Lopez was having federal tax problems and attempted to bribe an IRS agent. After the IRS agent reported the matter to his superior, he was instructed to keep an appointment with Lopez. However, at the second meeting the IRS agent had a tape recorder in his pocket and recorded the conversation in which Lopez again attempted to bribe the agent to fix his tax problems with the federal government. Lopez was then charged with attempted bribery and at his trial took the witness stand on his own behalf. After Lopez denied under oath that he attempted to bribe the tax agent, the tape recorder was introduced into evidence to show Lopez had not told the truth under oath.
1. Should the U.S. Supreme Court hold that the evidence of the tape recorder was properly used in the federal trial of Lopez? EXPLAIN?
2. Should the U.S. Supreme Court arrim Lopez’s conviction of bribery? WHY?