Moot Court

Module 4 – Law Subjects
Court Demeanor/
Moot Court
Public Safety Junior Leadership Course

Court
1. Successful law enforcement
- aggressive detection / investigation
- must respond appropriately in court
a. Reveal / articulate for public

- professional skills/training/integrity
- won/lost based on officer testimony
(1) Cross-examination
- centers on quality / credibility / professionalism

Court
(2) Professionalism reflected
- officer’s word accepted beyond reasonable doubt
b. Two themes dominate:

- objectivity / professionalism
(1) Objectivity
- legal system adversary
- lawyers are advocates
- witnesses: honest / objective to
- display bias: discredited
Court
(2) Never lie
- moral consequences too high
- even insignificant detail
- destroy credibility
- veracity precedes into court
(3) Don’t display bias

- against judge / defense
- do not sit with prosecutor
- do not sit directly behind
- leave quietly / no sign of feelings

Court
- do not stop / discuss case
- in court / do not vent emotions
- sole mission: express truth
(4) When testifying

- address trier of fact
- ones to be concerned about
- explaining diagram / evidence
- establish eye contact / rapport
(5) Answer honestly / fairly

Court
- make mistake: admit it
- detail favors defense: admit it
- enhance credibility
c. Professionalism
- not only speak the truth
- show by demeanor / competence
(1) Appearance
- impression: physical appearance

Court
- dress carefully
- neat / clean / conservative
- courtroom is a special place
(a) Leave coat / hat behind
(b) Gun not showing / clothes in

order before taking stand
(2) Promptness
- be early / necessary evidence

Court
(3) Act professional
- even before court begins
- judge / jury may be watching
- poor actions / remarks
(a) Discuss in conference room
(b) Do not laugh/joke with others
(c) Do not discuss the case with

defense counsel
Court
(4) Taking the stand
- quiet / confident manner
- before oath: complete stop /
pause / accept oath
- act like oath means something
(5) Do not assume air of importance

- be natural / open as possible
- sit erect / feet flat on floor
- coat unbuttoned
- hands on thighs / arm of chair
Court
- pay attention to body language
- expressed by posture/ manners
(a) Do not place hand over mouth

while speaking
(b) Maintain eye contact with jury

/ judge
(c) Do not cross arms / legs

- or clench fists

Court
(d) Do not shift around in chair
(e) Speak in a loud / clear voice
(f) Speak at same rate of speed

- in the same manner
- in response to all questions
(g) Avoid police vernacular

- talk in plain terms

Court
(6) Remain objective at all times
(a) Do not become argumentative

- nor over-confident
(b) Do not be drawn into position of fencing with

defense
- remember what you said
(c) Listen carefully to questions

- do not volunteer information
Court
(d) Question contains figures /
long list of names / etc.
- make sure you agree
- before you answer
(e) Cannot answer accurately with

a “yes” or “no”
- advise the court
(f) If a particular question hurts

- no not show it
Court
2. Specific techniques of testifying
a. Use / overuse of notes

- thoroughly review before trial
- testify w/o referring to any reports
- except to recall specific details
- times / addresses / license numbers
(1) Since notes not needed

- not be taken to stand
- details: report handed to you

Court
b. Using a writing to refresh recollection
- Pros: “Do you have a completely
independent recollection of this
incident?”
- Off: “No, I do not.”
- Pros: “Did you make a report
concerning this incident?”
- Off: “Yes, I did.”
- Pros. “Was the report written
accurately?”
- Off: “Yes.”

Court
- Pros: “If you could refer to that
report would it refresh your
recollection as to information I
asked about a minute ago?”
- Off: “Yes, it would.”
c. Using a writing in place of recollection

-Pros: Do you have a completely
independent recollection of this
incident?”

