This is for my criminal trial class.
I will upload the previous 14 assignments so you can have a clear understanding of what the topic is about and so it can help you answer assignment. You have to use the previous assignments as a reference. But you are only doing assignment 15.
3 Pages
ASS
I
GNMENT #3
You have now had the opportunity to interview the victim. He provided a
description of the achral crime and the perpetrator.
Based on the description of one of the eyewitnesses, a police sketch artist has
created a sketch of the alleged perpetrator.
The eyewitnesses have viewed computer photographs at the local police precinct.
No one has made a positive identification of anyone.
What do you do next?
ai
-Jg;
wrr. s6ro!..,P
used D Poss€r5rd
Fi.sl l{.rn..
Ati0 titusT
grvl
tl
lliat
a8ll
0atr Iifir
0illar,nto
IY
D.tr
O Yls E lio
F08
0Nt wtLI80x
CO ?LETEO WHEII rl susri0 f0n IO ACLOSE cisE NESULIS,I
0
Clolning Oascflptior.
Sc.rs. M..tr. M0. nc.
Clolhjng oescrirlion.
Scrrr, lierkr. M.0.. &c.
ar Coinp
D
PtNI I
in 0elrils)
;l ll
Iim! R!rults:o
nr3uIB
[yideicall Yes D Nollimtr.
8y Phon.
DgYls Ollo
E Yls rl tlo
Ycs O Rolusrd O Fulure
E Yei O Retused O Future
Cri . Salrt Dsshd
O Yos O o ,
EY lErbr nrlUIE in 0.l.ils) crim! Scana ptlotos
0 Ye5 O o
8y lEntcr Resutrs rn !-etri-Ef–
EC”l lmproper Hetuiral ln
acc
urale Facts nC-3 o €videncs / Can.t t0 Uncooperative Complai ant flc-s ,,Leads,
l7
t8
19
DETAILS:
i-
trnyesUeatlan: Rotterv,ti
9:bject: R*irrervieneArurU,o Crr:
z
Staus; Cae Active .
-. ,1
_rt1
tft,iP I
TFF’F]
t6
17
t8
l9
O Y6 O Belussd D Future
CrR
OYes tr o
OETAILS:.l
‘i
.{
l1′,
,
I It
F:Il
_ i. e1 ochifrlat ?O5l lrt., rtn Undersigned was presenlar.Lincotn tbspiral
Frnergency Rgorn a1n cqnferred wi th Dr. tlonmzdi regarding tire condition of tlre Vil.
He sraLed ttrat the .’oilJ tlad three.possible 61119 l”r-r.fu*r;5456t ard a fossibleblllet wound to his left hand. qn{ is in critical condition at ttr-is time.
Z. n”o on E?lPat 2130 hrs., rhe Undersigned i&rviesed the C,z’!t wi rtr-inik- Roon regarding this case and he statea tFe following:
h.} hosplrl
tle picked up the perp. on first avenue and E.101st. in r4anh,attan and
perp. requested to be brought, to E.161st. and fankee Stadir.m. tlpon arrival aL E.161st.
a.rrd Yankee s tgdiym th” p.tp., who was seated in the back seal, produced a grm and
reached out of the rear passenger side windor.r and pointed it inlo the fronl passenger
si.de windor.r of the aab and annotrnced a robbery. perp. then oulled rhe eun baik in -ii. cag and. opened the. windcu to the partitioir. rhe- c,r’W attlrnpted to ciosedthe’
partition rrindow ard the perp. fired one strot. lhe perp. aeaii mened the rrartition
rrindow ard.agaip tlq.c/Il went to close the windor.r aird lhe ftrp.’leain fireil anorher
r) rot, sttiking the C,/!i in the left hand. Perp. then exiLed ittu’.u!”o.A fled ard the/ /’7 drove his cab a shott distance and then- stopp&. c/vl doesn’i kno’l the direction
of flight of the perp.
