Crim Pro Module 2 End of Module Questions

A police officer observed an individual leaving a residence where the officer had reasonable suspicion that illegal drugs were being sold. Although the officer lacked reasonable suspicion that the individual had purchased drugs at the residence, he wanted to question the individual to discover whether his suspicions were correct. He stopped the individual’s car, requested the individual’s identification, and upon being presented with the individual’s driver’s license, ran a check to see if he had any outstanding warrants. When the check, which took only several minutes, revealed that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for the individual for a minor traffic infraction, the officer arrested him. During a search of the individual’s person immediately following the arrest, the officer found methamphetamine. The individual was charged with possession of a controlled substance.

The individual has filed a motion in limine to suppress the evidence of the methamphetamine found on his person. How should the court rule on this motion?

Deny the motion, because the officer’s detention of the individual was constitutional.

Deny the motion, because the arrest warrant attenuated the illegal stop.

Grant the motion, because the evidence did not relate to the reason for the individual’s arrest.

Grant the motion, under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.

Answer choice B is correct. Although evidence of the individual’s possession of an illegal drug was directly linked to the illegal stop of the individual and therefore a “fruit of the poisonous tree” to which the exclusionary rule would usually apply, here the seizure of this evidence was attenuated by the existence of a valid warrant for the individual’s arrest. The illegal stop was not effected for the purpose of arresting the individual, and the length of the stop did not constitute flagrant police misconduct. Answer choice A is incorrect because, while the police officer did have reasonable suspicion that illegal drug activity was taking place at the residence, the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion that the individual was involved in that activity. Consequently, the officer’s stop of the individual was illegal. Answer choice C is incorrect because, while the illegal drugs found on the individual in no way related to the warrant for the arrest of the individual for a minor traffic offense, evidence seized pursuant to a search incident to a valid arrest is admissible. There is no requirement for a connection (or lack thereof) between the evidence seized during the search and the reason for the person’s arrest. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the temporal proximity of the illegal stop and the seizure of the methamphetamine indicates that the seizure was a fruit of the poisonous tree, the existence of the valid arrest warrant served to attenuate the illegal stop sufficiently to justify the evidence’s admission.

A man committed a rape. Although the victim reported the crime immediately and the police promptly gathered DNA evidence as to the perpetrator of the crime, the police were unable to determine that the man was the perpetrator until 10 years after the event. At that time, the man's conviction for a different crime resulted in the taking of a sample of his DNA and the subsequent match of his DNA with the DNA of the perpetrator of the rape. Shortly thereafter, the man was charged by the state with rape, and due to his indigence, provided with a court-appointed public defender. Attributable solely to this attorney, the trial was delayed for over a year, despite the defendant's protests that he be tried immediately. Eventually, the court replaced the public defender with another attorney. That attorney filed a motion to dismiss the rape charge on the basis that the man's constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. The state does not have a statute of limitations in which a rape charge must be brought.

Should the court grant the motion?

Yes, because there was a delay of over ten years in bringing charges against the defendant.

Yes, because, since the defendant's trial was delayed due to a court-appointed public defender, such delay is attributable to the state rather than the defendant.

No, because the state was not responsible for the delay in trying the defendant.

No, because the right to a speedy trial does not apply where there is no statute of limitations.

Answer choice C is correct. Delay in proceeding to trial attributable to the defendant's attorney is not allocated to the state simply because the attorney was provided by the state to the defendant. Instead, as with delay attributable to a defendant-supplied attorney, delay attributable to a public defendant is generally treated as caused by the defendant rather than the state. Consequently, since none of the post-arrest delay is attributable to the state, the defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated. Answer choice A is incorrect because the time begins to run with respect to the right to a speedy trial only once the defendant is arrested or charges are brought against the defendant. Answer choice B is incorrect because, as noted with respect to answer choice C, the court appointment of the defendant's attorney does not mean that delay in proceeding to trial which is attributable to that attorney is allocated to the state, rather than the defendant. Answer choice D is incorrect. A statute of limitations dictates when charges must be brought in relationship to the commission of the crime. As noted with regard to answer choice C, the right to a speedy trial is not triggered until the defendant is charged or arrested. Moreover, the absence of a statute generally does not determine whether a constitutional right exists.

