Please help! Read through the following examples and determine whether the requirements of a grand jury have been met, whether double jeopardy may apply or whether the right of self-incrimination has been violated. Please be sure to cite your sources, including specific court cases. Q#1) A prosecuting attorney calls a grand jury. The prosecuting attorney wishes to prosecute a well-known, high profile drug dealer for distribution of illegal narcotics. The drug dealer has been consistently involved in drug crimes since the age of 16, and has been linked to other serious crimes such as murder and armed robbery, although no charges for those crimes have been filed. During the review of police reports, it appears some evidence suggests that the drug dealer was not involved in the crimes, but rather a rivaling drug dealer. Despite this potential exculpatory evidence, the prosecutor calls a grand jury. Is the prosecutor in violation of the law with regard to calling a grand jury? Why or why not?

Q#2) A defense attorney files a motion to suppress evidence related the prosecution of a client for which an indictment was issued by a grand jury for the distribution of illegal narcotics. The attorney believes that any evidence obtained as a result of the indictment should be excluded because he was never informed of the calling of a grand jury, and the attorney is a well-known attorney on retainer for the suspected drug dealer. Is the attorney correct that the evidence should be excluded because of a tainted grand jury process? Why or why not?

Q#3) Kenny Lawson was caught and convicted for armed robbery of a 1^st National Bank in Phoenix, Arizona by Arizona courts. Following that conviction, federal prosecutors for the 9^th Circuit filed paperwork to prosecute Mr. Lawson for the same armed robbery of 1^st National Bank. Mr. Lawson's attorney files a motion to terminate the federal prosecution based upon the fact that the State of Arizona has already prosecuted Mr. Lawson for the same crime, arguing that filing such a lawsuit is double jeopardy. Is Mr. Lawson's attorney's argument correct? Why or why not?

Q#4) Billy Perkins is in prison for armed robbery. The police have reason to believe that Mr. Perkins was involved in a murder of a 73-year-old woman during a burglary of a residential home. The police utilize an undercover police officer disguised as a transferred cell inmate with the assumed name of John William. Following Mr. William's introduction to Mr. Perkins's cell, over the next several weeks, Mr. William and Mr. Perkins get to know one another and Mr. William gains Mr. Perkins's trust. Mr. William asks Mr. Perkins if he has been involved in any other crimes, to which Mr. Perkins reveals he had been involved in the murder of the 73-year-old woman. The police utilize this information to put Mr. Perkins on trial for murder. At trial, Mr. Perkins attorney, Mr. Whineglass, makes a motion to suppress the evidence gathered by Mr. William. Mr. Whineglass argues that Mr. Perkins was subject to interrogation by a police agent and therefore subject to an interrogation in violation of his Miranda warnings and in violation of Mr. Perkins right against self-incrimination. Regarding Mr. Perkins right against self-incrimination, is Mr. Whineglass's argument correct? Why or why not?

Q#5) Tran Nguyen was placed under arrest for grand theft auto. During his interrogation by the police, the police ask for his name. Mr. Nguyen claims that he does not have to provide the police with his name because that would be a violation of his right against self-incrimination. Is Mr. Nguyen's assertion correct? Why or why not?