1. State v. Ward. Ward was indicted for first-degree murder of his former business partner, Jackson. During Ward's initial appearance, the judge appointed a public defender as Ward's counsel. At his preliminary hearing, Ward stated to the judge that he wanted to fire his court-appointed counsel and represent himself. After some questioning by the judge, the judge reluctantly agreed to permit Ward to represent himself. Once the trial began, Ward made a long and meandering opening statement in which he used foul language, and accused the prosecution of misconduct, among other things. When admonished by the judge, Ward told the judge he shouldn't worry about what he was saying because the evidence will show how he's correct and then everyone will be sorry, including the judge. Ward also kicked over a trash can near the defendant's table. The judge warned Ward that continued disruptive behavior would result in Ward being held in contempt of court.

During the prosecution's case in chief, Ward would groan loudly during witness testimony. On cross examination, Ward would get close to the witness and yell his questions in a loud and abrasive manner. The judge issued Ward a final warning to cease his disruptive behavior. Ward responded by called the judge a "dumb loser with a bad haircut" and tossing all the papers and supplies on his table into the air.

The judge had Ward removed from the courtroom and appointed a public defender, Russ, to represent Ward in the trial. Russ requested a continuance to allow him time to prepare to present a defense since he was new to the case. The judge stated Russ could have the rest of today to and the trial would continue the next morning. Russ scrambles to prepare for trial and the next day does his best to present a defense for Ward. Despite his best efforts, Ward is convicted of murder.

During the sentencing phase, Russ spoke with Ward about his background but did not investigate further and did not seek a mental health or other psychiatric evaluation for Ward. Russ called no character witnesses or any members of Ward's family during sentencing, and never requested the Court a presentencing report. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the judge sentences Ward to life in prison.

Ward appeals his conviction based on several grounds, including claims under the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Please identify which specific claims Ward could bring on his appeal and evaluate in detail the likelihood of success of each.

2. State v. Xavier. Lou owns Lou's Liquors, on the corner of 16^th Street and Callowhill Street in Philadelphia. Every night at 7 pm, Lou takes the cash from the day's sales and deposits it at the bank on Spring Garden Street. Xavier had been watching Lou's movements for weeks from a parked car on Callowhill. On this day, Xavier decided to rob Lou of the cash. As Lou left the store to walk to the bank, Xavier walked up to Lou brandishing a handgun while demanding the cash. Lou quickly handed over the money, which was only $100 since it was a slow day. Xavier, disappointed at the small amount, pointed his gun at Lou and told him he was going to go back to the store with him and get more money. While walking back to the store, Lou turned around and grabbed Xavier's gun, which went off accidentally, hitting Lou in the shoulder. Panicked, Xavier ran to his car and drove off. As he drove over a bridge, Xavier tossed the gun out of his window and into the Schuylkill River. The gun was never recovered. A witness at the scene saw what happened and called the police, telling them what happened and describing the getaway car, a yellow sedan with a large blue Villanova University sticker on the rear windshield. The witness hung up before identifying herself.

Police immediately broadcast a BOLO (Be on the Lookout) for the yellow sedan with the Villanova sticker, and the car was quickly found by police. Seven Philadelphia Police Department cars surrounded and stopped the car on I-76. Xavier was ordered out of the car at gunpoint and was frisked by police. When Xavier was frisked, the officer found a bulge on his right hip which upon inspection turned out to be a bag of ecstasy pills. Police then searched the passenger compartment of the car and found $100 in cash in storage compartment in the back seat of the car. Xavier was placed under arrest.

At the station, Xavier was given a Miranda warning and then waived his rights. Xavier was questioned by police for several hours about his involvement in Lou's shooting, but Xavier continually denied he knew anything about it. The officer began to more aggressively question Xavier, stating that he had evidence tying Xavier to the shooting. Xavier then said to the officer, "I want a lawyer, right now." The officer replied that this was Xavier's last chance to come clean about what happened to Lou. Xavier then said, "I don't know what's going on right now. You say I shot Lou? You say you have evidence? Fine, whatever. Lou got popped in the shoulder and it's my fault. I want to speak to a lawyer." The officer stopped questioning Xavier at that point.

As it turned out, Lou survived the gunshot wound to his shoulder. However, when asked to recall what happened, Lou could not recall anything that happened around the time of the incident. He only recalled that he was approached by a man with a gun and then the next thing he remembers is waking up in the hospital.