An employee was accused of stealing money from her employer. The matter was sent to a grand jury. During the grand-jury proceedings, the prosecutor presented evidence on behalf of the State. However, the prosecutor failed to disclose that the employee would have lost her job had she not participated in the embezzlement scheme. The grand jury returned an indictment against the employee. The employee filed a motion to dismiss the indictment due to the prosecutor’s failure to disclose the fact that the employee was acting under duress.

Should the grand-jury indictment be dismissed?

No, because the prosecutor does not have a legal obligation to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.

No, because the defense of duress cannot be presented to a grand jury.

Yes, because the prosecutor has a legal obligation to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.

Yes, because the prosecutor’s role is to advise the grand jury with respect to the law.

Answer choice A is correct. The prosecutor has no legal obligation to present evidence exculpating the defendant to the grand jury. Thus, a grand-jury indictment cannot be dismissed for the prosecutor’s failure to present exculpatory evidence. Answer choice B is incorrect. Although the defendant has no right to present evidence to a grand jury, this does not prevent a prosecutor from advising the jury about any possible defenses, or facts relevant to a defense, that the defendant may have. However, the prosecutor is not required to present such information. Answer choice C is incorrect because the prosecutor has no legal obligation to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. Answer choice D is incorrect. The prosecutor’s role is to advise the grand jury with respect to the law. However, the prosecutor is not required to present exculpatory evidence. The failure to do so does not require the dismissal of the grand-jury indictment.

An FBI agent was accused of killing a witness in a federal case. A U.S. Marshal who had been guarding the witness had actually killed the witness after being paid by the defense attorney to do so. The agent knew this, but because the U.S. Marshal threatened to harm the agent’s family, he told no one. The agent was indicted for murder, and his lawyer counseled him about the legal elements of the crime. At the arraignment, the judge explained the nature of the charge and the applicable statutory sentences. The judge also explained that although the normal maximum penalty for the charge was capital punishment, based on the plea bargain offered by the prosecution, the prosecutor would recommend no more than life without parole if the agent pled guilty. Finally, the judge explained that by pleading guilty, the agent would waive his right to a jury trial. Fearing for the safety of his family, the agent pled guilty to the murder charge. Determining that there was a factual basis for the plea, the judge accepted the agent’s plea.

One month after the arraignment, the U.S. Marshal was arrested and charged with the murder of another witness. The agent, believing his family would now be safe if he disclosed the truth, subsequently filed a motion to set aside his guilty plea.

What is the strongest argument in favor of setting aside the guilty plea?

The judge did not determine whether the plea resulted from force or improper threats.

The judge did not investigate whether there was any evidence that could prove the agent’s innocence.

The judge did not personally explain each element of the crime to the agent on the record.

The prosecutor’s plea bargain unconstitutionally coerced the agent into entering a guilty plea by threatening him with capital punishment.

Answer choice A is correct. A guilty plea is an admission of facts contained in the charging document (e.g., indictment, information). Because a guilty plea constitutes both a confession and a waiver of various constitutional rights, the plea must be both intelligent and voluntary. The record must reflect that the judge has determined that the defendant knows and understands (i) the nature of the charges and their essential elements, (ii) the consequences of the plea (e.g., the maximum and minimum possible sentences, possible immigration consequences), and (iii) the rights that the defendant is waiving (e.g., the right to a trial). The judge must also determine that the plea did not result from force or improper threats. Here, the judge did not ask or determine whether the agent’s plea resulted from force or improper threats. Therefore, this is the best argument provided to set aside the guilty plea. Answer choice B is incorrect because a judge need not search for exculpatory evidence before accepting a plea. Answer choice C is incorrect. The judge does not personally need to explain each element of the crime. It is sufficient for the defendant’s counsel to explain the nature and elements of the crime to him. Answer choice D is incorrect. A plea bargain may involve the defendant’s sentence, such as a promise by the prosecutor to recommend a particular sentence in exchange for the defendant’s guilty plea. A defendant’s plea made in response to the prosecution’s threat to bring more serious charges does not violate the protection of the Due Process Clause against prosecutorial vindictiveness, at least when the prosecution has probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed the crimes. Without more facts, there is no evidence that this plea bargain amounted to unconstitutional coercion or prosecutorial vindictiveness.

