Legal Analysis: Miranda Rights Violation & Iowa State Law - Battery & Joint Liability, Exams of Law

Download Legal Analysis: Miranda Rights Violation & Iowa State Law - Battery & Joint Liability and more Exams Law in PDF only on Docsity!

IOWA STATE BAR EXAMINATION

July 28, 2003

Part I

Answer all four questions in this session. You will be allowed three hours. A separate booklet must be used for each essay question.

Question 1

I

David Decedent executed a valid will in 1997 that left his entire estate to his wife, Wilma, but specified that if she predeceased him his entire estate was to go in equal shares to two of his children, Carrie and Clyde. The will mentioned his third child, Connie, and specifically excluded her. The marriage between David and Wilma was subsequently dissolved. David died thereafter without having taken any further action regarding his will, leaving Wilma, Carrie, Clyde and Connie surviving. Who receives David’s estate and in what proportion? Explain your answer.

II

The facts are the same as in I, except that after the dissolution, David called his attorney, who was keeping David’s will in a safety deposit box, told the attorney he decided to revoke his will, and instructed the attorney to destroy the will in order to carry out that revocation. The attorney immediately followed David’s instruction and physically destroyed the will.

Roughly a year later, David’s girlfriend informed David that she was pregnant with David’s child. David never denied that his girlfriend’s child was his, told his children they would soon have a new sibling, and wrote the following note to his girlfriend’s doctor: “Please send me all the bills relating to this pregnancy. These are my responsibility.”

David’s girlfriend gave birth a month prematurely, while David was out of the country on business. When he was informed of the birth, David immediately returned to Iowa for the expressed purpose of being with his girlfriend and the child. David was killed in an automobile collision on the trip from the airport to the hospital the day after the child was born, without ever seeing the child. David’s paternity was never established.

Wilma, Carrie, Clyde, Connie, his girlfriend, and the newborn child all survived David.

Who receives David’s estate and in what proportion? Explain your answer.

Question 2

You are appointed to represent Darla Defendant on a state charge of Possession of Marijuana With Intent to Deliver in Iowa. She tells you that she had been driving home and was stopped for speeding by Officer Oliver. When Officer Oliver handed her the citation for speeding, he asked her whether she had any drugs, weapons, or contraband in the car. Darla said that she did not. Officer Oliver asked Darla whether

she minded if he searched the car. She consented to the search, voluntarily opening the trunk for Officer Oliver. As soon as the trunk was open, Darla suddenly remembered that her boyfriend, Bob, with whom she resides, had placed some marijuana in the trunk the previous night. Darla knows that occasionally, when Bob needs money, he sells marijuana. This is a source of tension between them. After an

argument the previous night, she directed Bob to get the drugs out of their house, giving him the key to her car.

Darla and Officer Oliver see in the trunk three large bags of marijuana, each containing several dozen smaller baggies of individually packaged marijuana. Officer

Oliver then informs her that she is under arrest for Possession of Marijuana and transports her to the police station interview room. He reads Miranda rights to her from the standard police department form and hands her the form to sign acknowledging that she understands each and every right read to her. She signs the form. Then Officer Oliver places all the bagged marijuana in front of Darla and asks, “Can you explain why

all this marijuana was in your trunk?” Darla says that the drugs belong to her boyfriend, and she adds, “Maybe I need to speak to a lawyer.” Officer Oliver then tells Darla that if she wants to talk with a lawyer she should say nothing. He leaves the room and returns 45 minutes later and asks, “Does your explanation about how the marijuana got in your trunk change if I tell you I called your boyfriend, and he told me that the drugs are all

yours?” Officer Oliver then admonishes Darla that it will be better for her to admit to what she knows, since she is arrested only for Possession of Marijuana. He explains to her that this crime is a misdemeanor for which is she is likely to be placed on probation. He tells her that her full cooperation by disclosure in the interview will likely mean Officer Oliver will not file a more serious charge of Possession With Intent to Deliver,

which he tells her is a felony with a five-year prison sentence. Darla then says, “Okay, I’ll talk. I guess you could call the drugs mine. I made Bob get the stuff out of our house last night.” Officer Oliver then tells Darla that he thinks she knows more information than she is providing, and he informs her that he is arresting her for Possession of Marijuana With Intent to Deliver.

