Q5 - The case before me involves

[cdjmarmon]

I was just flat out confused on this. I didnt even understand what it was saying much less who a codefendent is and all that jazz.

I got it right based on a semi educated guess. But i would like some help in understanding what is going on here.

[asuka1210]

The plaintiff's request was to permit her to question each defendent (D) without the presence of the other codefendents or codefendent's legal counsel (LC).

So let's say when she questions D1, she wants it done without D2 + LC2 and D3 + LC3 (but the request does not say that LC1 cannot be present**)

Now the question says that 2 defendents share the same legal counsel, so that LC1 = LC2, which means that if she were to question D1, she can only do it in the absence of his legal counsel

Then the judge says that he cannot ask any co-defendents to find new legal counsel, so D1 is stuck with the same legal counsel as D2. Therefore, if the plaintiff's request were granted, she would be questioning D1 alone - which cannot be granted by the court.

This should point us to answer B - defendents should have the right to have their legal counsel present when being questioned.

[maryadkins]

Good explanation! I hope this helps. Let me know if not.

Just to clarify: codefendants are the other defendants in a case.

(A) is out of scope.

(C) is, too.

(D) isn't the judge's reasoning here. It's not about how the defendant needs to get what the plaintiff gets.

(E) is about questioning the plaintiff; we're talking about questioning the defendant.

[chike_eze]

The plaintiff's request was to permit her to question each defendent (D) without the presence of the other codefendents or codefendent's legal counsel (LC).

So let's say when she questions D1, she wants it done without D2 + LC2 and D3 + LC3 (but the request does not say that LC1 cannot be present**)

Now the question says that 2 defendents share the same legal counsel, so that LC1 = LC2, which means that if she were to question D1, she can only do it in the absence of his legal counsel

Then the judge says that he cannot ask any co-defendents to find new legal counsel, so D1 is stuck with the same legal counsel as D2. Therefore, if the plaintiff's request were granted, she would be questioning D1 alone - which cannot be granted by the court.

This should point us to answer B - defendents should have the right to have their legal counsel present when being questioned.

Thanks. This helped me finally get the nuance. Initially it seemed to me that the plaintiff was asking to question each defendant alone, no lawyers involved. She was just asking that other codefendants and their lawyers not be present.

[Gerald]

Here's an in-depth explanation. Hope it helps!

PT65, S4, Q5 (Principle (Support)).

The conclusion of the judge’s argument is most strongly supported if which one of the following principles is assumed to hold?

(A) A court cannot issue an order that forces legal counsel to disclose information revealed by a client.

(B) Defendants have the right to have their legal counsel present when being questioned.

(C) People being questioned in legal proceedings may refuse to answer questions that are self-incriminating.

(D) A plaintiff in a legal case should never be granted a right that is denied to a defendant.

(E) A defendant’s legal counsel has the right to question the plaintiff.

(B) is correct

Let’s start by finding the conclusion to this assumption family question. Here, it’s easy to spot because of the great conclusion flag-word, "therefore." The judge states the requested order to question defendants without co-defendants and co-defendants’ counsel present cannot be granted. Why not? Because two codefendants share legal counsel, and the judge won’t order any co-defendants to find new counsel.


Our core looks like this:

Two codefendants share counsel + judge will not order codefendants to find new counsel --> Judge cannot order defendants be questioned without codefendants and codefendants’ counsel present.
There’s a word from the conclusion that jumps out at us: "cannot." That’s a loaded word, and, should you become a litigator, I would advise you never to tell a judge that he "cannot" do something (at least, not without bail money in your pocket).

The plaintiff wants to get each defendant in a room without the other defendants and any lawyers who represent other defendants. The problem? Two guys share the same lawyer. That means, for at least two defendants, if their own lawyer (who also represents another other guy) is present, by default a lawyer for another guy is also present. To honor the plaintiff’s request, two of the defendants will have to be questioned without their attorney present (or they’d have to get new attorneys, but the judge already said he wouldn’t order that). In the answer choices, we’ll want a rule telling the judge he can’t order defendants to be questioned without their own attorneys present.

(A) Out of Scope. We’re not trying to force lawyers to tattle on their clients. Eliminate.
(C) Out of Scope. This answer is the equivalent of the 5th Amendment’s right against self-incrimination. A good idea, maybe, but so what? Is the plaintiff asking the judge to force defendants to answer incriminating questions? No. Eliminate.
(D) Out of Scope. Do we know the defendants have been denied any requests? No. Eliminate.
(E) Out of Scope. The plaintiff didn’t ask the judge to prevent defendants’ lawyers from asking him any questions. Eliminate.