Inves tigation: Robbery,/Assaul t
Subject:
-Respo{se
to Lincoln – Intervier,r of C/W – lbtification to FamilySt&: Case Actirze
The C,/hI described the perp. as follows:
Fle Black 25:30 y”ard old 5rB” 180 lbs. wearing a rfiite T-SLrirt, GrayPanLs and. wearinp elir-^sEq F,,:.i-,- :rl..n r,r:,.r .-,*.,.’i.”.r. ”
l(.
totirllo,0t
\P.rt lrrlorr I Usld O Poir.ss.d
utscror wBlotr tll rearm. 9N. coror. nax!, €! 016, rypc, mocct, rrc:j-
an .lrta. fct,
tt
ag!
ol
narr Langl,r larlel Hiir – sr1 ‘tt’!
t?:.Niclr.m., FiGl llrdr., Ali:s
Clolllno lhsafiption,
Scar5.Mrrt3,M0.ttc.
(caonaua h “‘!utE”t:
l{iclnama, tkrl llama. llies
8EPosstSLE A 0rilvEsItGAl0R
!!
cofiPLEtED WIE UStilG TH|S Fon I0 CLoSE t cAsE ,.ilo nEsutts.
oFflcEn 0illY. THts 80I wrrl 8E
Clolhing o.scJiption.
Scrrr, llarls. it.0., 8c
Comp. inlrrvilr{ad
n Yes fl ilo
ln l,lrson
o
c, fnoia
D
0aL lime flesults: Sama as Comp. Reporl
o o ‘t’
Wlna$ Inltrvirrad
O Yes O llo
la Prasolr
o
8y Phonr
rJ
Dalt Iiira n!!ulls: Sam. rs C6lnp. f,.porl . oiflar0nl (&pt.io in o€trits).DD
ll Yra – Matr tfll.y rn 80dy nl: Tirnr, oata.
llemaa, Addr.ssls. fiarulls
canvlr! conduclad
O Yes ONo
cflma Sclna vEilrd
D Yes O o
ll Yes . Mihr Entry in (htarta R!: Timr. Dat..
Evidcnce 0bhincd
iJiilCdnphinant Vilrld PlEtos
tr Yos O f,elus€d B Fulure
Rlsulls:
2.!.
:r”
n.sullr:
uflfla tcem Photos
E Y.s O ilo
iC-3 No Evidence/ Can’t l0 [C.4 Uncooperative Conptainanr DC.s ,.Leads’. &haustedlmprcpEr R€lrlral lnaccu.als t&ls
Approp.ialt
PER’ I
PIRP 2
PIBP I
PTAP 2
rcsl
I
tvd lIFon tTtollltP0 3t3.08tA (Fd. a-8_o)-31 PAUt
]1, ” fr l_i ,t
PA6t I
2t
-_–_t 460 Bx Robbery sgd
Cornllnnrflt s ftrnc. L:3!, fi.!t, Mr.
20
OETAILS:
1.
IISVESTIGATIoN ! ATTEMPTED MT]RDER/RoBBERY/LWERY cAB DRIVERsuBrEcr e RxspoNGE ig gr rrsrodiii 5i’ilrmrss nn nrEioniers.’yREspoNsE 19 rgr pspAlrr.rErr anrrsr er onn,poiii:i.?iezePREPERATTON OP CO}IPOSITT SXrrCgRESULTS : CASE ACtM
te!
ei
(
trai; i1
–J
I
ll 0tllatat t
t2
Useo ! po:rrssro
Ilactn:ft!. Firlt
MUST IE
Alil!
z
iliclra, , lt:r
ULL
Drta
ln
0
IY
DO
Dtr
OYes O o
0ILY.
c0MPI”FIE0 urEl{ IHISuslxc F0n TO tcL0sE ‘,1t0cts€ TS.IESUL
Cloll*nglhlcflpfior,
S.aG, llarl!. M 0., flc.
Clourllg &raflOnoll.
Saalt, Martr. M.0.. Ek.
as Com!.
o
OY6 tr[o
ln hrlaa
o
ry Piona
a
oaL Iini.
trg
Slma as
I
nasultt
E drft.
8y in
OY.s trNo
O Yos O o
O Y.s
tl Ycr
Oo
lLr!!.
llzr,
O Futule
EYr! Ot{o
O Y6s O Rduscd
tr Rltused O Future
tncooperafivrComptainant lc.i ..L?ads.,Exhausted
lmpropcr fiotlrtal lnaccurale Facls
Crla
!c-3 No Evidencr /Cao’l t0
2. Jnvestigation contirlo”=. . .,.
acc
I’I ” ‘]TIVE BUF EALI
AFITIST UNIT
PSL!*F MEPARTru4frNT
CITY OF NEW YOBK
PLEASE POST IN A
coNsPlcuous
. PLACE.