You take Officer Oliver’s deposition and learn that, in fact, he never called Bob while Darla was in the interview room. You examine the Miranda acknowledgment form Darla signed and see that it does not contain any language stating that Darla waived her Miranda rights. Darla tells you that she felt hopeless in the interview room. She is

19 years old and has no prior criminal record. She graduated from high school, but most of her classes were special education classes, and her reading level is that of a seventh grader. She suffers from depression and panic attacks. She believes that she tried to avoid talking with Officer Oliver by saying that she needed a lawyer, but Officer Oliver ignored that. She tells you that Officer Oliver never asked her whether she waived her

Miranda rights. She felt she had to tell Officer Oliver something about the marijuana after he returned to the interview room. You file a motion to suppress any testimony by Officer Oliver about Darla’s statement. You allege that Darla’s statement was obtained in violation of her Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination

under the U.S. Constitution, as protected in Miranda_._ You also allege that the statement was not made voluntarily, and thus using it would violate her due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Explain for Darla generally what must be shown at the suppression hearing, who

has the burden of proof, and what level of proof is required to prevail. Then specifically discuss: (a) Whether Darla effectively invoked her right to counsel under Miranda; (b) Whether proof of an express statement of waiver—either written or oral—of Miranda rights is required before Officer Oliver can testify at trial about Darla’s statement; and (c) Whether Darla’s statement will be found by the court to be voluntary.

Question 3

You are a new associate and Lana Lawyer, one of your firm's senior partners, asks you to assist her in a personal injury lawsuit she has filed in Iowa District Court.

On January 3, 2001, Paul Plaintiff, Lana's client, slipped and fell on a grease spot at a restaurant called The Uptown Diner. Michael Manager, an employee of The

Uptown Diner, saw the fall. Paul Plaintiff, angry and embarrassed, snarled at Manager: "I am going to sue the diner and make the owner pay."

Paul went home and calmed down, realizing that he felt fine and was apparently not injured in any manner. On December 28, 2002, however, feeling acute back pain,

Paul went to his physician, who diagnosed him as having back injuries relating to his January 3, 2001 fall at The Uptown Diner. Paul immediately retained Lana Lawyer to bring suit against the owners of the diner.

On January 2, 2003, Lana Lawyer filed a negligence lawsuit in the Iowa District

Court on behalf of Paul Plaintiff against Dan Defendant, whom she believed was the owner of The Uptown Diner. She captioned the lawsuit, "Paul Plaintiff v. Dan Defendant d/b/a The Uptown Diner." Dan Defendant was not served with the petition until January 10, 2003.

On January 20, 2003, Lana Lawyer learned that The Uptown Diner is owned by a corporation, "Dan's Uptown Diners of Iowa, Inc." Dan Defendant is president of the corporation and a minority shareholder. On January 21, 2003, Lana Lawyer filed an amendment to the petition, naming "Dan's Uptown Diners of Iowa, Inc." as Defendant. The amendment was served on the corporation on the same day (January 21, 2003).

The attorney for Dan's Uptown Diners of Iowa, Inc. has filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss the lawsuit against it on the ground that the relevant two -year personal injury statute of limitations bars recovery against the corporation. Lana Lawyer has asked you to prepare the resistance to the motion to dismiss.

What two grounds will you assert to defeat dismissal? Explain each in detail. Will you be successful on either one? Explain why or why not.

