Courtroom Simulation:
Fourth Amendment Issues at Teen House Party

United States v. Daniel McPherson

Background

This in-class or in-court activity is based on a simulation of a motion hearing and witness examinations stemming from a search at a fictional high school house party. It is based on the Supreme Court's 2006 "knock and announce" decision Hudson v. Michigan. The purpose of the simulation is to demonstrate that judges and jurors are partners in justice.

Questions of Fact and Issues of Law
In the United States and other countries that derive their legal system from the common law of Great Britain, there is a difference between questions of fact and issues of law. Questions of fact involve disputes as to whether or not a given event actually occurred. For example: Did A, in fact, sell drugs to B? A trial is meant to find the truth in these disputes.

In a criminal trial, each side -- the prosecution and the defense -- calls witnesses and produces evidence in order to convince the trier of fact that it has the stronger case. The trier of fact is usually a jury, composed of 12 citizens. Article III, Section 2 and the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantee the right to a jury trial in federal criminal proceedings. In a jury trial, the jury must find "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant committed all elements of the crime for which he/she is charged. When the defendant waives the right to a trial, a judge alone determines the factual issues in the case.

Even though the jury is responsible for determining the facts of a case, the trial must be conducted according to established legal procedures. The judge is responsible for making sure that all parties are adhering to these legal procedures during a criminal proceeding. One legal procedure is a Motion to Suppress Evidence. Under American law, law enforcement personnel must comply with the provisions of the U.S. Constitution when investigating crimes. If they do not, the judge may order that the evidence they discover be suppressed (excluded from use at the trial). When judges rule on a Motion to Suppress Evidence, or other related motions, they are deciding issues of law.

To function properly, the American system of law requires the best efforts of an independent judiciary (judges) and a fair-minded jury working together. Judges and juries create a crucial partnership when judges decide issues of law and juries address questions of fact.

Motion to Suppress Evidence
Under American law, if defendants believe that the police obtained evidence against them in an unconstitutional manner, they may request that a court suppress it (prevent it from being used at trial). In the case of Weeks v. United States (1914), the Supreme Court of the United States held that this "exclusionary rule" applies to federal criminal proceedings. In the case of Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Court held that it applies in state criminal proceedings.Despite these rulings, the Supreme Court also realized that suppressing evidence because of a governmental mistake can have drastic consequences, i.e., a guilty person may go free. Therefore, the Court has made several exceptions to the exclusionary rule. In the case of United States v. Leon (1984), the Court stated that the rule should only be employed "where its deterrence benefits outweigh its 'substantial social costs.' "

In the fictionalized case of United States v. Daniel McPherson, the defendant, Daniel McPherson, not only argues that he is factually innocent (hence, the need for a trial), but also contends that any incriminating evidence against him should be suppressed because the federal agents executing the search warrant failed to "knock and announce" their presence before conducting the search. The Supreme Court held in Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) that the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to "knock and announce." The government responds that the social costs of suppressing this evidence outweigh any benefits of admitting it.

Defendant McPherson filed a motion with the Court arguing for suppression of the evidence seized from his residence. The Government filed a response in opposition to his motion. After motions for and against suppression are filed, a motion hearing typically is held during which both parties may present their case to, and answer questions from, a judge. At an appropriate time, the judge issues a ruling. Sometimes, the judge agrees to suppress evidence and the case is dismissed because the case cannot be proved without the suppressed evidence. In other situations, the case simply proceeds to trial on any remaining evidence.

Motion Hearing Scenario
For purposes of this program, the assumption is that the presiding judge will deny the defendant's motion to suppress in the mock hearing described here. To teach the students about the Supreme Court's ruling in Hudson v. Michigan, the presiding judge is asked to use the same reason the Supreme Court did -- the harm done by suppressing the evidence gathered in this kind of "knock and announce" scenario outweighs the benefits of admitting it.

If time permits, the judge may preside over a mock motion prior to the trial. All materials are provided for an abbreviated motion hearing. The point of including the brief motion hearing in the courtroom event is to demonstrate the respective roles of the independent judiciary and the fair-minded jury. To save time on this segment of the event and to demonstrate how attorneys argue before a judge, volunteer attorneys involved in the program handle the arguments. Each side has five minutes before the presiding judge. The lawyer representing the defendant argues to suppress the evidence. The lawyer for the government argues to admit the evidence. The lawyers may use the sample arguments provided; or they may supplement the points; and/or they may develop their own arguments. The judge may ask questions of either student before rendering a decision at the end of the exercise.

Please Note: For purposes of this scenario, the judge is asked to admit the evidence so that the mock trial may proceed.