The INN of MAGNA CARTA PRESENTS.....

Best Issue of Substantive LawQuestion: 

Was Vascher’s friendly little chat with Mitch:

Nominees:

A.an explanation to Mitch that he committed a sexual battery as defined by Chapter 794, Florida Statutes?

B.the commission of blackmail?

C.merely an explanation that Mitch had committed the age-old offense of adultery as it still appears in § 798.01, Florida Statutes?

D.the commission of both extortion and kidnapping?

The Firm clip  1:16:00 to 1:17:50

Blackmail and Extortion are one and the same, and they are proscribed by § 836.05, Florida Statutes.  Kidnapping is defined in § 787.01.  For both extortion and kidnapping, in addition to criminal prosecution, chapters 772 and 895 authorize civil remedies. 

§§ 772.102; 772.103; 772.104; 895.02.; 895.05. 

WINNER: D

Best Supporting Ethics Question

Question:  Can a Florida lawyer hire an overseas provider to

provide paralegal assistance on a Florida case? Nominees:A.He can do so as long as the overseas provider is licensed to do business in Florida.

B.He cannot do so under any circumstances.

C.He can do so as long as he supervises their work, makes sure they’re acting ethically, and maintaining confidentiality.

D.None of the above. The Firm Clip  2:09:21 to 2:10:17

 WINNER: C

“A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging the services of an overseas provider, as long as the lawyer adequately addresses” the issues covered in Florida Bar Advisory Opinion 07-2:  supervision, ethics of performance, maintenance of confidentiality. 

See Board OKs opinion on overseas outsourcing, Fla. Bar News, Aug. 15, 2008, at 1.

Best Ethics Question

Question:  Can Mitch be held responsible for another lawyer’s

violation of the Rules of Professional Responsibility? Nominees

A.Yes, if with knowledge of the specific conduct he ratifies the conduct involved.

B.Yes, if he orders the specific conduct.

C.No, if he is not a partner or has no managerial authority and does not order or ratify any violation.

D.All of the above.

The Firm Clip  2:18:28 to 2:19:36

WINNER: D 

All of the above. 

R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-5.1(c).

Outstanding Attorney Client Relations in a Feature Film

Question:  If a lawyer must hold a large amount of money for a client for

a considerable period of time, must he or she put it in a banking institution? Nominees:

A.Absolutely, yes.

B.Such funds must be placed in an Interest on Trust Accounts (IOTA) Program account.

C.The funds may be placed in a safe deposit box or some trust account other than a bank account.

D.The lawyer may borrow from the funds and replace it when the funds are payable to the client.

The Firm Clip  2:21:16 to 2:22:07

WINNER:  C

R. Regulating Fla. Bar 5-1.1(a)(2): Provided the lawyer receives written permission from the client prior to maintaining the funds in an alternative manner, the funds can be placed in a safe deposit box or some other type trust account. 

R. Regulating Fla. Bar 5-1.1(a)(3): If a safe deposit box is used, the lawyer must inform the institution that the box may contain client/third-party property. 

See also If the bank fails what happens to trust accounts?, Fla. Bar News, Sept. 1, 2008, at 1.   

Question:  What rule of evidence allowed Paul Biegler to question

Dr. Raschid on cross examination about other parts of the doctor’s medical examiner report other than those covered on direct examination? Nominees:A.  The Golden Rule

B.  The Rule of Completeness.  C.  The M’Naughten Rule.

D.  There is no evidentiary basis and the judge was incorrect to overrule prosecutor Lodwick’s objection.

Best Supporting Evidence Question

Anatomy of a Murder clip  1:09:25 to 1:11:03

WINNER: B

§ 90.108(1), FLA. STAT. (2008);Ramirez v. State, 739 So. 2d 568, 580 (Fla. 1999)

Best Supporting Trial Procedure QuestionQuestion: 

Which members of the audience would be excluded if the prosecutor had invoked the Rule?

Nominees:

A.  The victim’s family members.

B.  The family members of a non-testifying defendant. 

C.  The family members of the defendant, who are witnesses in the case.

D.  All non-testifying family members.

Anatomy of a Murder clip  1:13:00 to 1:13:30; 1:41:15-1:42:32

WINNER: C 

§ 90.616, FLA. STAT. (2008);

Chamberlain v. State, 881 So.2d 1087, 1099-1100 (Fla. 2004).