A man and woman who were co-workers were brought into the station house by police for questioning regarding embezzlement from their employer. Each voluntarily made a statement to police after being properly Mirandized. They were jointly tried before a jury, and both elected to testify at trial. The woman’s statement to police at the station house implicated both the man and the woman in the embezzlement. The man’s objection to the admission of the woman’s statement at trial, which implicated him, was overruled. When the woman took the stand, she repeatedly denied making a self-incriminating statement at the police station, even under cross-examination by the man’s attorney. Both were convicted of embezzlement.

The man has appealed his conviction, seeking a reversal on the basis of the admission of the woman’s statement at the trial. How should the appellate court rule?

Uphold the man’s conviction, because the woman testified at the trial.

Uphold the man’s conviction, because the man testified at the trial.

Reverse the man’s conviction, because the woman denied making the statement.

Reverse the man’s conviction, because admission of the woman’s hearsay statement violated the Confrontation Clause.

Answer choice A is correct. The admission against a defendant of a confession that implicates the defendant made by a non-testifying co-defendant at a joint trial violates the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. However, when the co-defendant testifies, the defendant cannot complain that this right has been denied because he could confront the witness on cross-examination. In this case, the co-defendant, the woman, testified at the trial. Accordingly, the man’s Sixth Amendment rights were not violated. Answer choice B is incorrect because whether a defendant testifies at trial is irrelevant to the issue of whether the admission of a co-defendant’s out-of-court statement violates the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. Answer choice C is incorrect. Although the woman denied making the statement, she took the witness stand and was subject to cross-examination by the man’s attorney. Therefore, the man’s right to confront the witness has not been violated. Answer choice D is incorrect. Although the defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to confrontation that generally prevents the introduction of a hearsay statement against the defendant, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints on the use of the declarant’s prior out-of-court testimonial statements when the declarant is available for cross-examination at trial.

A grand jury indicted a politician on charges of corruption. After the indictment, the politician learned that the prosecutor had tried to indict the politician the previous year on the same charges, but that the first grand jury had refused to return an indictment. The prosecutor had gathered new evidence before attempting the second indictment, and this evidence was presented to the second grand jury. The new evidence included physical evidence seized in violation of the politician’s Fourth Amendment rights, as well as hearsay testimony from the politician’s chief-of-staff. The politician has moved to dismiss the charges.

Is the politician likely to succeed in having the charges against him dismissed?

Yes, because the prosecutor presented hearsay evidence to the grand jury.

Yes, because the prosecutor presented illegally obtained evidence to the grand jury.

No, because a grand jury indictment may not be dismissed by a judge.

No, because there are no grounds upon which to dismiss the indictment.

Answer choice D is correct. The grand jury is not restricted to hearing evidence that would be admissible at trial; rather, an indictment may generally be based on hearsay or illegally obtained evidence. Moreover, because jeopardy does not attach until a trial begins, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to grand jury proceedings. Answer choice A is incorrect because the grand jury may hear hearsay evidence. Answer choice B is incorrect because illegally obtained evidence may generally be presented to the grand jury. Answer choice C is incorrect because a judge could dismiss a grand jury indictment if there was a procedural defect that substantially affected the grand jury’s decision to indict.

A defendant was convicted of aggravated assault. His attorney appealed the conviction, and the first verdict was overturned based on the judge's finding that after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, no reasonable fact finder could have voted to convict. The prosecution now seeks to retry the defendant for the same crime. The defendant's attorney objects to the retrial on double jeopardy grounds.

Should the retrial be allowed?

Yes, because a defendant waives any double jeopardy rights by filing an appeal of his conviction.

Yes, because the Double Jeopardy Clause only prevents retrial when a defendant has been acquitted or when the prosecution dismisses its case.

No, because retrial after reversal of a conviction due to insufficiency of evidence is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause.

No, because retrial after a reversal of a conviction on any grounds is prohibited by the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Answer choice C is correct. A reversal of a conviction based on insufficiency of evidence is warranted when, as here, the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, would not support a conviction by any reasonable fact finder. When a conviction is reversed on these grounds, jeopardy is implicated, and the prosecution is barred from retrying the defendant for the same offense. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although a defendant who successfully appeals a conviction may generally be retried, a defendant does not waive his double jeopardy rights by filing an appeal. Answer choice B is incorrect because the Double Jeopardy Clause also prohibits retrial of cases overturned due to insufficiency of evidence or if the prosecution asks for a mistrial because of an inability to locate a witness. Answer choice D is incorrect because retrials after appeals on the basis of an error made at trial or after reversal due to weight of evidence are not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause.