The police place an informant, Yanni, in Xavier's cell. Yanni engages Xavier in conversation about why he's in jail. Yanni says he's in for trying to rob a liquor store. Xavier tells Yanni that he's also in for robbery, but one that ended up with someone getting accidentally shot. Xavier says if that "dumb old dude hadn't tried to grab my gun, none of this would have happened."

The prosecution intends to introduce Xavier's statements to Yanni in the case against him for aggravated robbery.

What motions might Xavier make relating to the admissibility of the evidence listed below, and what is the likely outcome? Please discuss each in detail.

1. The ecstasy pills found in Xavier's pocket.
2. The $100 found in the car.
3. Xavier's statements to police.
4. Xavier's statements to Yanni.

3.State v. Howie. Police were investigating a stolen property ring in Lexington, KY. Officers received several tips from reliable confidential informants that Howie, who works at a local car wash, also serves as a reseller of stolen property. According to the informants, thieves take their stolen goods to Howie, who buys them for cash. Howie then sells the stolen goods to others for a profit. Officers do not have probable cause at this time to get a search warrant. They decide to go to Howie's home and knock on the door. Police ask Howie if they could come inside and look around. Howie agrees and lets the officers into his home. Officers search around the rooms of the one-floor home but find nothing indicating Howie is in possession of stolen goods.

The officers then go down into the basement. They find a locked storage closet and ask Howie to open it. Howie declines this request and asks the officers to leave immediately. Officers become suspicious and again ask Howie to open the locked closet. Howie again refused and again demands the officers leave. The police then use a crowbar found in Howie's basement to pry open the door. Inside the closet, police find a trove of expensive items, including jewelry, diamonds, watches, and high-end electronics, among other things. Police then arrest Howie for receiving stolen property. Upon arrest, officers search Howie and find a bag of Oxycontin pills and a small amount of cocaine. They search the rest of the basement and find other items later found to be stolen, including two dirt bikes, an antique electric guitar, and some rare books.

Before Howie's trial, he moves to suppress the items found in the closet, items found on his person, and items found in the garage from evidence. Please evaluate each of these claims and determine the likelihood of success for each.

4. State v. Monroe. Officer Kendra was investigating a homicide at 55 Tulane Lane. Barry, a witness at the scene told Kendra that at about 11:00 pm a man was yelling in the street that someone had smashed the windows of his car and took his wallet that was inside. The man was holding a gun threatening to shoot everyone on the block if he didn't get his wallet back. A car passed by the man, and the man fired two shots at the car, hitting the car on the passenger side with one round. The car sped off and out of sight. Next, the man spotted a young couple strolling eastbound down Tulane with their dog. The man fired at the couple, hitting both persons, who collapsed to the pavement dead. The dog was unharmed. The man then immediately ran off westbound down Tulane.

Kendra ran the license plate of the car Barry identified as the man's car and it returned as registered to Monroe, with an address of 291 Lafayette Street. Kendra showed Barry a picture of Monroe she pulled up from motor vehicle records and Barry identified Monroe as the shooter. Kendra, believing she had probable cause to arrest Monroe, along with several other officers, went to 291 Lafayette street and knocked on the door. An elderly woman answered the door and Kendra identified herself as a police officer. Kendra asked if Monroe was there. The woman, who stated she was Monroe's mother, told Kendra Monroe was in the back room playing video games and that they could go talk with him. The officers entered and proceeded to the back room. They entered the room but found Monroe had left through the window. Anticipating an escape, Kendra had two officers stationed in the back of the home who apprehended Monroe once he left via the window.

Police searched Monroe upon his arrest and found a gram of cocaine and a handgun magazine containing five .44 caliber rounds on his person. Kendra and the other officers searched the back room from which Monroe fled and found a .44 caliber handgun on a table, an ounce of cocaine in a drawer right next to the table, and an AK-47 rifle in the closet on the other side of the room from the table.

At Monroe's trial on charges related to the murder of the two persons, the shots fired at the car, the drugs seized on Monroe's person and in the room, and the weapons, the state plans to introduce the .44, the .44 magazine, the AK-47 rifle, the gram of cocaine, and the ounce of cocaine into evidence. Monroe's attorney makes a motion to suppress these items.

Please evaluate the likelihood of success on the motion to suppress the following:

1. The .44 handgun
2. The .44 magazine
3. The AK-47 rifle
4. The gram of cocaine
5. The ounce of cocaine