Criminal Procedure AMP - Miranda Rule

Question 1

A confession obtained in violation of Miranda may:

A Be used at trial for impeachment purposes

B Be used for any purpose at trial as long as the government can prove that the confession was otherwise voluntary

C Never be used at trial

Answer 1

A

A confession obtained in violation of Miranda may be used to impeach the defendant’s testimony if the defendant takes the stand at trial and the confession was otherwise voluntary. Since the above is true, it is not true that a confession obtained in violation of Miranda may never be used at trial. A confession obtained in violation of Miranda is not admissible in the state’s case in chief as evidence of guilt, even if the government can prove that the confession was otherwise voluntary. Note that in any case, a truly involuntary confession (e.g., one obtained through torture) is never admissible for any purpose. QUESTION ID: R0014A Additional Learninga

Question 2

ed as a prerequisite to the admissibility of confessions resulting from custodial police interrogation.
Which of the following statements is true about the custody requirement under Miranda?

A For Miranda purposes, a person may be in custody in his own home.

B Whether a person is in custody depends on the subjective views of the person and the interrogator.

C In considering whether a person was in custody during an interrogation, a court will consider the person’s experience with the criminal justice system.

D For Miranda purposes, a voluntary detention may constitute custody.

Answer 2

A

For Miranda purposes, a person may be in custody in his own home. Whether a person is in custody depends on whether his freedom of action is denied in a significant way. This is an objective test—whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would think that he is in custody. For example, if police officers handcuff a suspect in his own home, he is clearly in custody. Similarly, if they surround a person in the middle of the night in his own bedroom, awaken him, and begin questioning him, custody will be found. It is not true that custody depends on the subjective views of the person and the interrogator. As discussed above, the test is objective—what a reasonable person would think. Similarly, the courts will not consider a person’s experience with the criminal justice system in determining custody. This is a subjective factor. Neither is it true that a voluntary detention may constitute custody. If a person consented to the detention, he has not been denied the requisite freedom of action; he is there by choice. QUESTION ID: R0008 Additional Learning

Question 3

Miranda warnings __________ be given before a __________.

A Must; suspect meets with an undercover informant who is actually working for the police

B Need not; defendant meets with a psychiatrist for a state-ordered examination

C Need not; parolee meets with his parole officer

Answer 3

C

Because the warnings are required in order to offset the coercive nature of custodial police interrogation, they are not needed or required in less coercive settings. The Supreme Court has held that they are not required when a parolee meets with a parole officer. Neither are they required when the suspect meets with someone that the suspect does not know is working for the police. A defendant meeting with a psychiatrist for a state-ordered psychiatric examination MUST be given Miranda warnings before being questioned. The Supreme Court requires Miranda warnings to be given as a prerequisite to the admissibility of confessions resulting from interrogation by someone known to be a government agent. They are intended to offset the coercive nature of custodial police interrogation. The Supreme Court has held that the warnings must be given at state-ordered psychiatric exams, as well as at police interrogations. QUESTION ID: R0007B Additional Learning

Question 4

Under Miranda, if a detainee makes a request for counsel but the request is ambiguous, the police:

A May continue questioning

B Must immediately attempt to clarify the request

C Must immediately cease questioning, but may eventually resume as long as they have scrupulously honored the request

Answer 4

A

The police may continue to question the detainee if the detainee makes an ambiguous request for counsel at interrogation. Once a detainee expresses an unequivocal desire for counsel, all questioning must cease. However, when the request is ambiguous, the police may continue to interrogate until the detainee gives an unambiguous request. The police need NOT cease questioning. The police may ask clarifying questions but they are not required to immediately attempt to clarify the request. QUESTION ID: R0013A Additional Learning

Question 5

Police officers perform an unconstitutional search of a building, find contraband, do not seize it, and later return to the building with a valid warrant based on information totally unrelated to the unconstitutional search. If police seize the contraband pursuant to the warrant, the contraband is admissible under the:

A Attenuation doctrine

B Intervening act doctrine

C Independent source doctrine

Answer 5

C

The evidence is admissible under the independent source doctrine. This doctrine provides that evidence is admissible if the prosecution can show that it was obtained from a source independent of the original illegality. The intervening act doctrine, also known as attenuation, provides that an intervening act of free will by the defendant will break the causal chain between the evidence and the original illegality and thus remove the taint. This doctrine does not apply to these facts. QUESTION ID: R0024B Additional Learning