The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of a company was indicted by a grand jury on charges of criminal fraud stemming from certain accounting practices she had approved. Prior to indicting the CFO, the grand jury had spent two years hearing and reviewing evidence. A key piece of evidence that resulted in the indictment was a set of computer disks that the police had illegally seized from the CFO's office without a warrant. The prosecutor knew that this evidence had been illegally seized, but did not mention this fact when he showed the evidence to the grand jury. The prosecution turned over copies of all of the evidence that was shown to the grand jury to the CFO following the indictment. The CFO's attorney has filed a motion to quash the indictment based on the fact that the grand jury considered illegally obtained evidence.

The court should:

Grant the motion because a grand jury may not consider illegally obtained evidence.

Grant the motion because the prosecutor was required to tell the grand jury that the evidence had been illegally seized.

Deny the motion because a grand jury is permitted to consider illegally obtained evidence.

Deny the motion because the prosecution turned over the evidence to the defense following the indictment.

Answer choice C is correct. A grand jury is not restricted to hearing evidence that would be admissible at trial, and an indictment may be based on illegally obtained evidence. Answer choice A is therefore incorrect. Answer choice B is incorrect, as there is no requirement that the prosecution tell the grand jury that evidence it is considering was obtained illegally. Answer choice D is incorrect, as the fact that the prosecution turned over the evidence following the indictment is irrelevant.

A defendant was charged with two separate crimes related to vandalism in a national park. Each of the crimes was punishable by a maximum of six months imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. The defendant requested a jury trial, but his request was denied. The defendant proceeded to trial before a judge in federal court, and was subsequently convicted on both charges. The judge sentenced the defendant to five months of imprisonment for each charge, to be served consecutively, as well as a fine of $5,000 for each charge. The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that he was entitled to a jury trial.

Was the defendant entitled to a jury trial?

No, because the defendant’s actual sentence for each offense was less than six months.

No, because the maximum sentence for each offense was six months.

Yes, because the combined maximum sentence for the offenses was 12 months.

Yes, because the sizeable fine makes each crime a serious offense.

Answer choice B is correct. There is a right to a jury trial for offenses that carry an authorized sentence of more than six months, regardless of the actual penalty imposed. In this case, the maximum sentence for each offense was only six months, and thus the right to a jury trial was not triggered. Answer choice A is incorrect because the actual sentence imposed is irrelevant in determining whether the right to a trial by jury attaches; rather, the right hinges on the maximum authorized sentence. Answer choice C is incorrect because the maximum prison term for each offense cannot be aggregated. Thus, there is no right to a trial by jury for multiple petty offenses that carry a combined total maximum term exceeding six months. Answer choice D is incorrect because a maximum fine of $5,000 in addition to six months imprisonment does not convert the crime into a serious offense.

Acting alone, a 17-year-old deliberately committed a murder. More than a year later, he was tried and convicted for this crime. During the sentencing phase of the trial, the jury, in addition to evidence of mitigating circumstances, received evidence from the victim's wife as to the impact of the victim's death on his family. In addition, the prosecution presented evidence of the defendant's prior crimes. The jury determined that the death penalty should be imposed on the defendant after finding the existence of a statutory aggravating factor. On appeal, the defendant seeks to modify his sentence on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

Should the court rule in his favor?

Yes, because evidence of the defendant's prior crimes was presented during the sentencing phase of the trial.

Yes, because the death penalty may not be imposed on a defendant who was minor at the time the crime was committed.

No, because the jury found a statutorily-defined aggravating factor.

No, because a victim impact statement may be considered by the jury during the sentencing phase.

Answer choice B is correct. The death penalty may not be imposed on a defendant who was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime. To do so violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Answer choice A is incorrect because there is not a constitutional prohibition on the introduction of a defendant's past crimes during the sentencing phase of a trial. Answer choice C is incorrect because, even though there must be a finding of at least one statutory aggravating factor in order for the death penalty to be imposed, the death penalty may not be imposed on a minor. Similarly, answer choice D is incorrect because, although a victim impact statement may be considered during the sentencing phase of a trial, the death penalty may not be imposed on a minor.

