Derby Stаte University is а fоur-yeаr public institutiоn оf higher education that features a robust and award-winning STEM curriculum. Located in the Southern United States, the heritage of educational segregation – though no longer legal – still casts a long shadow, but DSU has bucked that cultural inertia. Derby employs an aggressive recruiting and diversity policy for its STEM program aimed at providing admission to those applicants whose applicant profiles had historically been foreclosed because of unlawful discrimination or social impediments. In order to remediate for prior discrimination in admissions, the policy requires that admission percentages for historically disadvantaged groups (Black and Hispanic) meet or exceed the proportion that those particular groups comprise among today’s general population. Asians and Jewish are classified as “white” under the policy. Today, DSU’s Freshmen STEM enrollment reflects 51% Black students, 34% Hispanic students, 12% white students, and 2% Asian/Pacific students and 1% Jewish students. Admission criteria under the policy includes high school GPA, SAT scores, the applicant’s family structure, and other “soft criteria” focusing on “social fitness” factors, including the applicant’s “DSU community fit,” personality factors (all applicants must take a Myers/Briggs assessment and an Enneagram assessment in addition to standardized college admission tests), the applicant’s social context and “lived experience,” including neighborhood and housing, elementary education, and other “life experience.” Three American men of Chinese ancestry, who applied to DSU’s STEM program, yet were rejected, have initiated civil litigation against DSU in federal court prior to the commencement of the Fall semester citing its admission policy. They seek injunctive relief and civil damages. They contend that despite having attended objectively better prep schools and despite having objectively better GPAs and standardized test scores, particularly as geared toward STEM success, they were denied admission due to racial discrimination and racial stereotypes (“Asians are not social and are passive book worms”) based on the policy’s “soft criteria” which they contend were designed to and did in fact skew admissions against better qualified Asian applicants, all in violation of the 14th Amendment. What is the likelihood of the Plaintiffs prevailing on equitable and civil damage claims predicated on violations arising under the 14th Amendment? Discuss fully, including any potential defenses available to the defendant, but there is no need to discuss potential common law pendent or ancillary claims or defenses.
Questiоn 27 A seаrch wаrrаnt listed the place tо be searched as: the оne story residence owned by UNKNOWN and commonly known as 1234 White Avenue, New Town, CA. The warrant expressly adopts the information contained within an affidavit which states: “the building to be searched is red brick with white shutters. There is an attached two car garage with a white garage door.” There is no other information regarding the building contained in either the warrant or the affidavit. Which of the following is TRUE?
ESSAY #2 (One Hоur) Deаn, а 30yr оld mаle with a lengthy criminal histоry, was hitchhiking on highway 45. Carl, wanting to do a good deed to boost his karma, decided to give Dean a ride. About five minutes into the ride Dean pulled out a gun, held it to Carl’s head, and ordered Carl to pull over. Dean took Carl’s phone and wallet out of his pocket and took off with his car. Prior to leaving in Carl’s car, Dean tied Carl’s hands and feet together and left him on the side of the road. In trying to get free, Carl inadvertently wiggled into the road and was hit and killed by a car. Dean was later stopped for reckless driving (he was going 35 miles over the posted speed limit) and it was discovered he had outstanding warrants from two states, so he was arrested. Carl’s body was simultaneously found, and police discovered that the car Dean was driving belonged to Carl. Dean was subsequently charged with carjacking and felony murder. He was arraigned the next day. Officer Gil, the investigating officer, learned that a woman named Wanda had witnessed Carl being tied up and left on the side of the road. Aware that Dean was scheduled for a pretrial hearing, officer Gill took Wanda to the courthouse that same day for the purpose of having her attempt to identify the suspect in Carl’s case from photographs of several suspects. When Wanda walked into the courthouse, she coincidentally passed by Dean and his attorney. Without any request by Officer Gill, Wanda told Officer Gill she recognized Dean as the person that tied up Carl and drove off in his car. She additionally noted he looks a bit thinner. Dean’s attorney was advised of Wanda’s statement to Officer Gill, the circumstances in which it was made, and Officer Gill’s expected testimony at the trial that Wanda identified Dean. Dean’s attorney moves to exclude evidence of the courthouse identification by Wanda on the grounds that the identification procedure violated Dean’s constitutional right to counsel, and due process of the law.Discuss the outcome of the motion to exclude.