Question 6

Unless waived, the Fifth Amendment right to counsel under Miranda arises whenever:

A Testimonial evidence is sought by a government agent

B Testimony is sought at trial by the state

C There is custodial interrogation by someone known to be a police officer

Answer 6

C

The right to counsel under Miranda arises only when there is custodial interrogation by someone known to be a police officer. Custody will generally be found if the person’s freedom of action is significantly limited—the more the situation resembles a normal arrest, the more likely it is custodial. Interrogation can include not only direct questioning, but also any indirect questioning or conduct by the police that is intended to elicit an incriminating response. The purpose of the rule is to protect the right against self-incrimination by preventing the police from badgering a suspect until he talks. The warnings are intended to offset the coercive atmosphere of custodial police interrogation, and so the right does not apply when the suspect is not in custody or is not being questioned by a police officer or one known by the suspect to be an agent of the police. The Fifth Amendment right to counsel does not apply whenever testimonial evidence is sought by a government agent. The suspect must know that the questioning is by or on behalf of the police (because the intent is to offset the coercive nature of such questioning). Neither does the Fifth Amendment right to counsel apply at trial (since the police do not interrogate people at trial). However, there is a Sixth Amendment right to cousel at trial. QUESTION ID: R0012A Additional Learning

Question 7

The __________ exception to the exclusionary rule provides that, if the prosecution can show that the police would have discovered the evidence whether or not they had acted unconstitutionally, the evidence will be admissible.

A Intervening act

B Independent source

C Inevitable discovery

Answer 7

C

The inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule provides that, if the prosecution can show that the police would have discovered the evidence whether or not they had acted unconstitutionally, the evidence will be admissible. The independent source exception provides that evidence is admissible if the prosecution can show that it was obtained from a source independent of the original illegality. Under the intervening act exception, an intervening act of free will by the defendant will break the causal chain between the evidence and the original illegality and thus remove the taint. QUESTION ID: R0024C Additional Learning

Question 8

The warnings required under Miranda ________ include that the detainee has the right to __________.

A Do not; be informed of the charges against him

B Do not; remain silent

C Do; confront witnesses against him

D Do; an impartial decisionmaker

Answer 8

A

The warnings required under Miranda do not include that the detainee has a right to be informed of the charges against him. Also, it is not true that the warnings must include that the detainee has the right to an impartial decisionmaker. While such a right exists under the Due Process Clause, Miranda does not require that detainees be informed of that right. Nor is it true that the warnings must include that the detainee has the right to confront witnesses against him. While there is such a right under the Sixth Amendment, Miranda does not require that detainees be informed of that right. The warnings required under Miranda do require that the warnings inform the detainee of the right to remain silent. The full warnings must inform the detainee that: (i) He has the right to remain silent; (ii) Anything he says can be used against him in court; (iii) He has the right to the presence of an attorney; and (iv) If he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him if he so desires. Note that Miranda warnings do not need to be given verbatim, as long as the substance of the warning is there. QUESTION ID: R0006B Additional Learning

Question 9

Under Miranda, if a detainee makes an unambiguous request for counsel, the police:

A May inquire into the reasons the detainee desires counsel

B Must immediately cease questioning

C Must immediately cease questioning, but may resume after a few hours if counsel does not appear

Answer 9

C

Under Miranda, all questioning must immediately cease. The questioning may not resume simply because counsel does not appear; the government has a responsibility to provide counsel for the detainee if he does not have one already. The police may not ask any questions—even about the reasons the detainee desires counsel. The police may ask clarifying questions only if the request is ambiguous. QUESTION ID: R0013B Additional Learning

Question 10

Miranda warnings are required as a prerequisite to the admissibility of confessions resulting from custodial police interrogation.
Which of the following statements is true about the interrogation requirement under Miranda?

A Allowing a suspect to talk to his wife in the presence of the police can constitute interrogation.

B The term “interrogation” includes any police tactic that officers should know is likely to elicit an incriminating response.

C Routine booking questions usually will be considered interrogation.

D Spontaneous statements violate Miranda if made before Miranda warnings are given.

