1. Mr. Hutz will argue on the behalf of Barney Grumble that the evidence of the beer bottle and the blood sample should be excluded because they violate Grumble’s constitutional rights. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects Barney Grumble from illegal search and seizure. Also, the beer bottle was taken out of the car by the school principle; which could be seen as tampering with evidence. Hutz could even argue that there is no proof that the bottle was even taken from Grumble’s car. Furthermore, the blood sample was taken by the school nurse was illegal since there was no consent form Grumble. In fact, if this was the same sample as what was later analyzed by the hospital chemist, the sample of blood was not even requested by law enforcement.
2. …show more content…
The assistant state attorney who is prosecuting this case would argue that there were witnesses who saw the accident occur. He, also, may state that the bottle was removed from the car in order to move Grumble from the wreckage. Lastly, the assistant state attorney might argue that the blood was drawn only to determine the medical treatment for Grumble since it was given directly to the EMT.
3. A) In Florida, charges in this case would be filed in Circuit Court and in Polk County the case would be heard in the Tenth Circuit Court.
B) even though, I think that the evidence of the beer bottle and blood is critical proof to the case, I would not allow it. The evidence was not obtained by due process and therefore it has been compromised. The evidence, also, violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution as the judge I cannot allow that.
4. Even if the beer bottle and the blood sample are excluded from the trial, the prosecution could use the witnesses on the scene for their testimony. This would still paint a bad picture of the guilty