Write a concise paragraph responding to each hypo on the reverse or on a separate sheet of paper attached to this one.

Hypo #1
   Bonnie and Clyde rob a series of banks and accumulate a tidy nest egg. After the crime spree, they decide to marry and settle down. Their retirement is disturbed, however, when they are both arrested for the prior bank robberies. Bonnie agrees to testify against Clyde in return for leniency. The government proposes to have her testify about a number of conversations she and Clyde had in private when they were living together about the robberies. Clyde objects at trial.

What arguments could Clyde make to prevent Bonnie from testifying?
What arguments could the Government make to allow Bonnie to testify?   Explain.


Hypo #2
   Mr. X is arrested for a felony offense. In order to get his charge dismissed, he agrees to cooperate with law enforcement on a drug investigation as long as his identity remains confidential. Local narcotics agents suspect X’s brother of being a drug king pin, so X agrees to wear a hidden monitor and go along with his brother Y when he makes his next big pick up. After Y leaves the “buy,” he is arrested carrying a pound and a half of methamphetamine. He does not suspect his brother’s involvement. The official police reports simply say that the information that Y would be carrying a large quantity of narcotics came from a “confidential informant”. Y’s attorney files a motion to disclose the identity of the informant.

How should the judge rule and why? What procedure should be followed?

Hypo #3
   Defendant is arrested for the rape of a woman whom he met in a local dance club. He tells the investigating detective that they were already acquainted and she agreed to have sex with him that night. When defendant goes to court, he is appointed a public defender. While they are talking privately about the case, his public defender asks him if it is true that she consented. Defendants says “not exactly, but that’s what I have to tell the jury or they’ll send me to jail.” Not wanting to be involved with this, the public defender gets off the case without telling the judge why and a new attorney is appointed.
At trial, after defendant testifies that it was consentual sex, the DA correctly suspects why the PD had to get off the case, so he subpoenas the PD to show that the defendant is now testifying differently than the statement he told the PD. Defendant objects.

Should the judge require the PD to testify or not? Why?


Hypo #4
   Rebby Hensable is charged with cruelty to a child for severly beating his 8 year old daughter. His wife was present and saw the entire incident. Afterwards he confided in her that he felt terrible about what he had done but lost his temper and couldn’t help himself. The State proposes to call his wife to testify to what she saw as well as the statements he made to her. Both Mr. and Mrs. Hensable object.

How should the judge rule? Why?