top of page
The Problem
The appeal of appellant Peter Prescott is pending before the California Court of Appeal, Seventh Appellate District.
The case presents the following issues:
(1) If a defendant has invoked his right to remain silent while being interrogated by a law enforcement officer, are incriminating statements obtained through a subsequent Perkins operation (i.e., the use of an undercover agent to question a jailed defendant) admissible as substantive proof of the defendant’s guilt at trial? (See Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292; Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.)
(2) What effect, if any, does the fact that the interrogating officer continued questioning Prescott after Prescott invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence have upon the admissibility of the statements subsequently obtained during the Perkins operation? The second issue includes the questions of whether the Perkins operation was inadmissible as the fruit of a prior, coerced statement to police, and whether the asserted error violated due process.
These issues are deemed preserved for appellate review.
The Record
The problem is drawn from a real case in the California courts. The issues in the actual case are closely contested, and neither side is favored for purposes of the problem. Any attempt by any person, directly or indirectly, to contact the attorneys or the parties, or to examine the real-life case file or briefs, including decisions and opinions in the case on which the problem is based, People v. Allen, S286520/B328333, is prohibited and will result in disqualification of the entire team.
Review all the rules for the competition here.
Good luck!
bottom of page