Court
- Off: “No, I do not.”
- Pros: “Did you prepare a report
concerning this incident?”
- Off: “Yes.”
- Pros: “Did you base your report
upon your own observations
and quote only the direct
conversations you directly heard”
- Off: “Yes.”
- Pros: “Was it written during or
shortly after the incident while it

Court
was still fresh in your mind?”
- Off: “Yes.”
d. A good narrative
- when asked a detailed question
- give an expansive answer
e. A bad narrative
- only answer questions fully
- do not try to fill-in with opinions
- let prosecutor draw out details
Court
f. The pick-up
- establish rapport with prosecutor
- pick-up on his/her cue questions
- prosecutor should pick-up on officer
cues
3. Communicating with the jury
a. Always be polite
- speak to jury / maintain eye contact
- clear / concise as if telling a story
Court
b. If an objection
- stop speaking immediately
- do not continue until judge rules
- sustained / overruled
c. Be prepared to be an artist
- jurors learn better by sight
- with “poor” artistry the jury will
understand
4. Courtroom testimony

Testimony
a. Why testimony necessary?
- rules of hearsay
- defendant’s right to confront
- defendant’s right to cross-examine
- need to create a record
b. Stages of officer testimony
(1) Before filing charges

- warrant for arrest / search
- non-adversarial

Testimony
(2) Preliminary hearing
- setting bail
- may or may not be adversarial
(3) Motion hearing

- to suppress evidence
- to dismiss case
(4) Trial
- by judge or jury
- adversarial
Testimony
(5) Probation hearing
- adversarial
- hearsay admissible
(6) DOL hearing

- adversarial (defense attorney)
- hearsay admissible
(7) Forfeiture hearing

- adversarial administrative
- less formal / hearing examiner
Self-Incrimination
1. Privilege against self-incrimination
a. Statements obtained from suspects

- investigation / prosecution
(1) Raise serious questions

- fairness / accuracy
- oldest dilemma
(2) Most serious crimes

- no conclusive evidence
- no eyewitnesses
- circumstantial only

Self-Incrimination
- circumstantial evidence
- refuses to talk / prohibited
(3) Constitutional law

- established criminal procedures
- apply limits on self-incrimination
- not abolish practice
(4) Three doctrines apply:

(a) Due process: 5th / 14th Amend

Self-Incrimination
(b) Privilege against self-incrim.
- 5th Amendment
(c) Right to counsel

- 6th Amendment
b. Cases impacting suspect statements:

- Brown to Miranda (1936 – 1966)
- Supreme Ct: 30 confession cases
(1) 1936: Brown vs. Mississippi

Self-Incrimination
- Court: first state confession
(a) Obtained through torture

- violates 14th due process
- began long legal tradition
(2) 1942: moving from jail to jail

- cannot be contacted by family
(3) 1944: Ashcroft vs. Tennessee

- 36 hrs. straight questioning

Self-Incrimination
(4) 1945: keeping suspect naked
(5) 1949: holding for 5 days

- without taking before judge
- subjected to relay questioning
(6) 1954: psychiatrist to help suspect

- confesses to psychiatrist
(7) 1958: confession save from lynch

mob

Self-Incrimination
(8) Used “truth serum” on suspect
(9) Parental rights terminated if no

confession
b. Court: several theories

- uncivilized standards not tolerated
(1) Undue pressure

-not simply torture
- used unfairly / trained officers

Self-Incrimination
- must follow ‘rule of law’
- confessions cannot be forced
c. Right to counsel
- 1964: Escobedo vs. Illinois
(1) Broke new ground

- voluntary confessions
- inadmissible: lawyer request to
see client denied
- Miranda confirms due process

Self-Incrimination
(2) Interrogation – direct questioning
“Any words that the police should
know are reasonably likely to
elicit an incriminating response.”
(a) State has burden of proving

- waiver made voluntarily
- never inferred from silence
(b) Not wanting to be interrogated

- must stop for that crime

Self-Incrimination
c. Request for attorney
- protected under 6th Amendment
(1) 1981: Edwards vs. Arizona

- all questioning must cease
(a) May not re-interrogate

- for same / different crimes
- Arizona vs. Robberson
(b) Unless: suspect initiates

Self-Incrimination
- 1983: Oregon vs. Bradshaw
- initiated with: “Well, what is
going to happen to me now?”
(2) 1984: request for counsel

-invalidates Miranda waiver
- does not apply if family obtain
and suspect does not know
(3) Suspect formally charged

