Question Analysis
Deft saw Oscar, a uniformed police officer, attempting to arrest Friend, who was resisting arrest. Believing that Oscar was arresting Friend unlawfully, Deft struck Oscar in an effort to aid Friend. Both Friend and Deft fled.
The next day, as a result of Oscar’s precise description of Deft, Paula, another police officer, (government conduct) found Deft on the street, arrested him for assault and battery (valid arrest with a warrant with a probable cause) and searched him, (Search Incident to Lawful Arrest) finding cocaine in his pocket. (D is now under custody) After Paula gave proper Miranda warnings, Deft said he wanted to talk to a lawyer before answering any questions. (No Miranda waiver) Paula did not interrogate him.
However, before an attorney could be appointed to represent Deft, (possible right to counsel violation) Paula placed him in a lineup. (Lineup is not an interrogation) Oscar identified Deft as his assailant. Deft was then charged with assault and battery of a police officer and possession of cocaine. Thereafter, he was arraigned. (6th Amendment right to counsel issue is triggered as the criminal proceeding began.)
The next day Paula gave Deft, who was without counsel, proper Miranda warnings, obtained a waiver, (Need to discuss whether the waiver was proper) and interrogated him. He admitted striking Oscar. (An incriminating testimony that may be a fruit of poisonous tree subject to exclusionary rule)
How should the judge rule on the following motions made by Deft at trial:
1. To suppress the cocaine? (#1) Discuss.
2. To suppress Oscar’s identification during the lineup? (#2) Discuss.
3. To suppress Deft’s admission that he struck Oscar? (#3) Discuss.
4. For an instruction to the jury that Deft’s assault was justified on the basis of defense of another? (#4) Discuss.
Outline
#1 Motion to Suppress Cocaine
#2 Motion to Suppress Identification during Lineup
#3 Motion to Suppress D's Admission
#4 Assault Justified on the Basis of Defense of Another