1. Assuming that assets that are the product of or used for criminal activity may be seized by the government (as you will see in Chapter 15), is there a denial of the right to counsel in the following factual situation? Also, assume that property found to be the product of criminal activity may not be used to retain counsel. See U.S. v. Unimix, Inc., 991 F.2d 546 (9th Cir. 1993).

2. Assume that a forensic expert is called to testify to the time of death of a victim, the time when resuscitation was viable, that injuries were consistent with gagging, and that the gagging was done to keep the victim from calling for help. What, if any, part of this testimony seems the least scientifically based? Should the expert be permitted to testify on that part? See Schieber v. City of Philadelphia, 2000 WL 1670888 (E.D. Pa. 2000).

3. If codefendants are being tried for bribery, is there anything wrong with admitting into evidence a codefendant's statement made before the grand jury? See U.S. v. Flores, 985 F.2d 770 (5th Cir. 1993). Does Crawford v. Washington apply?

4. You be the judge and decide whether the following facts require you to grant or deny a defendant's request for a peremptory challenge. A black defendant has excluded six white jurors. The prosecution challenges the defendant's strike of a seventh white juror. The defense explains that its last strike was because the juror's hairstyle and glasses suggested he was a conservative. See U.S. v. Blotcher, 142 F.3d 728 (4th Cir. 1998).

5. Assume you are part of a prosecution team with a trial soon to start involving several police officers who will testify for the state. Your boss, the prosecutor, asks your advice on what types of jurors she should exclude. What will you tell her?