Officer observed Driver driving a late model luxury automobile with Passenger sitting in the
front passenger seat. After checking the license plate on his computer and learning the car
was stolen, Officer pulled the car over. Officer observed that the steering column was
broken and saw a screwdriver in the ignition. Officer placed both Driver and Passenger
under arrest, searched the car, and recovered a loaded gun from the glove compartment.
After Officer advised Passenger of his Miranda rights, Passenger stated, “When Driver
picked me up, I saw the screwdriver in the ignition and I figured the car was stolen.”
The forgoing facts were presented to a grand jury, and Driver and Passenger were indicted
for the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon and criminal possession of stolen
property. At their arraignment, Lawyer filed a notice of appearance on behalf of both Driver
and Passenger and entered not guilty pleas for both of them. The Prosecutor did not serve
Lawyer with notice of Passengerâ€™s statement at that time.
One month after their arraignment, Lawyer served discovery demands on behalf of both
Driver and Passenger. In response to Lawyerâ€™s demand, Prosecutor informed Lawyer of
Passengerâ€™s statement and turned over police reports that set forth the date, time and
substance of the statement. Lawyer did not move to suppress Passengerâ€™s statement.
Lawyer timely filed a motion to dismiss the indictments against both Driver and Passenger
claiming there was insufficient evidence presented to the grand jury to sustain either charge.
In opposition, Prosecutor asserted that sufficient evidence was presented to the grand jury to
sustain both charges against both Driver and Passenger.
As to both Driver and Passenger, the court denied the motion to dismiss (a) the criminal
possession of stolen property charge and (b) the criminal possession of a weapon charge.
(1) Were rulings (a) and (b) correct as to each defendant?
(2) Assuming rulings (a) and (b) were correct, was Prosecutor’s notice of Passengerâ€™s
statement sufficient to allow its admissibility against Passenger at trial?
(3) Assuming rulings (a) and (b) were correct, what obligations, if any, do Lawyer and the
court have with regard to Lawyerâ€™s representation of both defendants?