The criminal code of a state defines kidnapping as follows: “Kidnapping is the unlawful confinement of a person against that person’s will, coupled with either the movement or the hiding of that person.”

At a defendant’s trial for kidnapping his ex-girlfriend, the defendant, testifying in his own defense, contended that his ex-girlfriend had consented to go on a cross-country road trip with him and that she only got upset later in the trip when they had had an argument on the road.

How should the trial judge instruct the jury regarding the burden of proof on the issue of the ex-girlfriend’s consent to travel with the defendant?

The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the ex-girlfriend was moved against her will.

The prosecution must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the ex-girlfriend did not consent.

The defendant must prove the ex-girlfriend’s consent by clear and convincing evidence.

The defendant must prove the ex-girlfriend’s consent by a preponderance of the evidence.

Answer choice A is correct. The state statute includes “against that person’s will” as an element of the offense. Due process requires that the prosecution prove all of the elements included in the definition of the offense of which the defendant is charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the state cannot shift the burden of proof on the issue of the ex-girlfriend’s consent to the defendant without violating the U.S. Constitution. Answer choice B includes a standard of proof that is too low, and is therefore incorrect. Answer choices C and D are incorrect because they shift this burden away from the prosecution and violate the defendant’s constitutional guarantee of due process.

A defendant was charged with theft of a motor vehicle and convicted primarily on an identification of the perpetrator by the individual who purchased the stolen automobile from the defendant. The police did not reveal to the prosecutor that the buyer was serving as a paid police informant with regard to traffic in stolen vehicles. Since the prosecutor was unaware of this information, the prosecutor did not reveal it to the defendant's attorney. The defendant's attorney did not make a discovery request of the prosecutor for evidence favorable to the defendant. Subsequently, upon learning of the buyer's role as a paid police informant, the defendant challenged his conviction on the grounds that the prosecution's failure to reveal such information violated the defendant's due process rights.

Among the following, which is the strongest argument that the state can make to uphold the defendant's conviction?

The withheld evidence does not exculpate the defendant, but only impeaches the buyer's testimony.

A prosecutor has no duty to reveal information of which the prosecutor is unaware.

The defendant made no request for disclosure of such evidence.

The defendant was not prejudiced by the nondisclosure of the information.

Answer choice D is correct. While, under the Brady rule, a prosecutor has an affirmative duty to disclose to the defendant any material evidence favorable to the defendant, nondisclosure of such evidence does not violate the defendant's due process rights unless the failure to disclose causes prejudice against the defendant (i.e., that there is a reasonable probability that the defendant's conviction or sentence would have been different had the suppressed evidence been disclosed to the defendant). Since the buyer's identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime was key to the defendant's conviction, the failure to disclose evidence that called into question the validity of that identification could arguably constitute prejudice. Answer choice A is incorrect because the Brady rule applies to impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence. Answer choice B is incorrect because the Brady rule may apply to evidence of which the police or other state actor is aware, even though the prosecutor is not aware of such evidence. Answer choice C is incorrect because the Brady rule requires the prosecutor to voluntarily provide the defendant with evidence, despite the absence of a request by the defendant for such information, where such evidence is material.

A defendant was tried for theft of a motor vehicle and found guilty. As permitted by state law as a matter of right, he sought to appeal his conviction. His attorney, whom the defendant had hired, timely filed a notice of appeal. However, the appellate court dismissed the appeal due to his attorney's failure to file the necessary supporting documentation required by state law. The defendant subsequently challenged the action of the appellate court on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Will the defendant's challenge likely be successful?

No, because the attorney timely filed a notice of appeal.

No, because there is a presumption that an attorney's representation of a client was constitutionally adequate.

No, because the protection against ineffective assistance of counsel only applies to state-provided counsel.

Yes, because the attorney's unreasonable conduct prevented the defendant from pursuing his appeal.