- 1964: Massiah vs. United States
Counsel
- entitled to lawyer’s help
2. Miranda vs. Arizona (1966)
- superseded all prior approaches
- suspect in custodial compulsion
- who is interrogated
a. Freedom of movement restrained

- 5th Amendment right
b. Changes to Miranda

Miranda
(1) 1969: Orozco vs. Texas
- surrounded / held captive in
own home
- in custody
(2) 1976: Beckwith vs. United States

- routinely questioned at home
- not in custody
(3) 1977: Oregon vs. Mathieson

- voluntarily appears at station

Miranda
- at police request
- at own convenience
- not in custody
(4) 1984: Berkemer vs. McCarty

- does not apply to traffic stops
(5) 1984: New York vs. Quarles

- prompted by the need
- to insure ‘public safety’

Miranda
(6) 1985: Oregon vs. Elstad
- first defective warning
- second warning given
- statement given accepted
(7) 1986: Colorado vs. Connelly

- voluntary admission
- without custody / interrogation
- not covered by Miranda
(8) 1990: Pennsylvania vs. Muniz

Miranda
- no warnings for DUI
- before ordering physical sobriety
tests
3. Varying expectations of privacy

- exceptions to the 4th Amendment
- warrant requirement
- warrantless searches
a. Examine constitutionality
- 2 primary ways

Miranda
- reasonableness approach
- warrant /exception approach
(1) Reasonableness
- public safety
- destruction of evidence
(2) Warrant/exception
- preference for search warrant
- limited number of exceptions

Miranda
b. Five primary exceptions
- hot pursuit / automobile exception
- search incident to arrest
- international borders
- closed container
(1) All share 2 important attributes
(a) Probable cause to believe

- contraband / evidence
- in the place searched

Miranda
(b) Justified by an exigency

- urgent situation
- requiring immediate action
c. Hot pursuit
(1) 1967: Warden vs. Hayden

- police enter house
- 5 minutes after witness reported
- search house / locate evidence

Miranda
(a) Court ruled:
- to wait for warrant on PC
- violent crime suspect enters
- risk destruction of evidence
- more violent confrontation
(b) Allows officers to pursue

- within a state
- across state lines
(c) 1984: Welsh vs. Wisconsin

Miranda
- limit on hot pursuit
- barred from entering home
- gravity of crime not great
- no exigency in such cases
d. International borders
- federal law
- Washington law
(a) Nation has plenary power

- to protect its borders

Miranda
- police may stop / inspect
- incoming travelers / containers
- at random
e. 4th Amendment does extend to

- variety of border search situations
(1) Non-routine / intrusive search

- body cavity search
- reasonable suspicion of violation
- drug courier
Miranda
(2) No particularized suspicion
- required to stop cars
- fixed checkpoints
- some distance from border
(a) PC required to search

- after brief questioning
(b) 1976: U.S. vs. Martinez-Fuerte
(3) Customs officers search for illegals

Miranda
- roving patrols
- 100 miles from border
- reasonable suspicion to stop
- PC to search
f. Maritime searches
- made without any level of suspicion
or cause
- Customs / Coast Guard
g. Incoming mail

Searches
- customs officers
- reasonable suspicion
h. Immigration / Naturalization
- enter officers / industry
i. Closed containers
- PC needed to seize
(1)Exigent circumstances
- to keep from being removed

Searches
- from the scene
- must then obtain warrant
(a) Automobiles
- arrest
- inventory
- probable cause
(b) Booking
- search person
- take all property

Searches
(c) Container already legally open
- lose all expectation: privacy
- legally opened / privacy
vanishes
(d) Applies even if resealed

- freight co. opens
- sees contraband
- reseals / notifies police
(e) Officer reseal / control delivery

Specific Crimes
1. Burglary
a. Professional
- rarely caught
- great deal of planning / expertise
b. Juvenile
- video games / liquor / money
- high probability of vandalism
c. Addict

Crimes
- constant need for drugs
- drugs drives him/her
- not much planning
d. Amateur
- total lack of knowledge
- easily caught
e. Sexual
- pervert that gains gratification
- acts committed while on scene

