How does that test apply to the specific facts?  What other cases help us understand things (either by being the same or by being different and thus distinguishable).   
Thus, the outline would look like this.
I. Legal questions presented by the facts.
a. what are the two constitutional issues in play
b. what is your answer to whether the current facts are or are not constitutional
II. Issue 1.
a. What is the governing test that this court should use.  How does that apply to these facts.
b. What other cases relate (or need to be distinguished because they may lead to a different situation).  How are those cases similar or different from the current set of facts.
IV. Conclusion
Please remember, this is NOT a research paper.  All the information you need is in your textbook. There are numerous other cases that COULD relate, but you only need to use the ones in your text book.  While I primarily want you to use the ones where you have read excerpts, If you wish, there are some cases that are briefly discussed (and summarized, often bolded) in your text that you CAN use. You may want to go and read a bit more on those if you wish.
Attached is the hypothetical with the cases to use as well as a rubric. This is a final so the instructions are very specific and detailed. 

For this week’s discussion, we will pretend you are a judge. Based upon the cases you read (and cite at least 3 to explain why) write a short “opinion” on the attached facts.
“Jason Madoa, a 19-year-old college student, was arrested by the Metro City Police Department on suspicion of armed robbery. After being taken into custody, Doe was brought to the police station for questioning.
Upon arriving at the station, the police informed Madoa that he had the right to an attorney at his upcoming trial, but did not advise him of his right to have counsel present during interrogation.
When Madoa asked the officers, “Can I have an attorney here with me now?”, the police refused to answer his question. They immediately placed Doe in an isolated interrogation room.
The officers then utilized the “Reid Technique,” aggressively interrogating Madoa while refusing to allow him access to a phone or permit an attorney to be present. The officers relentlessly questioned Doe over an extended 5-hour period, asserting that witnesses identified him and urging him to confess with implications of leniency.
After nearly 5 grueling hours of this intense interrogation, an exhausted Madoa verbally agreed to confess to the robbery, implicating himself. Only at this point did the officers finally read Doe his Miranda rights against self-incrimination and right to counsel. They then had him sign a written confession statement.
At Madoa’s trial, his public defender moved to suppress the confession as violating his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and 6th Amendment right to counsel”
The 3 cases from this week and the links as follows… 
Escobedo v Illinois (1964). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/378/478/
Miranda v. Arizona (1966). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/
Edward v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/451/477/