320 week 5
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Maryland Global Campus (UMGC) *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
320
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by CorporalSnailMaster836
TO
: Beckett Holland, Esq.
FROM:
RE
: Analysis of Crimes and Admissible Evidence in Garland Ford Defense
Date:09/16/2023
1. Analyze and discuss whether defense counsel can likely argue successfully that the
chemicals found in the shed should be suppressed and why or why not.
Defense attorneys will likely be able to successfully argue that the chemicals found in the shed
should be suppressed. In this case, the FBI issues a search warrant to search a barn on the
property that does not exist. The shed is there, but the FBI doesn't have a search warrant to
search for the chemicals. Mr. Garland was arrested by FBI agents after being found in a field on
the property. During his arrest, he told officers that he had chemicals stored in his shed, but did
not admit that the chemicals were malicious and permitted officers to search the shed. The
discovered chemical should be considered poisonous FBI lawyers won't be able to remove that
stain. It cannot claim to be an independent source because it was not subsequently adopted by an
independent source. Because the FBI did not attempt to obtain an authorized search warrant
when searching the cabin, the consequential discovery rule does not apply. Since there was no
consent for the cabin to be searched at the time of the arrest, but afterward, voluntary
intervention is also out of the question. Furthermore, it does not matter whether the warrant is
legal or defective. The fact that the search warrant called for a search of the barn and not the barn
is not considered a defect in the search warrant because it was intentional.
2. Identify and explain the crimes that apply to Garland Fold’s case.
If the evidence is admitted and the FBI pursues the case based on the informant's testimony, or if
additional evidence other than the poisonous collected, R. Fauld could likely be charged with
Attempted Murder: If prosecutors can argue that the contamination of the water likely caused the
death of the person who drank it, he could be charged with attempted murder. b. Battery - If
prosecutors can prove that someone knew about the conspiracy and caused damage to
Washington, D.C.'s water supply as a result of Mr. Fauld's conspiracy. Batteries can be recharged
if they become contaminated and there is a risk of imminent physical harm. c.18 U.S.C. § 1361 –
United States Code - Uncommented Title 18. Crime and Criminal Procedure Code § 1361.
Government property or contracts- Mr. Fold could be charged for the attempt to destroy
government property which in this case was the water plant that is property of D.C
.Possession of a Controlled Substance-, Depending upon the chemicals to be used to
contaminate, Mr. Fold could be charged. However, in this case, we are told it is"certain
chemicals" and the chemicals themselves have not been identified to ensure that he could be
charged. f.18 USC Ch. 113B: TERRORISM- Mr. Fold could be charged with acts of terrorism
which include the Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Many EPA violations could probably be
prosecuted as well. Typically, the criminal justice system sees prosecutors charging a wide range
of crimes from felonies to misdemeanors at arraignment. Ultimately, either the judge won't allow
it, or the defendant will agree to an agreement with prosecutors to drop some of the charges. I
have listed some crimes he could be charged with, but there are probably many more available to
prosecutors.
3. Analyze whether the defendant, Garland, will likely be convicted of any crimes identified
in #3 above and why or why not.
I dont believe that Garland will be convicted of the crime listed in #3. If he fails to introduce
physical evidence of chemicals into evidence, the jury will not convict him beyond a reasonable
doubt based on the testimony of an unidentified informant. The defense could easily argue that
the informant is unreliable simply because there were chemicals in the barn, as he claims.
What was captured does not exist. If an FBI lawyer cannot use chemicals as evidence, it is highly
unlikely that he will be able to obtain a conviction. Additionally, the Larry Wayne Harris case
found that the threat of a dangerous substance, in this case, military-grade anthrax, was not
enough to convict. In this case, police seized the anthrax even though it was veterinary grade and
the anthrax was present. It wasn't military grade. Finally, if a farmer owns a chemical that could
potentially be used as an agricultural chemical on the farm, defense attorneys argue that the
chemicals found were legal and were not intended to be used maliciously. I will. Without further
evidence of conspiracy, it is unlikely that Garland will be convicted of the above charges.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help