1. Marshall is charged with aggravated assault in the U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia. The government allegation is that Marshall struck Jimmy over the head with a small baseball bat while they were standing on the steps of the Robert C. Byrd Federal Courthouse in Charleston, West Virginia. Marshall claims that when he struck Jimmy, he acted in self-defense. The testimony at trial was as follows:

Ahmed testified he knows Marshall very well, having interacted with him over 9 years, both in business and on a social level. In addition, Ahmed testified he has lived in the same neighborhood as Marshall for the last 6 years and has worked for the same company as Marshall for the last 9 years.

Marshall's lawyer asked Ahmed, "Based on what you know about him and your interactions with him, in your opinion is Marshall a violent person?"

Although the prosecutor immediately objected to this question, the judge still required Ahmed to provde an answer. Later, on cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Ahmed: "Were you aware that Marshall has a previous arrest for assault and battery, where he allegedly punched a woman in a Huntington bar three years ago?"

Marshall's lawyer objected to this question, but the judge overruled the objection and asked Ahmed to answer.

Later, the prosecutor called Marco to the stand. Marco testified that he happened to show up at the courthouse right after the incident between Marshall and Jimmy happened. Marco testified a bystander excitedly said to him: "I was having a nice talk with Jimmy when Marshall suddenly hit Jimmy from behind with a bat." Marshall's lawyer objected to Marco's testimony and then made a motion to strike that testimony from the record.

1. Please explain if you think the judge's ruling on Marshall's lawyer's question was proper or improper.

2. Please explain how you believe judge should rule on Marshall's lawyer's motion to strike Marco's testimony from the record.

2. In the short video opinion piece from the Washington Post, the speaker describes a dilemma that faces many people accused of a crime. If offered a plea deal, should the defendant accept it? Accepting it means pleading guilty to some of the charges in exchange for something else, usually dropping the other (often more serious) charges and/or the prosecutor recommending a lesser sentence. Refusing such a deal carries the risk of conviction on some or all charges and a more serious punishment, probably including a longer prison sentence than under the plea deal.

The speaker focuses on the special problem of innocent persons in this position. He argues a guilty defendant can more accurately assess his or her chances of conviction and punishment than an innocent person because the guilty person knows what happened and has an idea of the evidence that might be presented against him or her at trial. The innocent person, the speaker argues, might not have any knowledge of what happened. Thus, these individuals typically cannot make the same assessment and might choose to take the plea deal instead. The speaker points to the fact that 95% of defendants accept plea offers, and that many exonerated of crimes originally pleaded guilty as evidence that the plea-bargaining system induces some innocent persons to take plea deals.

Please provide responses to the two questions below:

1. Please provide your assessment of the speaker's argument. Do you agree or disagree with his framing of the problem, reasoning, and conclusion? Please consider the speaker's position and explain in detail whether you agree or not.
2. Please provide your assessment of the practice of plea bargaining in general. Please explain in detail whether you view plea bargaining as an effective tool in the administration of justice.