A woman was the subject of a murder investigation. The investigation continued for more than two years, with the woman frequently being called in for questioning. Finally, the woman was indicted for the murder. The woman’s lawyer filed a motion to dismiss all charges against her, arguing that the excessively long investigatory period violated the woman’s constitutional right to a speedy trial.  Despite the pending motion, the woman decided that she wanted to “get it over with,” and she told the judge that she wished to plead guilty. The judge then explained the charges to the woman and asked her if she understood them. She replied, “Yes.” The judge then asked the woman if she understood that she was not required to plead guilty. She responded in the affirmative. Finally, the judge described the maximum sentence and asked the woman if she understood that she could receive the maximum sentence, which was life imprisonment. She again responded, “Yes,” and maintained that she still wished to plead guilty. The judge accepted the woman’s plea and sentenced her to 30 years’ imprisonment in the state penitentiary. Six months later, the woman filed a motion to set aside the guilty plea. Which of the following provides the best argument that the woman has a constitutional basis for relief?

On February 1, the owner of a bowling alley read in a magazine an ad from a major manufacturer of bowling balls offering sets of 40 balls in various weights and drilled in various sizes for $10 per ball. The owner immediately filled out the order form included in the ad for the 40 balls and deposited it, properly stamped and addressed, into the mail. On February 2, the bowling alley owner received in the mail a letter from the manufacturer, sent out as part of its advertising campaign, stating in relevant part that it will sell the bowling alley owner 40 bowling balls at $10 per ball. A day later, on February 3, the manufacturer received the bowling alley owner’s order. On February 4, the balls were shipped.  On what day did an enforceable contract arise?

A seller owned a two-acre tract of land, on which he built a single-family residence. The seller entered into a contract to sell the land to a buyer for $200,000. One week before closing, the buyer had a survey of the property conducted. It revealed that a portion of the seller’s house was 5.98 feet from the sideline. The applicable zoning ordinance requires a six-foot sideline setback. The buyer refused to go ahead with the purchase of the land on the ground that the seller’s title was not marketable.  If the seller brings suit against the buyer for specific performance, will he prevail?

A husband and wife were charged with stealing credit cards and charging expensive items on the misappropriated cards. An attorney was appointed by the court to represent the couple jointly. At the preliminary hearing, the judge found that the attorney would have no conflict representing both defendants in the joint trial. Halfway through the trial, however, a conflict arose between the defenses of the husband and wife. At the wife’s request, the attorney moved that another attorney be appointed to represent the wife and that a mistrial be declared. The trial judge moved favorably on the attorney’s motion.  Another attorney was appointed to represent the wife, and as soon as the wife’s trial began, her attorney moved to dismiss the case on the ground that jeopardy had attached during the wife’s first trial and that she was being retried in violation of the United States Constitution. Should the judge grant the wife’s attorney’s motion?

The mayor of a town received several complaints from residents regarding the growing number of adult theaters and nude dancing establishments in a nearby town. To allay fears, the mayor asked the town’s attorney what could be done to prevent or at least limit such establishments from setting up business in their town, which currently follows a zoning plan that provides for residential, commercial, and light industrial uses.  Which of the following most correctly describes the town’s constitutional options?

A vintner divided his vineyard into two parcels, drawing the boundaries so that the single well that had irrigated the entire vineyard fell on the border of the two properties. The vintner then conveyed the eastern parcel to his friend by a deed that contained the following covenant:  If the well located on the boundary of the eastern and western parcels continues to be used for irrigation purposes and becomes in need of repair or replacement, the grantee, his heirs, and assigns and the grantor, his heirs, and assigns each promise to pay one-half of the cost of such repair or replacement. This covenant shall run with the land. The deed from the vintner to the friend was not recorded, and the vintner did not record a copy of the deed with the records for the western parcel.  The friend later sold the eastern parcel to a farmer. The farmer’s deed did not contain the covenant about the well. After 15 years of use by the owners of both the eastern and western parcels, the well began to fail. The farmer took it upon himself to have the well repaired at a cost of $30,000. About two weeks later, the farmer discovered the deed from the vintner to the friend in some old files. By this time, the western parcel had passed to the vintner’s son by inheritance and again to the son’s daughter by inheritance from the now deceased son. The daughter knew nothing of the covenant concerning the well. The farmer presented the daughter with the bill for the well repair with a copy of the vintner/friend deed and a note that said he expected to be reimbursed for $15,000. The daughter refuses to pay, and the farmer sues.  The jurisdiction has a 10-year statute of limitations for acquiring property by adverse possession, and the following recording statute: “Any conveyance of an interest in land shall not be valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, unless the conveyance is recorded.” For whom is the court most likely to rule?

A shareholder bought 1,000 shares of a global energy company on August 20. At the time, there were 100,000 shares of the company’s stock outstanding. Unfortunately for the shareholder, on August 21 it came to light that the company’s management was artificially inflating the company’s earnings the past year in order to inflate the company’s stock price. By August 27, the stock was worthless. It is unquestioned that the shareholders who owned the stock during the week of August 21-27 were harmed. The shareholder filed a class action lawsuit in the federal district court.  Must she give notice to other absent class members?

A landowner and her neighbor owned adjoining parcels of land. The landowner’s property was situated to the west of the neighbor’s property. A highway ran along the east of the neighbor’s property. Twelve years ago, the landowner asked the neighbor if it would be all right for the landowner to use an eight-foot strip along the northern part of the neighbor’s land to access the highway. The only other way for the landowner to get to the highway was to use a one-lane unpaved road that meandered through the woods for two miles. The neighbor agreed, and the landowner used the strip of land regularly to access the highway. The statutory period for adverse possession in this jurisdiction is 10 years. What is the landowner’s interest in the neighbor’s eight-foot strip of land?

The defendant was on trial for driving while intoxicated and injuring a pedestrian. The pedestrian claimed that the defendant was driving the car; however, the defendant’s spouse testified at trial that she had been driving the car at the time of the accident and had not consumed any alcohol that evening. In response, the prosecution calls a friend of the defendant’s spouse to testify that the spouse told the friend that she and the defendant had changed seats in the car after the incident and that she remained in the driver’s seat until the police arrived.  Is the testimony admissible?

Congress authorized an oil sand refining plant to be built on federal park land within a state. The refinery was built in compliance with federal pollution regulations. However, the plant did not comply with the more restrictive standards the state enacted to better protect state citizens from pollution associated with refineries. Therefore, a state inspector refused to give the plant’s manager a permit to run the refinery. The refinery manager, a federal employee, nevertheless began to run the refinery and was fined by the state.  Which of the following is the manager’s best defense against imposition of the fine?