The Thinking Minority

I am obviously having too much fun with this stuff and want you to join in. Have fun!

Michael Lohan was arrested and charged with forging bad checks and processing stolen credit cards. The prosecution called Lindsay to testify that she had not given her father the permission to use the cards or put her signature on the checks. Despite his best work, the prosecutor was unable to get Lindsay to get the information out of her –bergaflickle!. Finally, Michael takes the stand and testifies that his daughter did give him permission to use the cards and thus he has committed no crime. By the time Michael takes the stand, Lindsay is no where to be found. If fact, they found 22 plane tickets to 22 different locations sold to one Lindsay Lohan. The prosecutor offers into evidence Lindsay’s previous testimony to contradict Michael’s testimony. Michael’s lawyer object. The judge should rule:
I. The hearsay is reliable and thus admissible
II. The declarant is unavailable, so the statement is admissible.
III.The hearsay is not reliable because it was during a court proceeding where witnesses are known to lie for family
IV. The statement is unreliable hearsay and thus inadmissible

A. Only I
B. I and II
C. I, II, and IV
D. IV only


The IRS and the FBI had the grand jury served five subpoenas on Traci Lords’ manager, DeVil Him Self. These subpoenas asked for Traci’s initial application to work for Smut T. Videos, Inc. and transcripts from conversations that STV’s lawyers had with some STV employees. Knowing that the state of Californication required all employment applications to have a copy of the applicants drivers’ license or some other state issued ID, the prosecution was trying to prove that Traci was too young to be in that line of work and that STV was involved with tax evasion. Self refused to tender the documents. A warrant was issued for his arrest and he was brought before a judge. Where he still refused to produce the documents. Self’s lawyer, fresh out of law school, says, “Your honor! Mr. Self does not have to produce these documents because it violates his fifth amendment rights.” The judge will rule,
A. All proprietary information will be blacked out with a permanent marker and thus will not violate any of Mr. Self’s rights
B. The act of producing the documents will serve as an implied testimonial act and are covered by the privilege against self-incrimination
C. That this decision is inline with United States v. Gould, 536 F.2d 216 (8th Cir. 1976) where the Supreme Court held that this was not an implied testimonial act, so Mr. Self must produce the materials.
D. None of the above.

The correct answer is B. A is wrong because it is gibberish. C is incorrect because that case, although properly cited, is about judicial notice and there is no such case with that holding. This fact pattern is from the case of United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 (1984).

Same facts as above. What if DeVil Him Self did not have a conversation with any of his corporate lawyers. The FBI was not able to get Traci’s application, so the IRS wanted to get the transcripts of the conversations. Ever the smart cookie, Self’s lawyers jumps up again, “Your honor! That violates Attorney-Client privilege.” The judge will rule
A. “That is preposterous!” Self did not speak to any of his lawyers in the transcripts. Therefore, since Self in on trial here, those statements made by his employees are not covered by privilege and must be turned over to the court.
B. Since the lawyers are hired by STV, any conversations that the lawyers had with STV employees on STV’s behalf will be deemed covered under attorney-client privilege, so Mr. Self does not have to tender the documents.
C. Unless each of those employees individually hired a STV attorney or have a form on file that purports to do so, none of the transcripts are covered by privilege.
D. None of the above.