Answer choice D is correct. There is a two-part test for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel: (i) the representation of a defendant by the defendant's attorney must fall below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (ii) the attorney's deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. Although there is no constitutional right to appeal, when a lawyer’s deficient performance costs a defendant an appeal that the defendant would have otherwise pursued, prejudice to the defendant is presumed with no further showing from the defendant of the merits of his underlying claims. Here, although the attorney took the necessary first step of filing a notice of appeal, the attorney unreasonably failed to take the second step of filing the necessary document. As a consequence, the defendant was prejudiced (i.e., his appeal was dismissed without a hearing). Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the defendant's attorney did timely file a notice of appeal, the attorney's failure to file the documentation necessary to pursue the appeal was unreasonable. Answer choice B is incorrect because, although there is a presumption that an attorney's representation of a client was constitutionally adequate, this presumption may be overcome. Answer choice C is incorrect because the protection against ineffective assistance of counsel extends to an attorney hired by a defendant as well as to court-appointed counsel.

A defendant met with an undercover officer and conspired with the officer to commit a bank robbery that afternoon. His conduct met the statutory requirements of criminal conspiracy in the state. When the defendant showed up at the bank an hour later, he assumed that the undercover officer had turned off the cameras and deactivated the alarms as they had planned. Instead, when the defendant drew his gun to threaten the bank teller, he was surrounded by officers and arrested. The defendant was subsequently charged with attempted robbery and went to trial. After the jury was empaneled and sworn in but before any witness was sworn in to testify, the defendant accepted a plea deal with the prosecutor. The defendant pled guilty, and the jury was dismissed. Months later, the prosecutor brought a conspiracy charge against the defendant for conspiring with the undercover officer to commit the robbery. The defendant’s lawyer has moved to dismiss the charges as a violation of the defendant’s constitutional protection from double jeopardy.

Should the court dismiss the conspiracy charge on the grounds of double jeopardy?

No, because jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when the first witness is sworn in.

No, because attempted robbery and conspiracy each require proof of different elements.

Yes, because jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when the jury is empaneled and sworn in.

Yes, because the Double Jeopardy Clause bars successive prosecutions for lesser-included offenses.

Answer choice B is correct. The Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits multiple criminal prosecutions for the same offense. Two different crimes committed in one criminal transaction are generally deemed the same offense unless each crime requires proof of an element that the other does not. An attempted offense and the conspiracy to commit that offense are not the same offense for double-jeopardy purposes because each requires proof of different elements. Therefore, this action is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Answer choice A is incorrect. Jeopardy attaches in a bench trial when the first witness is sworn in, but in a jury trial, it attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn in. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although jeopardy did attach for the attempted robbery charge, an attempted offense and the conspiracy to commit that offense are not the same offense for double-jeopardy purposes because each requires proof of different elements. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the Double Jeopardy Clause generally bars successive prosecutions for greater and lesser included offenses, conspiracy to commit a crime is always considered a separate offense from the underlying crime.

A defendant was unaware that he had been charged with conspiring to distribute cocaine in violation of federal law. Prior to his arrest, he traveled to a foreign country. He returned to the United States a year later, and lived in the United States under his own name for more than seven years before he was arrested on the cocaine conspiracy charge of which he had been unaware. Shortly after his arrest, he filed a motion to dismiss the charge against him on the grounds that his right to a speedy trial granted by the Sixth Amendment had been violated.

Upon which date is the time period for measuring the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right commenced?

The date on which he was charged.

The date on which he returned to the United States.

The date on which he was arrested.

The date on which he asserted his Sixth Amendment right.

Answer choice A is correct. Under the Sixth Amendment’s right to a speedy trial, the time period for measuring this right commences at the time of arrest or formal charge, whichever comes first. The defendant need not know about the charges against him for the right to attach. Answer choice B is incorrect because, while the absence of the defendant from the applicable jurisdiction is a factor to be considered in determining whether his right to a speedy trial has been violated, the time period for measuring this right commences at the time of arrest or formal charge. Answer choice C is incorrect because the time period for measuring a defendant’s speedy trial right commences at the time of arrest or formal charge, whichever comes first. Here, the defendant was charged with crime of conspiracy to distribute cocaine before he was arrested for that crime. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the defendant’s assertion of his right to a speedy trial is a factor to be considered in determining whether that right has been violated, the time period for measuring this right commences at the time of arrest or formal charge, whichever comes first.