That leaves (B): Defendants have the right to have their legal counsel present when being questioned.

This tells us defendants cannot be questioned without their attorneys. But as we already know, some defendants share an attorney. Therefore, either some defendants must be questioned without lawyers (which (B) says is not allowed), or a lawyer representing another defendant (the lawyer representing 2 guys) must be present (against the plaintiff’s request.) Therefore, the judge can’t honor the request.

[kky215]

But doesn't the stimulus say "without their codefendants OR their codefendants' legal counsel being present"?

Does "Without A or B" mean "Not A AND Not B" ?

I know that "neither A nor B" = not A and not B.

Can anyone please clarify?

Thanks a lot.

[ericha3535]

Oh wow...

I was totally stumped because I misread the argument...

Here is my 2 cents.

There is a plaintiff (the prosecutor).
There are 3 codefedants (3 indicted murderers called A B C).

The prosecutor is asking:
"Judge, can I question each of the 3 codefendants without other codefendants' counsels?"

- LR: (Legal Representation)

This means: Prosecutor wants to ask A and A's LR ONLY. He does not want B and B's LR nor C and C's LR during the question time.

HOWEVER...

Imagine A and B share the same counsel. This means what? Let's call the counsel "G."

When A is being question, G can't be there; also, when B is being questioned, G can't be there according to prosecutor's request;

Why?

Because since G is a counsel to both A and B, if A is there and G is there, then it's like having A and B's LR (other words, OTHER CODEFENDANTS' counselor).

It applies there vice versa to B.

So according to prosecutor's request and if followed, A and B will be questioned without LR.

C's LR is irrelevant.

What does Judge say? Hellz no. I ain't going to assign no lawyers. Your request is denied.

So why denied?

Because B: every defendant should have a right to have their LR.

Hope this helps.

[yookyung0706]

But doesn't the stimulus say "without their codefendants OR their codefendants' legal counsel being present"?

Does "Without A or B" mean "Not A AND Not B" ?

I know that "neither A nor B" = not A and not B.

Can anyone please clarify?

Thanks a lot.

I had the same question in my mind. Can anyone help?

[ganbayou]

Actually I thought the second premise? is not related...how is it?
I thought Premise 1: The plaintiff applied to question each defendant without codefendants' legal counsel being present, P2: the court will not let any codefendant to find a new counsel, C the order is not granted. I think these info is enough to know the assumption is "defendants have the right to have legal counsel present when being questioned."
How does the "Two of the codefendants...share legal counsel" part related to this argument? To confuse people??

Thanks

[ohthatpatrick]

To answer previous posters ... "Without A or B" means "Without both".

If you like math, you can think of it as ~(A or B) = ~A and ~B

If you like conversation, picture someone saying "I made these cookies without peanuts or gluten, since I know you have allergies."

Is the person saying "I definitely omitted ONE of those ingredients and MAYBE the other"?

No, they're saying, "Don't worry -- no peanuts or gluten in here."

-----------------

Andy, Bob, and Chuck are on trial for loitering.

The plaintiff wants to question Andy without Bob, Chuck, Bob's lawyer, or Chuck's lawyer present. But ANDY's lawyer is allowed to be present.

The court won't force anyone to get a new lawyer.

Okay .... how is that relevant? Where was the problem? Who is forced to get a new lawyer in this new scenario?

No one. The judge would just ask Bob, Chuck, Bob's lawyer, and Chuck's lawyer to leave, while Andy and his lawyer stay.

We need the "two of them share the same lawyer" to create the friction that underlies the whole dilemma here.

If Andy and Bob have the same lawyer, we have a problem:
That lawyer SHOULD be in the room when Andy's being questioned, because she's Andy's lawyer.
But that same lawyer SHOULDN'T be in the room when Andy's being questioned, because she's Bob's lawyer.

So what can we do to solve this problem?

We can do a few things:
- Deny the plaintiff's request

otherwise
- make Andy or Bob get their own, unique lawyer
or
- make Andy/Bob's lawyer leave when Andy's being questioned.

The argument we see/read consists of the judge ruling out the 2nd option and concluding that we must go with the 1st option.

The gap is that there is still the 3rd option of "honor the plaintiff's request by making Andy/Bob's lawyer leave when Andy's being questioned".

Our correct answer, (B), eliminates THAT option, so that now we ARE stuck with option 1, deny the plaintiff's request.

[kyuya]

This may sound evil but I am pretty happy other people struggled with this question too. I remember reading it and being so utterly confused and after realizing it was question 5, I think I cried a little.

Anyway..

