Case 4.2 An undercover security officer at chain supermarket located in New Jersey watches a suspicious male circling the liquor aisles with an empty shopping cart. The man waits for other patrons to leave the area and places four bottles of vodka inside his jacket. He then moves toward the exit. As he does so, he observes security at the door. He then picks up a bag of potatoes and proceeds to the cashier lanes. He pays for the potatoes and attempts to leave the store where he is stopped by security. Security confronts the man about the shoplifting and he begins to cause a scene. Police arrive on scene and the security officer advises them that the suspect had been observed concealing four bottles of vodka inside his jacket and was leaving the store without paying for them. The suspect responds by saying that he simply forgot about the vodka in his jacket. He produces the four bottles from his jacket. The security officer advises police that the entire event was captured on their surveillance systems. The officers ask the suspect for identification and he presents an out of state driver’s license which appears to the officers to be altered. The police arrest the suspect and take possession of identification and the four bottles of vodka.  The suspect, who has identified himself as Mark Smith, shouts that the arrest is unlawful. The security officer goes to the police station to provide a statement and a copy of the surveillance video. Once at headquarters, the police are able to confirm that the identification was fraudulent and the suspect’s true identity was David Gray and that Mr. Gray had numerous outstanding warrants for similar charges throughout the state.  While inventorying Mr. Gray’s personal property, it was determined that he had only twenty dollars in cash and no credit cards, thereby having no means to have paid for the vodka, valued at eighty dollars a bottle. Additionally the suspect’s jacket had several concealed interior pockets sewn into the lining.In this case what type of evidence would the security officer’s testimony be considered?​

Case 1.1 Bob is pulled over for a motor vehicle violation. During the course of the motor vehicle stop the officer determines that Bob had been drinking. He is arrested for DWI.  Secondary to the arrest, the officer searches Bob and finds a significant amount heroin on Bob’s person. Bob is additionally charged with possession and distribution of heroin.​What is the level of proof needed for the officer to arrest Bob in the first place?

Even a single error at a trial automatically entitles the defendant to a new trial.​

The Sixth Amendment affords defendants a right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.

The privilege against self-incrimination, which includes the right of a defendant not to testify, is found in the _____ Amendment.​

The prosecution has to prove the defendant’s guilt _____.​

​One of the purposes of the rules of evidence is to help assure that defendants get a fair trial.

​If a defendant does not testify at his or her criminal trial, the judge or jury _____.

The Federal Rules of Evidence contain at more than 20 exceptions to the rule against hearsay.​

The common law hearsay rule and exceptions to the hearsay rule were initially created to comply with Confrontation Clause requirements.​