Best Evidence Question

Question:  This scene is an example of: 

Nominees:

A.  An ore tenus motion.

B.  A sidebar. 

C.  A speaking objection.

D.  A proffer.Anatomy of a Murder clip  1:57:07 to 1:57:55

WINNER:  C

Speaking objections are impermissible editorials or comments strategically made to influence the jury.  Michaels v. State, 773 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

Outstanding Judicial Demeanor in a Feature FilmQuestion: 

The judge behaved appropriately in warning the attorneys about their behavior because: 

Nominees:A.  A lawyer shall not engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.

B.  A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the judge.  A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity and shall require similar conduct of lawyers.

C.  The judge shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of the interrogation of witnesses and the presentation of evidence.

D.  All of the above.Anatomy of a Murder clip  2:03:51 to 2:05:02

WINNER: D

Canon 3(B)(3) and 3(B)(4) of the Code of judicial conduct states a judge shall require order and decorum in the proceedings before the judge.  A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers . . .

Rule 4-3.5(c) Rules Of Professional Conduct states a lawyer shall not engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal, and

§ 90.612, FLA. STAT. (2008) states that the judge shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of the interrogation of witnesses and the presentation of evidence.

Best Trial Procedure QuestionQuestion: 

What is the potential issue the prosecutor is dangerously treading upon? Nominees:

A.  Fla. R. Crim. Pro. 3.251- right to a public trial.

B.  Fla. R. Crim. Pro. 3.220- right to discovery. 

C.  Rule of professional conduct 4-3.3(a)(3).  The duty to disclose to the judge directly adverse authority not disclosed by opposing counsel.

D.  Violation of the work-product privilege.Anatomy of a Murder clip  2:17:00 to 2:19:08

WINNER:  C

The prosecutor comes dangerously close to violating this rule because he is apparently aware of the authority before defense counsel discloses it to the judge and still asks defense counsel if he will be changing his plea to guilty, even though the authority gives credence to the insanity defense.

Best Supporting Pre Trial Procedure QuestionQuestion: 

An out-of-court identification in which none of the men have similar characteristics could violate this Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for violating due process because it is fundamentally unfair and impermissibly suggestive.

Nominees:A.  Thirteenth

B.  Fourteenth

C.  Fifteenth

D.  Sixteenth

The Usual Suspects Clip:  "The Lineup" (1:20)

WINNER: B

The 14th.  See, e.g., Carrasco v. State, 470 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

Best Pre Trial Procedure QuestionQuestion: 

When is a suspect considered to be in custody, entitling him or her to Miranda warnings?

Nominees:A.  Subjective beliefs; when the suspect subjectively believes he is in custody or is otherwise being deprived of his freedom.

B.  Any time a suspect is being interviewed in the police station, he necessarily is in custody and entitled to receive Miranda warnings.

C.  The objective test; regardless of what the suspect thinks, it is what a reasonable man, innocent of any crime, would have thought had he been in the same position.

D.  None of the above.The Usual Suspects Clip:  "The Lineup" (1:20)

WINNER: C

The objective test.  See People v. Yukl, 256 N.E. 2d 172, 25 N.Y.2d 585 (Ct. App. N.Y. 1969)

Best Issue of Substantive LawQuestion: 

The tape recording of Roger "Verbal" Kint was not illegal because:

Nominees:

A.  Kint had been read his Miranda warnings

B.  The microphone was hidden in a box of glazed donuts

C.  There is no expectation of privacy in a police interview room

D.  Kint had immunity; therefore, he could be recorded

The Usual Suspects Clip:  "I'm Not a Rat" (2:32)

WINNER: C

There is no expectation of privacy in a police interview room. Bedoya v. State of Florida, 779 So.2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Question:When Mr. Kobayashi initially meets with The Usual Suspects

and makes a job offer, did this violate the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct?

Nominees: 

A.Yes- A lawyer cannot ask a non-client, without consent from his/her current attorney, to take part in any type of conduct.

B.Yes- A lawyer cannot assist a client in conduct the lawyer reasonably knows is criminal.

C.Yes- A lawyer cannot ask a non-client to commit a crime.

D.No.

Best Ethics Question

The Usual Suspects Clip:  "The Job Offer" (stop tape after 0:34)

Rule 4-1.2: Objectives and Scope of RepresentationRule 4-1.2 (d) Criminal or Fraudulent Conduct. A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is criminal or fraudulent. However, a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application of the law.

WINNER: B

LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT BONUS

Question:  Please identify who the speaker is referring to in the

following quote:  “The greatest trick (_____) ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist, and (poof) like that he was gone.”

Nominees:A.  Batman

B.  The Prosecutor in OJ Simpson's murder trial

C.  The Devil

D.  The man on the grassy knoll.

WINNER: C

The Devil.  Although this quote is used twice in the movie, it is most readily identified in the narrative at the end of the movie.