W&ruTffiffi
FO R ATTHMPTHD M URDHR/ROBffi ERY
-The
abcve is a L)ling a sr’,ipec1 sou!ht i v a ATTEIvIPfED MURD ERiHABBEIIY
that occurred on JUIVL: ?8,2A1$al ldlfrr’lii5 in tlre confine-c ol the 044 P,CECllVtif . This
s,ketch based on a descriplion supi-rlier by a v;itncss
Description:MALEBL^CK,25].osoYEAnsoFAGE,s’8,’To5,1|J”tNt.lEtcllT,APPF2X|MATELYlS0
p,t)NDs{.srO{.Ky ,rttt-ol. r:Uiius||ii-rc rUnrtir-n Dt:s,c BED AS CLEAN SHA’EN t4/tTll
A BALD
HEAo. f HEsUst,ELl. n”r, ,r)il,oiii’.,o i, t-..ox t ri’quto r'{.AstEs. FEIGE I’jATJIS
AND A vl’ittTE Tt:E SHtRr’,
ri:!t:StJSPICTt]-AGOt t)!’;t:t’.!!!/)’l-fttiil?l’EINTHEAIIL:AOFEASTt0ISf&tSTAVEtNMA’NI’lAflAN
ONCEtNsIDEUt!I-llti|:,^,..:.,,,,-.”-31,5,.:..’:::|!:,|F0.it”!EoBNEn’roYANKEEsl.ADIUl’,|’AsHofirT|ME
LAl’F.R III THE AREA U’ “N’
r-iii ir IND fi]+,1.’I’I AVE THE.SI)SPECT PNODL)CED A HAI|DGIJN AI’ID
oEi,rAr’lDF-o t.tot![::\’. pt.]RttJG ii’tiiu,o- stv, ,l/:tL .silors uEBE FnED ANo rHE
DRIVER suFFEnEo
t,Lit.t5ti()r ‘\iaL)’\i!),) ‘,.) ;’:L:’cili:i’r AN/l /i”1rJ/l l’tlF STJSPECT TllltN n En
aN F)OT TO TtlF’ ARt’tl oF
EAST 155 s:t t. ttttr:\i-l ‘-)i’i Au,.. iiotr’ -cHFLl CAli/NGs REC)/EBED F?QN
NSIDE TttE C’AB lvAs io A 44
. – .: ./ tt:.’. t j^T \l’tr ..^.’!”ti-t1 lil .4!’jtl”[ll Fllti-
ASSIGNMENT #11
The hearing court denied both of Randolph’s suppression motions. It held that the
complainant’s photo identification was sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause. It
further held that the lineup identification was not unduly suggestive since any physical
differences between Randolph and the fillers were minimal and did not draw any undue
attention to him.
We are nearing the beginning of trial. We now turn our attention to the final
pretrial hearing.
Except in specific cases involving specific circumstances (not present in your
case), a prosecutor may not use a defendant’s criminal history as affirmative evidence of
that person’s guilt. This prevents a jury from convicting an individual on a propensity
theory. Prosecutors can, however, use a defendant’s criminal history to impeach a
defendant’s credibility in the event he takes the stand at trial. This history is used as
impeachment material to attack the defendant’s credibility. In other words, since the
defendant has previously broken the law and thus has put his interests above that of
society, the jury should not believe the defendant’s testimony.
In order to assess the proper use of a defendant’s criminal history in the event that
the defendant takes the witness stand, the court conducts a pretrial hearing where the
judge weighs the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial impact. In
essence, this is a balancing test and the court usually reaches a compromise decision
satisfying neither party.
You are now at the Sandoval hearing in Randolph’s case. This hearing comes
from People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371 (1974). You must read that decision to complete
this assignment. You are free to further research how Sandoval has been subsequently
applied in New York. For your purposes, I would limit your research to subsequent NY
Court of Appeals cases.
