Supreme Court of the United States
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Team No. 23 In The Supreme Court of the United States 2015 Thurgood Marshall Memorial Moot Court Competition ––––––––––––w–––––––––––– KENNY BEARSON, Petitioner, v. STATE OF CHAOSTOWN, Respondent, ––––––––––––w–––––––––––– On Petition of Certiorari To The U.S. Court of Appeals of the Thirteenth Circuit ––––––––––––w–––––––––––– BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT ––––––––––––w–––––––––––– Team 23 Jose Mafnas Jacqueline Win Counsels for Respondent QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Did the Chaostown police officers’ search and seizure that took place at the petitioner’s home violate the Fourth Amendment? II. Did the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s constitutional right to present a complete defense in ruling that Mr. Lara Jr.’s confession inadmissible deny the petitioner’s constitutional right to present a complete defense; and if the confession were admissible, would the proceedings have reached a different result? i TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED............................................................................................................i TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................................................iii STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..............................................................................................vi CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS...........................................................vi STATEMENT OF THE CASE........................................................................................................1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................6 ARGUMENTS.................................................................................................................................7 I. The Chaostown state officers’ search did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.........................................................7 A. The Fourth Amendment authorizes the search of Petitioner’s house because his sister, Ms. Bearson, voluntarily granted the officers consent to search................8 i. Ms. Bearson’s consent was voluntary because the officers did not apply coercion or duress while requesting her consent to search..................................9 ii. The Court has found voluntary consent in much more “coercive” settings.....10 B. The Fourth Amendment authorizes the search of Petitioner’s house because his sister, Ms. Caroline Bearson, was a third party with common authority..................10 i. Despite Petitioner’s absence, Ms. Bearson’s third party consent is still valid because it was reasonable for her to assume that she may admit visitors..........12 ii. The officers’ search did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the evidence was found in plain view....................................................................14 iii. The Fourth Amendment does not require the trial court to suppress the evidence in this case because the evidence was lawfully obtained................15 II. The exclusion of testimony concerning a third party confession does not deny Petitioner his rights to due process and the inclusion of the confession would not change the outcome of the case. ...................................................................................16 A. The testimony concerning the third party confession was properly excluded under the hearsay rule when its contents are unreliable and untrustworthy.......................16 i. Mr. Lara Jr.’s statements were not of such unique character that the bare confession, without supporting proof of its reliability, would be admissible...17 ii. Mr. Lara Jr.’s statements lacked trustworthiness because of his high level of intoxication at the time the confession was made. ...........................................18 iii. Mr. Lara Jr,’s denial of the statement removes another layer of credibility in the evidence and does not have enough strength to be admitted.......................18 B. The exclusion of the testimony does not violate Petitioner’s due process rights because he still had a fair opportunity to defend himself.........................................20 C. The results of the proceedings would not have been different if Leopold’s statements were admitted since it lacked adequate indicia of trustworthiness.........22 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................23 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 325 (1987) ................................................................................... 15 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) ........................................................................................ 20 Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) .................................................................................. 8 Bumper v. California, 391 U.S. 543 (1968) .................................................................................. 10 Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28 (1927) ................................................................................... 16 Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973). ............................................................................ 21 Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967). ................................................................................ 23 Colorado v. Connelly, 497 U.S. 157 (1986). ................................................................................. 16 Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) ....................................................................... 15 Davis v. U.S., 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2423 (2011) .................................................................................. 16 Ellison v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 404 (1978) ....................................................................... 18, 20 Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85 (1963) ...................................................................................... 23 Fernandez, 134 S.Ct. 1126 (2014). ................................................................................................. 9 Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (1978) ........................................................................... 8 Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) ........................................................................................ 10 Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983). ................................................................................... 12, 13 Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) ............................................................................ passim Hines v. Commonwealth, 136 Va. 728 (1923). .............................................................................. 18 Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) ................................................................................... 15 Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) .................................................................................... 16 Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765 (1983) ....................................................................................... 15 Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) .......................................................................... 9, 12, 16 v Johnson v. Commonwealth, 259 Va. 654 (2000) ........................................................................... 20 Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948) ................................................................................. 8 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) ................................................................................. 8, 9 Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849 (2011) ........................................................................................ 9 Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) .......................................................................................... 8, 16 Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 47 (2009) .................................................................................. 12 Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145 (1991). ..................................................................................... 22 Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (1996). ..................................................................................... 22 Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996) .......................................................................................... 10 Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) ....................................................................................... 8 Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 542 U.S. 357 (1998). .................................. 16 People v. Adams, 115 Cal. App. 4th 243 (2004). .......................................................................... 21 People v. Jackson, 2005 WL 342630 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2005) ............................................ 17 People v. Sykes, 341 Ill. App. 3d 950 (2003) ................................................................................ 17 Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 2473 (2014) .................................................................................... 12 Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249 (1988). ................................................................................... 23 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) ....................................................................