Joe approached Pat, an undercover police officer, and asked if Pat had one pound of marijuana for sale. Pat replied that he could provide him with one pound of marijuana at a price of $1,500, and they made arrangements to consummate the sale. At the appointed time and place Joe paid $1,500 to Pat, who delivered one pound of oregano to Joe. Pat then arrested Joe and charged him with criminal solicitation and attempted possession of marijuana. Pat took Joe to the police station where he gave Joe his Miranda warnings. Joe refused to make any statements, asserting his right to counsel, and immediately called his lawyer, Ann. At Joe's trial the sole witness produced by the prosecutor was Pat, who testified to the foregoing facts. After the jury returned a guilty verdict on both charges, Ann moved to set aside the verdict
(1) as to the solicitation charge, on the grounds :
(a) that the facts presented could not support a guilty verdict, and
(b) that corroboration of Pat's testimony was required because Pat was an accomplice in the underlying crime, and (2) as to the attempt charge, on the ground that the proof was that Joe obtained only oregano. While awaiting trial on the foregoing charges, Joe entered Linda's liquor store near closing time and hid while Linda closed the store and locked the front door. Thinking Linda had left the store, Joe removed some bottles from the shelves and placed them in a carton. When Linda suddenly appeared, Joe fled the building empty- handed. Shortly thereafter, based on a description that Linda gave to the police, Joe was arrested. The arresting officer, Cal, was aware that Joe was represented by Ann on the pending criminal solicitation and attempted possession charges. After Cal gave Joe his Miranda warnings, Joe said that he did not want to consult Ann because no one was hurt and nothing was stolen, so he should not be in any trouble. Joe then admitted that he was the person Linda had described as being in the liquor store and that he had moved some bottles from a shelf to a carton. After a grand jury indicted Joe for the crime of burglary based on the foregoing facts, Joe asked Ann to represent him on the burglary charge. Ann has moved (3) to suppress Joe's admissions on the ground that he could not waive his right to counsel without Ann being present, and (4) to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the facts alleged do not support the crime. How should the court rule on the motions numbered (1) through (4)?
No comments:
Post a Comment