Answer 10

B

The term “interrogation” includes any police tactic that officers should know is likely to elicit an incriminating response. It is not limited to direct questioning. The Supreme Court has held that for purposes of Miranda, allowing a suspect to talk to his wife in the presence of the police DOES NOT constitute interrogation. The Supreme Court has also held that routine booking questions do not constitute interrogation (because information about a suspect’s name or address usually is not incriminating). Finally, if a spontaneous statement is made before Miranda warnings are given, there is no Miranda violation. Spontaneous statements are statements not made in response to any police conduct. Where the suspect blurts out information upon seeing the police, there is no interrogation. QUESTION ID: R0009 Additional Learning

Question 11

If a defendant files a motion to suppress his confession claiming that he did not waive his Miranda rights, the government must show that the Miranda waiver was:

A Valid beyond a reasonable doubt

B Obtained only after the defendant was informed of the charges against him

C Recorded in writing

D Voluntary and knowing

Answer 11

D

The Supreme Court has held that to be a valid waiver of rights under Miranda, the government must show by a preponderance of evidence that the waiver was voluntary and knowing. However, if a detainee chooses to speak after being given Miranda warnings, a valid waiver usually will be found. A valid waiver does not require a written acknowledgment. If a detainee received Miranda warnings and then chose to answer questions, that is a sufficient waiver of rights. The government need not prove that the waiver was valid beyond a reasonable doubt, it must show only that it was voluntary and knowing (and the standard is by a preponderance of the evidence). A waiver can be found to be voluntary and knowing (and therefore valid) even if the potential charges are not revealed to the detainee. The court will consider the totality of the circumstances. QUESTION ID: R0010A Additional Learning

Question 12

The Fifth Amendment provides that no person “shall be compelled to be a witness against himself . . . .” This has been interpreted to mean that a person shall not be compelled to give self-incriminating testimony. To protect this right, in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court held that as a prerequisite to the admissibility of a confession obtained by the police at a custodial interrogation, the person in custody must be informed of certain things. Which of the following items of information are included in Miranda warnings?

A The detainee has the right to remain silent; she has a right to counsel; she has the right to be informed of the charges against her

B The detainee has the right to remain silent; anything she says can be used against her in court; she has the right to be informed of the charges against her

C The detainee has the right to remain silent; anything she says can be used against her in court; she has the right to counsel

Answer 12

C

Miranda warnings need not include the charges against the detainee. The other choices all are required items. Miranda warnings must inform the detainee that: (i) She has the right to remain silent; (ii) Anything she says can be used against her in court; (iii) She has the right to the presence of an attorney; and (iv) If she cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for her if she so desires. Note that Miranda warnings do not need to be given verbatim, as long as the substance of the warning is there. QUESTION ID: R0006A Additional Learning

Question 13

In order to be considered “in custody” for Miranda purposes, a person must be:

A Handcuffed or in a locked room

B Incarcerated

C Involuntarily detained

Answer 13

C

Miranda warnings are required as a prerequisite to the admissibility of confessions resulting from custodial police interrogation. Only an involuntary detention may constitute custody. A person need not be incarcerated to be in custody. Whether a person is in custody depends on whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would think that his freedom of action is denied in a significant way. This is an objective test. From the above, it is clear that a person need NOT be handcuffed or in a locked room to be in custody. Indeed, a person may be in custody in his own home. For example, if police officers surround a person in the middle of the night in his own bedroom, awaken him, and begin questioning him, custody will be found. QUESTION ID: R0008C Additional Learning

Question 14

Under Miranda, if a detainee requests counsel, the police must cease questioning:

A Immediately, and may not resume unless counsel is present

B Upon counsel’s arrival

C Immediately, but may resume after counsel leaves

Answer 14

A

Once a detainee has expressed an unequivocal desire for counsel, questioning must cease immediately and may not be resumed unless counsel is present. Questioning may not continue until counsel’s arrival; all questioning must cease. It in not enough for the police merely to halt the interrogation immediately but resume after counsel leaves. Mere consultation with counsel prior to questioning does not satisfy the right to counsel; the police cannot resume questioning the detainee in the absence of counsel. QUESTION ID: R0013C Additional Learning

Question 15

For Miranda purposes, the term “interrogation” includes:

A Allowing a suspect to talk to his wife in the presence of police

B Any police tactic reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response

C Routine booking questions

Answer 15

B

The term “interrogation” includes any police tactic that officers should know is likely to elicit an incriminating response. It is not limited to direct questioning. The Supreme Court has held that for purposes of Miranda, allowing a suspect to talk to his wife in the presence of the police does not constitute interrogation. The Supreme Court has also held that routine booking questions do not constitute interrogation (because information about a suspect’s name or address usually is not incriminating). QUESTION ID: R0009A Additional Learning

Question 16

For a waiver of Miranda rights to be valid, the waiver must be __________.

