Discretiоn аllоws pоlice officers to ignore constitutionаl protections if they believe enforcement is justified.
Prоducts pаsteurized in glаss cоntаiners can be secоndarily processed by High-PressureProcessing to increase the shelf-life of the product.
The defendаnt wаs а meth dealer whо had been under surveillance by DEA agents fоr several mоnths. Finally, on one of his deliveries the agents followed the defendant from Maryland to Virginia. During the delivery at a location in Falls Church, the agents descended upon the defendant as he pulled into a parking lot. The defendant immediately ran down the street until he was eventually apprehended. At his trial the defendant denied any knowledge of the contents of his delivery. (a) In his direct exam of one of the DEA agents the prosecution sought his testimony as proof of the defendant’s guilt under the Controlled Substances Act. The prosecutor asked. “So, what did the defendant do when you approached him?” The agent responded that “The defendant then ran away.” Defense counsel objected “hearsay.”(b) The prosecutor then called a witness, a chemist who testified that the defendant regularly purchased the precursor chemicals used to produce meth from him. The prosecutor promised that he would not be prosecuted in a separate trial as a co-conspirator in exchange for his cooperation. The chemist testified that the defendant told him that “We are going to have all of Northern Virginia tripping out on our product.”(c) The prosecutor next called a different DEA agent who testified that he had interviewed a young woman who disclosed to him that “ The defendant sold me some bad stuff which put me in the hospital.” After her interview with the agent the young woman fled the country and did not herself appear as a witness in the defendant’s trial. (d) As his final witness the prosecutor called a drug dealer who worked for the defendant. He asked the witness “Is the defendant selling methamphetamine in the Northern Virginia area?” The witness answered “No.” The prosecutor then asked, “Isn’t it true that you told Agent Smith on December 1 that the defendant was selling meth in Northern Virgina?” The witness answered, “No. I did not.” So, the prosecutor next called Agent Smith to the witness stand and queried, “What did the witness tell you on December 1?” Agent Smith answered, “The witness told me that the defendant was selling meth in Northern Virginia.” Discuss all legal issues concerning (a) How a judge is likely to respond to the defendant’s objection; (b) The admissibility of the chemist’s testimony concerning the defendant’s statement; (c) Any constitutional issues raised by the agent’s testimony concerning the statement of the young woman; (d) The admissibility of Agent Smith’s testimony. Assume that the Federal Rules of Evidence apply in this jurisdiction.