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.
49. Should the court grant the motion?
The agent testified to all of his investigation's discoveries before a grand jury, which returned an indictment against the man for illegal gambling activities, based solely on the agent's testimony. The man's attorney then filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, claiming that it rested on violations of the man's constitutional rights.
Federal agents had a hunch that a local man was engaged in illegal gambling activities. An agent decided to enter the man's house while he was not at home and see what he could find. The agent discovered an envelope containing $5,000 in cash and an executive's business card. Returning the envelope to its place, the agent located and interviewed the executive, who admitted that he had paid the man $5,000 to settle a gambling debt; the executive also disclosed that the man regularly took illegal bets from the executive and several of his acquaintances. The agent then interviewed the acquaintances, who confirmed what the executive had told him. The agent then arranged to be introduced to the man at a local bar. After a few drinks, the man, unaware of the agent's identity, boasted that he was one of the biggest bookmakers in the state.
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
A is correct. A grand jury may hear evidence that wouldn't be otherwise admissible at trial, including hearsay. Therefore, dismissing the indictment would not be the proper remedy in this case.
B is incorrect. Dismissing the indictment would be an improper remedy because the grand jury was permitted to hear and consider the agent's testimony, even if it was mostly hearsay. Courts will also not look behind a facially sufficient indictment to review the sufficiency of the grand jury's probable cause determination.
C is incorrect. Even if the search of the man's home was unlawful, the exclusionary rule does not extend to grand jury proceedings, nor does it provide justification for dismissing an indictment that is valid on its face.
D is incorrect. There are no facts indicating that the man's right to counsel was violated. The right to counsel didn't attach on any other basis, including Miranda, because this was not a custodial interrogation. Finally, the statements the man gave to the agent were voluntary.