On March 30, 1981, as then President Ronald Reagan left the Washington Hilton Hotel after giving a speech, he was wounded by one of a series of bullets allegedly fired by John Hinckley. Three other men also were wounded, including James Brady, the President’s press secretary, who received a severe wound to the head. President Reagan underwent surgery shortly thereafter at the hospital. Hinckley was arrested at the scene literally with the smoking gun. Soon after the criminal process was begun against him, he underwent two psychiatric examinations by order of the magistrate and then the chief judge involved in the case. Both examinations found him to be competent. On August 28, after being indicted by a federal grand jury, Hinckley pled not guilty to a battery of charges, including the attempted assassination of the President of the United States. Hinckley’s lawyers then began their work. In two very important rulings they were able to suppress the use of evidence that would have been very damning to the defendant. They first had thrown out all answers he had given to questions prior to having his attorney present. This was done even though he had been read his Miranda rights three times before agreeing to answer those questions. Then Hinckley’s attorneys were able to suppress allegedly incriminating material in the form of a diary gathered by the jailers when they checked Hinckley’s cell for contraband and instruments useful in a potential suicide attempt. These rulings by the court were based on the constitutional rights to counsel and to protection against improper searches and seizures. Do you consider their use in this case a proper application of such rights? Is the exclusion of the evidence the only possible remedy, or could you come up with another one? If so, what is it, and why would it be an improvement over the current policy? (United States v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 525 F. Supp. 1342)