Submit your Answers in an Attachment Academic Honesty Agreement: Sharing written work is unapproved collaboration, and using another student’s work, or another author’s memo to assist you in preparing your own is plagiarism; these practices are strictly forbidden in any academic environment. By submitting your assignment for grading, you understand the obligation to avoid plagiarism and/or collaboration, and agree to the following: To avoid plagiarism, you will cite all original sources and correctly acknowledge the source of any idea, reasoning, writing, proposition, or analysis that is not strictly your own. You will not work with or discuss the legal issues, research, or analysis involved in preparing this assignment with any other student, whether currently enrolled, enrolled in the past, or enrolled in the future, in any way. You will not review or comment upon another student’s notes, research, or writing for this assignment at any time, now or in the future. You will not allow others, including but not limited to, past and former students, students from other schools, paralegals, supervisors, attorneys, tutors, paid essay writers and other online services, to assist you in any way, including general review and comment upon your work. You will not share or publish, electronically or otherwise, any notes, research, or writing for this assignment at any time without obtaining the express consent of your instructor. Any violation of this agreement constitutes a violation of the Plagiarism Policy and Course Use Agreements and will result in disciplinary action which may include expulsion from the program without reimbursement. INTEROFFICE MEMO One TO: Paralegal FROM: Supervising Attorney Date: _______, 20___ RE: People v. Joshua Michaels ASSIGNMENT: Joshua Michaels has contacted our office to discuss the possibility of appealing his conviction for theft. Please review the following facts as well as the legal authority I have located to determine whether a basis for appeal exists. If so, please identify the legal issues to be raised in the appeal, and the strengths and weaknesses of any legal arguments involved. In preparing your memorandum, please consult the sample Legal Memorandums in PCD and Statsky. Please note, this is a closed memo. Therefore, it is important that you do not conduct any outside research or apply any outside law in your analysis/conclusions. Apply the law as provided. FACTS: Joshua Michael’s, an unemployed 24-year-old man, stands convicted of Theft. At approximately 3:15 p.m., on the afternoon of July 21, 20___, police were dispatched in response to a call made by Andrew Jackson, a middle-aged man, claiming his laptop had been stolen when he stepped away from his table to take a phone call while he was working at a local coffee shop. A witness, Mrs. Sascha Sinclair, told police that she saw a young man walk over to the table and grab the laptop. According to Mrs. Sinclair, she quickly recognized that the young man was not the same gentleman working at that table and asked why he was taking the laptop. Mrs. Sinclair claims the perpetrator then offered some rapid mumbled apologies, and quickly fled the scene. Andrew Jackson was unable to offer any physical description of the perpetrator since he was outside on a business call. Mrs. Sinclair, on the other hand, claimed she “got a pretty good look at the young man” and he was wearing a blue hooded sweatshirt and white sneakers and agreed to work with police to create a composite sketch. On July 23rd, this sketch was used to identify, capture, and charge Joshua Michael with the crime. Joshua could not provide an alibi for the afternoon of July 21, but voluntarily participated in police questioning until it “reached the point that he felt it would be smart to get an attorney in there.” At no time was Joshua asked to participate in a line up. According to our client, the conviction was obtained based on the police report, statements offered by Sascha Sinclair and Andrew Jackson at the time of the event, Joshua’s admission to police that he “almost always wears a blue hoodie and sneakers” and the sketch, which was introduced and admitted as evidence despite a hearsay objection raised by Joshua’s defense counsel. Additionally, after a thorough investigation by the police the laptop was never recovered. Andrew Jackson was shown the composite sketch for the first time while offering his testimony in court, and stated on the record, “Yeah, that sure could be the guy.” A few days before trial, Mrs. Sinclair suffered a heart attack, resulting in her death and inability to testify. Joshua Michaels’s defense attorney chose not to have him testify on his own behalf. LEGAL AUTHORITY: Relevant portions of the Wonka Rules of Evidence and Procedure provide, in part, the following: W.R.E.P. Rule 352.6 : A composite sketch is an out of court statement by a witness and is hearsay but may be admitted as an exception to hearsay when offered by a person testifying under oath to have perceived the subject of the sketch. W.R.E.P. Rule 501 : A composite sketch is allowed when, in an investigation, it is used to select subjects for a police line-up or, at trial, it is used to bolster identifying witness testimony. In Stonewall v. The State, Rupert Stonewall appealed his conviction for 1st Degree Attempted Robbery and 2nd Degree Assault after being arrested on the strength of a composite sketch created by the victim and a police artist. Stonewall argued that the District Court erroneously admitted the sketch, which was hearsay because the witness who participated in the creation of sketch was unavailable to testify and be cross-examined at trial. The Wonka Supreme Court upheld the conviction, ruling that the composite sketch was admissible as a hearsay exception because, prior to moving from the state, the witness was sworn in and deposed regarding the events giving rise to trial. The deposition was taken under oath, defense counsel was present at the deposition, and hence, had ample opportunity to question the witness regarding the events. [Stonewall v. The State, 51 W.P.T 241 (2012)] In State v. Quencher, the District Court found Albert Quencher guilty of Theft from a Mercantile Establishment. Witness A, a store security guard, assisted police in creating a composite sketch which allowed police to detain Quencher for questioning. Both Witness A and Witness B picked Quencher out of a police line-up, and he was subsequently charged with the theft. At trial, the prosecution presented the sketch to Witness B while she was on the stand and asked her if she recognized the person represented in the drawing. Witness B answered in the affirmative, indicated that it was quite clearly the Defendant, and pointed directly to Albert Quencher, who was seated in the courtroom. Quencher’s attorney objected, and Judge Harshly overruled the objection stating, “It is true that, in the ordinary process of a witness assisting in the creation of a composite sketch, the witness may be open to the influence of the police artist, and as such, caution should be used in allowing such evidence due to factors inherent to reliability. In this case, however, the witness in question has merely been presented with the sketch and was not involved in its creation. She previously identified the defendant under circumstances which would not have subjected her to any direct influence by the sketch, has been called to provide direct testimony regarding his involvement in the theft, and simply recognized him, once again, from the sketch. I’m going to allow this.” [State v. Quencher, 20 W.P.T. 155 (2001)] This ruling has not been overturned by the State of Wonka to date.