I think the crux of this argument is actually found in this sentence, "the plaintiff has applied to the court for an order permitting her to question each defend without their co defends or their CO DEFENDANTS legal counsel being present"

If you were anything like me reading this question, you initially were tripped up on "co defendant" -- what does this actually mean? It has been explained very well in previous posts so I won't get into it. Not sure why this tripped me up, but others seem to have agreed this it added some level of difficulty to this question. Furthermore, my frustration from not understanding this on the first read through also made me a a panic.. it was only question 5, why aren't I getting this?

I think I learned to SLOW down. The sentence I just quoted above, if read carefully under timed pressure, makes this question a lot easier (although I think this question is pretty tough for being in the first handful of questions). As pointed out in previous posts, if two people shared legal counsel it would necessarily mean that one of their co-defendants legal counsel would be in the room! This makes the request impossible, because the court won't make people get new lawyers simply to make the plaintiff happy. Therefore, the request of the plaintiff cannot be honoured.

Even still though, I think (B) can be somewhat tricky to get to. Process of elimination is great for a question like this, especially since the wrong answer choices are blatantly so.

Lets go through the wrong answer choices..

(A) There is never any mention about getting lawyers to speak about private information. Eliminate.

(C) It never talks about people having to speak about incriminating information, or what their rights are surrounding that. We are only worried about their right to have legal counsel around, and whether or not all of the co defendants legal counsel can all be absent from the plaintiffs questions.

(D) Never speaks about the plaintiff being given a right that defendants are not.

(E) never mentions the defendants legal counsel questioning the plaintiff - we only hear about the plaintiff wanting to question the codefendants

Okay so now that we've eliminated the wrong, lets go to (B)

(B) If defendants have the right to have legal counsel present when being questioned, the plaintiffs request could not accepted. Consider this scenario.

Plaintiff is granted her request. She is questioning Co-Def 1, who shares counsel with Co-Def 2. Since they share counsel, and they cannot have their counsel in the room when questioning, it would mean Co-Def 1 is being questioned alone. BUT now the right answer tells us that this cannot be the case - helps to justify the reasoning of the judge.

[shirleyx]

yet another explanation;

CORE:

[plaintiff cannot question each defendant without their codefendants or their codefendants' legal counsel present]
because....
-two of the codefendants share the same legal counsel and the court won't order any codefendant to find a new legal counsel

FLAW/GAP: how does a legal counsel have anything to do with getting questioned??

going to the answer choices;

we need something to fill the gap with some sort of principle

(A) disclose information - what is this stuff, not going to help the argument at all
(B) yes, adresses parts from the conclusion and the premise and seems to link the two parts of a gap . leave for now
(C) self-incriminating - not part of the argument - OUT
(D) I do not know about a right that is denied to one/given to another - not part of the argument
(E) has the right ideas, but the link mixed up- its the plaintiff questioning the legal counsel- not the other way around

confirming (B)

(B) is correct because if we know that defendants have a right to legal counsel when being questioned, then, along with the premise that this defendant can't get a new legal counsel will allow us to reach the conclusion all right


-thanks for reading and hope to get positive feedback
shirleyx

[dhlim3]

I feel dumb now.

I understood the argument but I crossed off (B) because my reasoning was that just because the defendants have the right does not mean they are required to practice that right. The court could grant plaintiff's request and give permission to question defendants without their co-defendants and their legal counsel being present, but that does not mean that the court must enforce it. What if the defendant decides not to practice his right to have his legal counsel with him during the questioning? Under this interpretation, it would be possible for the plaintiff's request to be granted (give permission but not require) and still allow the defendants to maintain their rights.

If answer B had instead said, "Defendants are required to have their legal counsel present when being questioned", then it would've made lot more sense.

Am I supposed to assume that giving permission to act is equivalent to enforcing of that act?

[erikwoodward10]

Interesting stimulus, and highlights the need to read the stimulus carefully, especially on more recent PTs. They're much more dynamic than older PTs.

I say "principle" and thought that I was looking for an answer choice that provided a principle for the conclusion, something along the lines of “The court cannot grant an order that requires the codefendant to seek new legal counsel”. This would be a principle that the argument conforms to. I initially looked past B because it doesn't speak to the conclusion of the argument, and is only a principle that supports a premise.

However, this is exactly what we want. The stimulus wants a principle that supports the argument.

[wuyeqian2015]

Thanks for answering the question, but i still have one more confusion.

If two defendants share a same legal counsel and they are both required to have a legal counsel with them when questioned by plaintiff, why not let that same LC be present twice in court for each of them??

[seychelles1718]

How do we know if the "or" in the argument means "and" ? Just by context or is there a grammatical rule?