Crimes
2. Confidence games
- fraud
a. Shell Game
b. 3 Card Monte
c. Home Repair
d. Bank / check kiting

Crimes
3. Forgery
- making / creating a forged instrument
- passing / uttering a forged instrument
a. Signature
b. Fictitious name
c. Endorsement
d. By alteration

Crimes
(1) Forgery vs. worthless check
(a) Forgery
- signed by someone not
authorized
(b) Worthless
- insufficient funds
4. Embezzlement

Crimes
a. Positions used:
- accountants / lawyers / clerks /
cash register operators / tellers /
public officials / bookkeepers
b. Rationalizations:
- company owes for working hard
- loan / going to pay back
- money going to give new start
c. Reasons:

Crimes
- drinking / drug addiction / gambling
- pay to live above means
- personal problems (delusions /
marital indiscretions)
5. Murder
- the deceased
a. How do you know?

- no heartbeat
- no breathing

Crimes
- may be candidate for CPR
b. Eyes fixed / dilated

- if eyes open
- will start to film over within hour
c. Skin cold to touch

- body reaches equilibrium with
surrounding temperature
- ambient temperature

Crimes
d. Rigor mortis
- general stiffening of joints
- due to enzyme action
- build up of acid in muscles
- begins: 2 – 4 hours
- complete: 6 – 12 hours
- dissipates: 12 – 24 hours
(1) Can be accelerated due to:

- high temperatures / muscle
activity / fright / convulsions

Crimes
e. Postmortem lividity
- pooling of blood
- no blood pressure / gravity
- bodies drain / do not bleed
- begins ½ to 1 hours after death
- well developed: 3 – 4 hours
- complete: 8 – 12 hours
- appearance of bruise / burn
f. Decomposition
- breakdown of body

Crimes
- due to enzyme / chemical actions
- begins around abdomen / genitals
- progresses from there
- abdomen swells / greenish color
- insect activity (entomology): can
- be used to tell time of death

END OF PRESENTATION

Moot Court

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 4 – Law Subjects

Public Safety Junior Leadership Course

a. Reveal / articulate for public

Public Safety Junior Leadership Course

b. Two themes dominate:

(3) Don’t display bias

Public Safety Junior Leadership Course

(4) When testifying

(5) Answer honestly / fairly

Public Safety Junior Leadership Course

Public Safety Junior Leadership Course

(a) Leave coat / hat behind

(b) Gun not showing / clothes in

Public Safety Junior Leadership Course

(a) Discuss in conference room

(b) Do not laugh/joke with others

(c) Do not discuss the case with

(5) Do not assume air of importance

(a) Do not place hand over mouth

(b) Maintain eye contact with jury

(c) Do not cross arms / legs

Public Safety Junior Leadership Course

(e) Speak in a loud / clear voice

(f) Speak at same rate of speed

(g) Avoid police vernacular

Public Safety Junior Leadership Course

(a) Do not become argumentative

(b) Do not be drawn into position of fencing with

(c) Listen carefully to questions

(e) Cannot answer accurately with

(f) If a particular question hurts

a. Use / overuse of notes

(1) Since notes not needed

Public Safety Junior Leadership Course

Public Safety Junior Leadership Course

c. Using a writing in place of recollection

Public Safety Junior Leadership Course

Public Safety Junior Leadership Course

3. Communicating with the jury

Public Safety Junior Leadership Course

b. Stages of officer testimony

(1) Before filing charges

Public Safety Junior Leadership Course

(3) Motion hearing

(6) DOL hearing

(7) Forfeiture hearing

a. Statements obtained from suspects

(1) Raise serious questions

(2) Most serious crimes

Public Safety Junior Leadership Course

(3) Constitutional law

(4) Three doctrines apply:

Public Safety Junior Leadership Course

(c) Right to counsel

b. Cases impacting suspect statements:

(1) 1936: Brown vs. Mississippi

Public Safety Junior Leadership Course

(a) Obtained through torture

(2) 1942: moving from jail to jail

(3) 1944: Ashcroft vs. Tennessee

Public Safety Junior Leadership Course

(5) 1949: holding for 5 days

(6) 1954: psychiatrist to help suspect