Question 4

At a meeting with Bill Morris you learn the following facts: Bill Morris and his cousin, Mel Morris, have developed an avid interest in golf. Mel has invented a system that improves individual scores with a minimum time commitment and maximum results. Bill’s own handicap dropped substantially following only three hourly tutorials with Mel. The two men have decided to begin a business venture in which they will share their

successful theory with individuals willing to purchase a minimum number of sessions. It is anticipated that the business will need to lease or purchase bare ground that will be developed as a practice range. Along with the real estate it is anticipated that a structure will be built to accommodate year-round indoor lessons. A substantial investment in computer and video equipment will need to be made to enable the system

to be effectively taught to groups. Both Bill and Mel believe so strongly in their system that they will offer a full money-back guarantee for a period of one year. Although the parties have investigated various sites and ta lked with vendors to gather initial pricing information, no formal agreements have been entered into with any third parties for goods or services.

Bill tells you that he and Mel have initially agreed that Mel will contribute his teaching theory to the company, and Bill will provide his extensive business expertise and the capital necessary to start up the venture. Both men will be actively involved in the operation and management of the business. Bill further confides in you that his

cousin is a spend thrift. He is concerned that Mel may not have the personal financial reserves to fund the cash needs for the business. Although he is excited about the prospects of the operation, Bill wants to protect himself from any substantial personal liability if the business does not meet profit expectations. In deciding how to proceed in establishing MM Golf Systems, Bill Morris has a few issues on which he would like

some guidance.

1. How is a partnership established and operated under Iowa law?
2. How is a Limited Liability Company (LLC) established and operated under Iowa law?
3. Identify and fully explain whether a partnership or Limited Liability Company (LLC) provides the most protection from personal liability for Bill Morris for the operation of MM Golf Systems.

IOWA STATE BAR EXAMINATION

July 29, 2003

Part II

Answer all four questions in this session. You will be allowed three hours. A separate booklet must be used for each essay question.

Question 5

Aaron, Barry and Charlie while attending a ten-year college fraternity reunion party saw Paul Plaintiff at the opening reception. They did not like Paul because all three of them believed Paul had stolen money and other things from them when they were in college and living together in the fraternity house.

During the evening, the approximately 75 party participants engaged in horseplay and games reminiscent of their college days. Aaron, Barry and Charlie were in charge of "Walking the Plank," which required the blindfolded participants to walk on a wide board through a curtain into a dark space, which dropped off abruptly four feet to a trampoline, which constituted the landing area.

When it was Paul's turn to walk the plank, Aaron, Barry and Charlie all slapped Paul on the back and then said in unison, "Hope you break your neck." One held Paul's right elbow, another held his left elbow and the third steadied the back of Paul's neck as he proceeded down the plank. When Paul walked through the curtain blindfolded, he fell six feet to the floor because the trampoline had been removed. Paul suffered serious injuries from the fall.

Paul has sued Aaron, Barry and Charlie in the Iowa District Court to recover money damages for his injuries. Paul has not sued the fraternity because he believes that Aaron, Barry and Charlie are totally responsible for his injuries and he does not want to take any action adverse to his fraternity.

Paul has brought his lawsuit advancing alternative theories, as permitted under the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure. In the first count, he has alleged battery on the part of all three defendants, and in the second count, Paul has alleged negligence and reckless behavior on the part of the three defendants.

A. What essential elements must a plaintiff prove in order to recover in a civil battery case?

B. From the facts presented, provide an analysis of Paul's battery claim and state your reasons with explanation why you believe the claim may or may not be successful.

C. If the jury finds for Paul and against Aaron, Barry and Charlie on the battery claim (and not on the negligence claim), is there joint and several liability among the three defendants? Why or why not?

D. Suppose the jury finds that Paul's damages are $100,000, rejects the battery claim and under the negligence count assesses fault as follows:

Paul Plaintiff 10% Aaron 30% Barry 30% Charlie 30%

(i) How much should Paul recover from each defendant? Explain.

(ii) Under this scenario, can there be joint and several liability under Iowa law? Explain.