A knowing and voluntary

B obtained after the potential charges are revealed to the detainee

C proved beyond reasonable doubt

D acknowledged in writing

Answer 16

A

The Supreme Court has held that a valid waiver of rights under Miranda must be knowing and voluntary. However, if a detainee chooses to speak after being given Miranda warnings, a valid waiver usually will be found. A valid waiver does not require a written acknowledgment. If a detainee received Miranda warnings and then chose to answer questions, that is a sufficient waiver of rights. The government need NOT prove a waiver beyond a reasonable doubt. A waiver can be found to be knowing, voluntary and intelligent (and therefore valid) even if the potential charges are not revealed to the detainee. The court will consider the totality of the circumstances. QUESTION ID: R0010 Additional Learning

Question 17

If the police arrest a suspect without a warrant or probable cause (i.e., an unconstitutional arrest), give him Miranda warnings, interrogate him, and obtain a confession, must the confession be suppressed from use in the prosecution’s case in chief?

A Yes, because all warrantless arrests are unconstitutional

B No, because the Miranda warnings were an intervening act

C No, because the Miranda warnings broke the causal chain between the unlawful acts of police and the evidence

D Yes, because the confession is the fruit of the poisonous tree

Answer 17

D

Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, the confession would be suppressed from use in the prosecution’s case in chief because it was obtained directly as a result of an unconstitutional arrest. The doctrine provides that not only must unconstitutionally obtained evidence be excluded at trial, but also all evidence obtained or derived from exploitation of that evidence. That the evidence was obtained from the defendant after being given Miranda warnings is not an exception to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. It is not true that the Miranda warnings broke the causal chain between the unlawful acts of police and the evidence or that the giving of Miranda warnings were an intervening act. It is true that exclusion of tainted evidence, including fruit of the poisonous tree, is not automatic. In deciding whether to apply the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, courts balance the rule’s purpose (i.e., deterrence of police misconduct) against its costs (i.e., the exclusion of probative evidence). Whether exclusion is warranted in a given case depends on “the culpability of the police and the potential of the exclusion to deter wrongful police conduct.” The Supreme Court will not apply the rule if the causal chain has a break between the unconstitutional acts of the police and the evidence. But merely giving the defendant Miranda warnings is not sufficient to break the causal chain. The choice “yes, because all warrantless arrests are unconstitutional” is incorrect as well. It has the right conclusion, but its rationale is incorrect. Not all warrantless arrests are unconstitutional. For example, the police may arrest a person in public if they have probable cause to believe that the person before them committed a felony. QUESTION ID: R0024A Additional Learning

Question 18

Which of the following statements is true about the effect at trial of the Miranda rules?

A A defendant’s silence after receiving Miranda warnings may be used to counter an insanity defense.

B A confession obtained in violation of Miranda may be used to impeach the defendant’s testimony.

C If the police intentionally fail to give Miranda warnings, any statement obtained directly from the violation cannot be used at trial, but other evidence derived from such statements may be used.

D A question at trial about the defendant’s silence during an interrogation results in a mistrial.

Answer 18

B

A confession obtained in violation of Miranda may be used to impeach the defendant’s testimony if the defendant takes the stand at trial and the confession was otherwise voluntary. However, the confession is not admissible in the state’s case in chief as evidence of guilt, and a truly involuntary confession (e.g., one obtained through torture) is never admissible for any purpose. A question at trial about the defendant’s silence during an interrogation might NOT result in a mistrial. A mistrial can be avoided if the admission was a harmless error. A single question may be harmless error if it is followed by an objection from the defense, sustained by the judge, and then the jury is instructed to disregard the question. A defendant’s silence after receiving Miranda warnings may NOT be used to counter an insanity defense. (The prosecution’s claim would be, how insane could the defendant have been? He understood well enough to remain silent after being told that anything he says can be used against him in court.) The warnings carry an implicit assurance that silence will carry no penalty. If the police intentionally fail to give Miranda warnings, the fruit of an interrogation may NOT be used at trial. Following an intentional failure by the police to give a detainee his Miranda warnings, if he gives the police information that leads to nontestimonial evidence, it will be suppressed. If the failure to warn was not intentional, however, the evidence will probably not be suppressed. QUESTION ID: R0014 Additional Learning

Question 19

If a detainee requests the presence of counsel at an interrogation under Miranda __________.

