Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
3. The motion should be
Suspecting that a defendant had slain his wife, police detectives persuaded one of the defendant's employees to remove a drinking glass from the defendant's office so that it could be used for fingerprint comparisons with a knife found near the body. The fingerprints matched. The prosecutor announced that he would present comparisons and evidence to the grand jury. The defendant's lawyer immediately filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the fingerprint comparisons to bar its consideration by the grand jury, contending that the evidence was illegally acquired.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
C is correct. A grand jury may properly hear evidence that violates the exclusionary rule, and a motion to exclude illegally-obtained evidence is premature during grand jury proceedings and should thus be denied.
A is incorrect. The grand jury may properly consider evidence of many kinds, including the fingerprints here, even if there was no probable cause for obtaining it.
B is incorrect. As explained above, the motion to exclude is premature during grand jury proceedings, regardless of the constitutionality of the employee's actions on behalf of the police. The fact that the motion is premature supersedes any other Fourth Amendment violation that should be raised in another stage of the trial proceedings.
D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The motion should be denied because it is premature. Any ruling on the merits of the motion to suppress would be premature because the exclusionary rule for Fourth Amendment violations is inapplicable to grand jury proceedings.