Hi THERE, according to the ABA Rules, could you help me with these questions. Citing each section of the rule and comment and applies.

B. Problem I.

When Heather Hunt won election as District Attorney of the City and County of Metropolis, she did it with a pledge to concentrate on violent crimes. Part of her "pri- orities pledge" was a promise not to prosecute anyone on "simple loitering" charges. In the two years since Hunt's election, despite the increasing presence of the home- less in several areas of Metropolis, the district attorney's office has never prosecuted a loitering case. Police have done no more than occasionally moving or breaking up larger gatherings of homeless.

The Mission District is a pleasant middle class residential neighborhood. Recently,

the Mission District Safe Neighborhood Coalition met with Hunt to complain about

an influx of homeless in Mission Park and the nearby Town Square shopping mall. The coalition complained that the park is no longer comfortable for the families and businesses were losing money. Hunt orders her charging deputies to send out the kids who live in the neighborhood. The Town Square representatives claimed their word to police that her office will now enforce the loitering statute in Town Square and Mission Park but will continue its prior policy in all other areas of the city. Questions appropriate exercise of 1. Was Hunt's campaign promise to not prosecute loitering cases proper? 2. Is prosecuting loitering only in the Mission District an prosecutorial discretion or an improper selective enforcement of the laws? 3. What if the loitering statute was in disuse not because Hunt chose to ignore it, but because it had not been enforced by anyone in the state for 35 years? May she now use it in the Mission District? 4. Suppose again that the loitering statute has been in disuse for the last 35 years. Suppose, too, that Hunt receives a report that reputed drug lord Leonard Sheldon is in Metropolis to organize and take over much of the city's drug trade. May Hunt tell the police chief that her office would prosecute Sheldon for anything, including loitering, and for the police to "keep a close eye" on Sheldon? 5. Suppose instead that Hunt wants the police department to watch Abu Nazir, a reputed terrorist who was reported to be in Metropolis, and to charge him with any available offense including loitering?

Problem ||

Michael Stone is a deputy in the district attorney's Serious Crimes Unit. Metropolis police robbery inspector Ronald Rico asks Mike to charge Benjamin Sisk for the robbery of Whit Moore. Last week, Moore was robbed by a young black male after he withdrew money from an ATM. Three days later, Moore was having a drink in a local bar across town, The Lucky 7, when Sisk walked in. Moore, sure that Sisk was the man who robbed him, called the police, and Sisk was arrested. Rico puts Sisk in a lineup, in which Moore makes a positive identification. Moore is a 57-year-old white male who admits to having had two drinks in the bar before Sisk walked in. After the robbery, Moore had described the robber as a black male in his early twenties, muscular, short black hair, moustache, between 6'1" and 6'3" tall. This description fits Sisk, except that he is 5'10%." Stone knows he has enough to charge Sisk, but harbors doubts. First, he checks Sisk out, and finds that he is a longtime resident of the city, he has had one adult arrest, three years ago at age 19, for disturbing the peace, and no convictions. Sisk has held the same job for the past 18 months, as a supermarket checker. Second Stone wonders about the size discrepancy in the description, which, though not enormous, could be significant. Third, although Metropolis has a large black pop- ulation, Moore, who two years before moved from a small town in the Midwest, has apparently had little close exposure to African-Americans. Stone is concerned that Moore's "i.d." may possibly have been unintentionally motivated by the coincidence of seeing a black man of similar looks and attire to the robber in the bar just a few days later.

Questions

1. May Stone file robbery charges against Sisk? Should he? Which of Stone's mus- ings, above, is appropriate for him to consider?

2. Suppose Rico had previously arrested Sisk's brother on similar robbery charges two years ago. Should Stone consider this fact in deciding whether to charge Sisk?

3. Assume that Rico unlawfully searches Sisk's apartment in violation of state and federal search and seizure laws, and finds Moore's driver's license inside the apart- ment. Stone is now convinced of Sisk's guilt, but may he take this evidence into account in deciding whether to charge Sisk, when he knows the evidence will be excluded at trial?

4. Assume that Stone has a witness statement taken by an officer at the Lucky 7 batgobeagoi Bar from a friend of Moore's that states Moore has said on more than one occasion that "all those black people look alike." Must Stone, even if he is now convinced of Sisk's guilt, give this report to the defense? Does it matter whether Stone considers the report "material"?

5. Suppose Deputy DA Peter Sling is assigned the case for trial. After reviewing the file, Sling harbors significant doubts about Sisk's guilt. In light of this, would it be appropriate for Sling to dismiss the case? What about offering Sisk a better plea bargain? If Sisk turns down the deal, proclaiming his innocence, may Sling argue at trial the absolute accuracy of Moore's "i.d.," even if he himself is not convinced?