A the request can be met by halting the interrogation to allow the detainee to consult with counsel and reinitiating the interrogation once counsel leaves

B the police may continue to interrogate if the request is ambiguous

C the request must be clear to the police officer present

D the prohibition against questioning the detainee ends immediately after he is released

Answer 19

B

If a detainee requests the presence of counsel at interrogation, under Miranda the police may continue to interrogate if the request is ambiguous. Once a detainee has expressed an unequivocal desire for counsel, all questioning must cease. However, when the request is ambiguous, the police may continue to interrogate until the detainee gives an unambiguous request. The police may also ask clarifying questions when the request is ambiguous. It is inaccurate to state that the detainee’s request for the presence of counsel must be clear to the police officer present. The test is objective—the request must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable police officer in the same situation would understand the statement to be a request for counsel. Following a request for the presence of counsel by a detainee, the prohibition against questioning the detainee does NOT end immediately after he is released. Instead, the prohibition lasts the entire time the detainee is in custody for interrogation, plus 14 more days after the detainee returns to his normal life. After that point, the detainee may be questioned about the same matter upon receiving a fresh set of Miranda warnings. Finally, if there has been a request for counsel, it is not enough for the police merely to halt the interrogation to allow the detainee to consult with counsel and then reinitiate the interrogation once counsel leaves. Mere consultation with counsel prior to questioning does not satisfy the right to counsel; the police cannot resume questioning the detainee in the absence of counsel. QUESTION ID: R0013 Additional Learning

Question 20

In which of the following situations must Miranda warnings be given before questioning begins?

A A witness testifying before a grand jury under the compulsion of a subpoena.

B A defendant meeting with a psychiatrist for a state-ordered examination.

C A suspect meeting with an informant, whom the suspect does not know is working for the police.

D A parolee meeting with his probation officer.

Answer 20

B

A defendant meeting with a psychiatrist for a state-ordered psychiatric examination must be given Miranda warnings before being questioned. The Supreme Court requires Miranda warnings to be given as a prerequisite to the admissibility of confessions resulting from interrogation by someone known to be a government agent. They are intended to offset the coercive nature of custodial police interrogation. The Supreme Court has held that the warnings must be given at state-ordered psychiatric exams, as well as at police interrogations. Because the warnings are required in order to offset the coercive nature of custodial police interrogation, they are not needed or required in less coercive settings. The Supreme Court has held that they are not required when a suspect meets with a parole officer. Neither are they required when the suspect meets with someone that the suspect does not know is working for the police. A witness testifying before a grand jury under the compulsion of a subpoena need not be given the Miranda warnings. Such a witness who has not been charged or indicted does not have the right to counsel during the grand jury questioning. A witness who gives false testimony before a grand jury may be convicted of perjury, even though he was not given Miranda warnings. QUESTION ID: R0007 Additional Learning

Question 21

In which of the following cases will evidence that can be traced back to an unlawful search be excluded at a criminal trial?

A The evidence was obtained from the defendant after being given Miranda warnings.
Incorrect

B The evidence inevitably would have been discovered by the police even absent their unlawful conduct.

C The evidence was obtained as a result of an intervening act of free will by the defendant.

D The evidence can also be traced to a source independent from the unlawful acts of the police.

Answer 21

A

That the evidence was obtained from the defendant after being given Miranda warnings is not an exception to the exclusionary rule. Although the Supreme Court will not apply the rule if the causal chain has a break between the unlawful acts of the police and the evidence, merely giving the defendant Miranda warnings is not sufficient to break the causal chain. All of the other choices are among the exceptions to the exclusionary rule: (i) Inevitable discovery,(ii) Intervening act of free will by the defendant, and(iii) Independent source. It also is difficult to have testimony of a live witness excluded based on police misconduct, and in-court identifications will not be suppressed merely because a defendant was unlawfully detained. QUESTION ID: R0024 Additional Learning