This in-class or in-court activity is based on a simulation of a
motion hearing and witness examinations stemming from a search at a fictional
high school house party. It is based on the Supreme Court's 2006 "knock and
announce" decision in Hudson v. Michigan. The purpose of the simulation is to
demonstrate that judges and jurors are partners in justice.
Questions of Fact and Issues of Law
In the
United States and other countries that derive their legal system from the common
law of Great Britain, there is a difference between questions of fact and issues
of law. Questions of fact involve disputes as to whether or not a given event
actually occurred. For example: Did A, in fact, sell drugs to B? A trial is
meant to find the truth in these disputes.
In a criminal trial, each side -- the prosecution and the
defense -- calls witnesses and produces evidence in order to convince the trier
of fact that it has the stronger case. The trier of fact is usually a jury,
composed of 12 citizens. Article III, Section 2 and the Sixth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution guarantee the right to a jury trial in federal criminal
proceedings. In a jury trial, the jury must find "beyond a reasonable doubt"
that the defendant committed all elements of the crime for which he/she is
charged. When the defendant waives the right to a trial, a judge alone
determines the factual issues in the case.
Even though the jury is responsible for determining the facts of
a case, the trial must be conducted according to established legal procedures.
The judge is responsible for making sure that all parties are adhering to these
legal procedures during a criminal proceeding. One legal procedure is a Motion
to Suppress Evidence. Under American law, law enforcement personnel must comply
with the provisions of the U.S. Constitution when investigating crimes. If they
do not, the judge may order that the evidence they discover be suppressed
(excluded from use at the trial). When judges rule on a Motion to Suppress
Evidence, or other related motions, they are deciding issues of law.
To function properly, the American system of law requires the
best efforts of an independent judiciary (judges) and a fair-minded jury working
together. Judges and juries create a crucial partnership when judges decide
issues of law and juries address questions of fact.
Motion to Suppress Evidence
Under American
law, if defendants believe that the police obtained evidence against them in an
unconstitutional manner, they may request that a court suppress it (prevent it
from being used at trial). In the case of Weeks v. United States
(1914), the Supreme Court of the United States held that this "exclusionary
rule" applies to federal criminal proceedings. In the case of Mapp v.
Ohio (1961), the Court held that it applies in state criminal proceedings.
Despite these rulings, the Supreme Court also realized that suppressing evidence
because of a governmental mistake can have drastic consequences, i.e., a guilty
person may go free. Therefore, the Court has made several exceptions to the
exclusionary rule. In the case of United States v. Leon (1984), the
Court stated that the rule should only be employed "where its deterrence
benefits outweigh its 'substantial social costs.' "
In the fictionalized
case of United States v. Daniel McPherson, the defendant, Daniel
McPherson, not only argues that he is factually innocent (hence, the need for a
trial), but also contends that any incriminating evidence against him should be
suppressed because the federal agents executing the search warrant failed to
"knock and announce" their presence before conducting the search. The Supreme
Court held in Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) that the Fourth Amendment
requires law enforcement to "knock and announce." The government responds that
the social costs of suppressing this evidence outweigh any benefits of admitting
it.
Defendant McPherson filed a motion with the Court arguing for
suppression of the evidence seized from his residence. The Government filed a
response in opposition to his motion. After motions for and against suppression
are filed, a motion hearing typically is held during which both parties may
present their case to, and answer questions from, a judge. At an appropriate
time, the judge issues a ruling. Sometimes, the judge agrees to suppress
evidence and the case is dismissed because the case cannot be proved without the
suppressed evidence. In other situations, the case simply proceeds to trial on
any remaining evidence.
Motion Hearing Scenario
For purposes of this
program, the assumption is that the presiding judge will deny the defendant's
motion to suppress in the mock hearing described here. To teach the students
about the Supreme Court's ruling in Hudson v. Michigan, the presiding
judge is asked to use the same reason the Supreme Court did -- the harm done by
suppressing the evidence gathered in this kind of "knock and announce" scenario
outweighs the benefits of admitting it.
If time permits, the judge may preside over a mock motion prior
to the trial. All materials are provided for an abbreviated motion hearing. The
point of including the brief motion hearing in the courtroom event is to
demonstrate the respective roles of the independent judiciary and the
fair-minded jury. To save time on this segment of the event and to demonstrate
how attorneys argue before a judge, volunteer attorneys involved in the program
handle the arguments. Each side has five minutes before the presiding judge. The
lawyer representing the defendant argues to suppress the evidence. The lawyer
for the government argues to admit the evidence. The lawyers may use the sample
arguments provided; or they may supplement the points; and/or they may develop
their own arguments. The judge may ask questions of either student before
rendering a decision at the end of the exercise.
Please Note: For purposes of this scenario, the
judge is asked to admit the evidence so that the mock trial may
proceed.