Question 6

Iowa Earth Advocates is a local environmental group that engages in, among other activities, the drafting of proposed state legislation. Iowa Earth Advocates currently is working on a draft of a bill that would seek to limit environmental risks by requiring that Iowa hog confinement facilities be licensed. In support of its proposed legislation, Iowa Earth Advocates has accumulated significant medical and scientific

literature concerning the health and environmental risks posed by hog confinement facilities.

One prerequisite for the issuance of a license would be the posting by the facility’s owner of a bond for potential environmental damages and cleanup costs. The

amount of the bond in any individual case would vary and would depend on the extent of the owner’s total hog confinement operations – i.e., the number and size of the owner’s other hog confinement facilities not just in Iowa but in all states. The license for

a particular facility would be subject to revocation if the owner, upon opening an additional hog confinement facility, did not timely increase the bond associated with the

already licensed facility.

A second prerequisite for the issuance of a license would be proof of the employment of a minimum number of individuals possessing a statutorily defined “expertise” in hog confinement environmental issues. The license for a particular facility

then would be subject to revocation for failure to have a required number of such employees present at the facility at all times.

(1) What problems, if any, would the Iowa Earth Advocates’ proposed licensing bill present under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution? Explain in detail.

(2) What problems, if any, would the Iowa Earth Advocates’ proposed licensing bill present under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution? Explain in detail.

Question 7

Plaintiff Jimmy Neutron is a self-employed computer programmer who owns a business called Wizard Computers (Wizard). Defendant Conglomerate Insurance (Conglomerate) owns numerous mutual insurance companies in the Midwest and is engaged in the sale and marketing of insurance products. The president of Conglomerate contacted Wizard about writing a computer program to be used by

Conglomerate-affiliated insurance companies to quote comparative rates for fire and wind insurance.

Conglomerate was particularly interested in providing such a program to a Conglomerate affiliate in Nebraska called Husker Mutual Insurance (Husker). Wizard

began working on the computer program for Husker in late fall 1997 with an estimated completion date of February 1998. During their initial negotiations, both Wizard and Conglomerate recognized that their joint venture held promise for marketing such programs throughout the Midwest.

However, their perspectives on the Husker project differed markedly. Wizard was willing to build the program for the modest sum of $2,500 in its belief that once it was successfully completed, Conglomerate would aggressively order similar programs, resulting in substantial royalties and service contracts. Conglomerate, meanwhile, agreed to pay the $2,500 to Wizard for a completed Husker product, but it believed that

negotiations concerning future orders must await Husker’s acceptance of Wizard's work.

At Wizard's request, Conglomerate reduced the parties' oral agreement to writing in February 1998 via the following e-mail:

This is to confirm our agreement for Wizard Computers to create a multi- company quoting system for sale to Husker Mutual Insurance. Conglomerate has agreed to provide a program for Husker to handle its multi-company quoting needs. Your quoted price for this project is $2,500, which is payable by Conglomerate upon completion of the work and acceptance of the system by Husker.

The prototype furnished by Wizard in February 1998 was met with enthusiasm by Conglomerate but required substantial revision to meet Husker’s needs. Wizard made the revisions in the hope of future rewards. It submitted another version in May 1998

that was also found to be lacking in the details. According to Wizard, it was led to believe that Wizard and Conglomerate were close to producing the desired program, which prompted Wizard and Cong lomerate to discuss future marketing strategies. To confirm, Wizard submitted a written proposal for future marketing under joint ownership with fixed compensation for Wizard of $120,000. It received no response from

Conglomerate.

Despite continued work, Wizard was never able to satisfy Husker’s programming needs. It described the situation as a "moving target." After each revised program, Conglomerate would submit a list of further revisions to Wizard. In August 1998, when

Conglomerate expressed uncertainty about the future of the program, Wizard retained a lawyer. Its lawyer wrote to Conglomerate, expressing Wizard's desire to be fairly compensated for its work. Conglomerate replied, "Upon completion of the listed corrections and subject to Husker's approval, we will pay Wizard Computers the amount

agreed to of $2,500. We wish to make it clear that this is the only amount we have agreed to pay Wizard Computers." Attached to the letter was a six-page list of additional changes. Wizard immediately suspended all work on the program.