This is Randolph’s record:
1997 – Hindering prosecution – 9 months
1997 – Attempted grand larceny – Conditional discharge
1998 – Petit larceny – 6 months
1999 – Petit Larceny – 6 months
1999 – Criminal possession of stolen property – Conditional discharge
2000 – Petit larceny – 4 months
2001 – Petit larceny – Conditional discharge
2005 – Grand larceny – 3 years’ probation (Felony conviction)
2010 – Criminal possession of stolen property – Conditional discharge
2013 – Grand larceny – 2 to 4 years (Felony conviction)
2014 – Grand larceny – 18 months to 3 years (Felony conviction)
2016 – Grand larceny – 18 months to 3 years (Felony conviction)
As the prosecutor, you must now determine how much of Randolph’s record you
want to use against him if he takes the witness stand. Into how much detail do you
believe that you should be allowed to delve into this record? Set forth your persuasive
arguments to the court justifying the conclusions that you reached.
ASSIGNMENT #12
As to the Sandoval hearing, the court made a compromise decision
.
The court ruled that the convictions from the 1990s and early 2000s were too remote in time to be presently probative. The court will allow the prosecution to ask Randolph if he has been previously convicted of the felony of grand larceny if Randolph takes the stand. The prosecutor will not be allowed to delve into the underlying facts of this crime. Finally, the court rules that the defense can call an expert on eyewitness identification at trial.
We are now at the beginning of trial. As to jury selection, you are to research what are the characteristics of the potential jurors that you want to serve in this case. You are also to research what are the characteristics of the potential jurors that you do not want to serve in this case.
You are to submit a summary of the research for this assignment.
.
ASSIGNMENT #13
We are now at the trial of this case. You are to prepare an outline of the witnesses
that you intend to call at trial and a brief synopsis of the testimony that you expect each
will provide. You are also to prepare a written opening statement to the jury on what you
intend to prove. Lastly, what, if any, rebuttal case will you prepare in advance?
ASSIGNMENT #14
The case now proceeds to trial. On their direct case, the People only present two
witnesses: Julio Cruz and Detective Crowley. By stipulation, the People also introduce
Cruz’s medical records into evidence. The People then rest their case.
Randolph does not testify on his own behalf. Nor does the defense call either his
wife or daughter to establish his alibi defense. Instead, the defense solely raises a
mistaken identification defense. In support of that defense, counsel calls an expert
witness on eyewitness identification. Dr. Fulero testifies about the problems concerning
cross-racial identifications of strangers. The defense also calls four eyewitnesses to the
crime as defense witnesses. Ivan Liriano, Angel Pagan, Julio Leonor and Victoriano
Polanco each testify that Randolph is not the man who shot Cruz. They also testify that
Randolph does not match the physical characteristics of the man who shot Cruz. Finally,
the defense calls a DNA expert and a dactylography expert who provide expert
exculpatory evidence on Randolph’s behalf. The defense then rests.
The People choose not to present a rebuttal case.
After closing arguments, the court charges the jury. The court submits five counts
for the jury to consider:
1. Attempted murder in the second degree (Intent to kill)
2. Assault in the first degree (Serious physical injury)
3. Assault in the second degree (Physical injury)
4. Criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Possession with the
intent to use unlawfully)
5. Criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Loaded firearm)
The judge charges counts 1, 2 and 3 in the alternative. This means that the jury
can only convict the defendant of one of these counts. The judge likewise charges counts
4 and 5 in the alternative. In practical terms, the jury must consider the highest count
first. They may not consider the lesser counts unless they first acquit the defendant of the
higher count.
You are now in the role of the jury. You have the entire case before you. How do
you resolve the charges against Randolph? Explain why you reached that verdict.
ASSIGNMENT #15
After due deliberations, the jury acquits Randolph of attempted murder and first
degree assault. They convict him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession
of a weapon in the second degree. Second degree assault and second degree weapon
possession are Class C felonies. Randolph is a mandatory second felony offender. The
People, however, can request sentencing Randolph as a discretionary persistent felony
offender. The sentencing range for a discretionary persistent felony offender is from 15
years to life to 25 years to life. The sentencing range for a second felony offender for a C
felony is 6 to 15 years. Note that since the convictions arise from a single event in this
case, the sentences for the assault and weapon convictions must run concurrently.
As the prosecutor, what sentence do you recommend for Randolph? Prepare your
sentencing argument to the court.
From an objective perspective, what do you think is the fair sentence for this
case? Explain.