Wizard later learned that in July 1998 Conglomerate entered discussions with a

Missouri company concerning a rate-quoting program. By February 1999, Conglomerate had purchased that company's assets, including the rate-quoting program, for $225,000. It then marketed the program to 245 county mutual companies in its nine-state area.

Wizard sued Conglomerate for breach of contract for "expert computer design services." Specifically, its petition was initially based solely on the theory of an implied- in-fact contract, seeking quantum meruit damages. In addition, Wizard alleged the theory of breach of an express contract, seeking reliance, expectation, or restitution damages.

At the bench trial, Wizard’s owner, Jimmy Neutron, testified that he devoted approximately 1,800 hours to the project and that such programming would ordinarily command $75 to $125 per hour in the marketplace. Wizard insisted that the seemingly endless changes requested by Conglomerate were not to correct errors but to modify

the product beyond that originally contemplated. Conglomerate asserted that the evidence of the hours, hourly wages, and of the preliminary negotiations concerning future marketing were irrelevant because the work performed by Wizard was never suitable for its intended purpose.

The trial has concluded and now Judge Blackstone needs to issue a ruling. You are his law clerk and he wants a memo addressing the issue of damages. Specifically, he wants you to discuss the various types of monetary damages available in a breach- of-contract claim. Judge Blackstone also wants your suggestions as to which type of damages is most appropriate under the facts of this case. You do not need to

determine a precise figure for damages, but you may explain the types of proof or evidence that would be helpful for the various types of damages. Finally, you do not need to address the other contract issues (such as whether the contract was breached).

Question 8

You are beginning work at a local law firm when the senior partner summons you into his office. The following factual scenario is presented to you for your analysis and comment:

• Tom and Sally have been married for 30 years. They both live in Johnson County, Iowa. They are both in good health and mentally stable.
• There are two children resulting from the marriage. Both children are adults and live independently of their parents.
• Tom is a salaried physician for a large medical care provider and has maintained a specialty practice during the marriage. Sally does not currently work outside the home.
• The couple has acquired considerable assets during the course of marriage. These assets include the following (unless otherwise stated, the property is in both Tom and Sally’s name):

a. Family residence valued at $500,000, which is subject to a $150,000 mortgage.

b. Florida condominium valued at $500,000, which is subject to a $250,000 mortgage.

c. A timeshare in a condominium in Cancun, Mexico, having a current value of $75,000.

d. Tom’s 401K retirement account, currently valued at $750,000.

e. Two luxury sedans of equal value.

f. Stocks and other equity holdings with a current market value of $250,000.

g. A 160-acre farm in Iowa that has a value of $400,000. This is an asset that Sally has title to that she inherited from her deceased parents.

h. Household goods and furnishings currently valued at $100,000.

i. An antique Harley Davidson motorcycle that was gifted to Tom by his grandfather. The item is valued at $15,000.

The senior partner also advises you that Sally worked two jobs early in the

marriage to help support Tom and to help offset the expenses of his medical school education. However, once Tom’s medical practice began to flourish, he insisted that Sally not work outside the home but rather be a “stay-at-home” mom with their then young children.

The senior partner advises you that Sally has contacted him concerning a possible dissolution of marriage. The senior partner has asked you to prepare a memo addressing the following:

1. What general factors will be considered by the Court in addressing the issue of division of property?
2. What factors will the Court consider in making an award of the family residence?
3. How would you anticipate the Court to rule on awarding ownership of the 160-acre farm? Explain your answer.
4. How would you anticipate the Court to rule on awarding ownership of the antique Harley Davidson motorcycle? Explain your answer.
5. How would you anticipate the Court to rule on division of Tom’s 401K retirement account? Explain your answer.
6. If Sally were to also make a claim in the proceeding for dissolution of marriage for spousal support (i.e., alimony), could this impact the property division issue? Explain your answer.