Chapter 11 Quiz Answers

prior to Miranda, what was the standard for determining the admissibility of confessions?

voluntariness

if a person is stopped on a traffic stop and then arrested for DUI, does Miranda apply during the traffic stop prior to the arrest while the officer questions the person about the circumstances leading up to him/her driving under the influence? what about after the arrest is made for DUI?

no and yes, respectively

Officers stop Johnny, who closely resembles the suspect, two blocks from the scene of a robbery of a 7/11. Johnny tries to walk away from the officers but is told that he "is in investigative detention and is not free to leave". the officer handcuffs Johnny and makes him sit on the curb while they investigate further. Johnny is not mirandized and when the officer who is standing with him asks what Johnny has "been up to tonight". Johnny states that he just came from 7/11 and then changes the subject. will Johnny's admission be admissible if he is charged with the robbery?

no, the officer should have mirandized Johnny before asking him any questions

if Beth invokes her Miranda rights, but police question her anyway and learn that Johnny was with her during the crime, and then question Johnny and he provides information to be used in trial against Beth,

the Johnny can testify against Beth

per Berkemer v McCarty (1984), if an officer makes a custodial arrest for an extremely minor violation, one that cannot carry jail time, and the officer asks questions to the suspect regarding the offense,

the Miranda warning is required

Theresa is charged with credit card fraud and is held in jail awaiting trial. she has retained Mr. Ivan B. Slick, Esq. as her defense counsel. detective Jones approaches Theresa, advises her of her Miranda rights, and after she waives her rights, Jones interviews her about her involvement in an unrelated burglary. Theresa confesses to having a role in the burglary and is charged with conspiracy.

the confession regarding the robbery is admissible because she had no 6th amendment right to counsel regarding this charge

police interview Jimmy for several hours regarding a series of burglaries after giving him the Miranda warning and he waives his rights and willingly participates in the interview. near mealtime the officers cease the interview and take Jimmy to a steakhouse for a lengthy dinner. after a bathroom break and a total break in the interrogation of almost two hours, they resume the interview.

the courts may determine that an additional Miranda warning is required

a detective takes custody of a murder suspect and questions him at the police station after providing the Miranda warning. however, during trial, the detective testifies that when she asked the suspect if he understood his rights and was willing to waive his right to an attorney, the suspect only smiled at her. further, she testified that the suspect never said he was not willing to be interviewed.

the defendant did not waive his Miranda rights

if a suspect makes incriminating statements during an interview after waiving his rights, and then invokes his rights later in the interview,

the statements prior to invoking his rights are admissible

during a custodial interview, the suspect tells the detective, "maybe i should get a lawyer. what do you think? maybe i need one. i don't know". the detective continues the interview after simply stating, "I can't help you there". the suspect later confesses to the crime during the interview. during trial, defense counsel makes a motion suppress the confession.

the suspect's statements would be admissible because there was no unambiguous invocaation of his Miranda rights

T/F: from a judge's perspective, the main importance of the Miranda decision is that deciding the admissibility of a confession is clearer and quicker than it was prior to the decision

true

T/F: if a suspect is compelled to provide a statement for voice or speech comparison purposes during an investigation, then the suspect will later have no grounds to claim that this was a violation of his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

true

Johnny was in possession of several syringes loaded with heroin when he fled from officers. he hid the syringes underneath a sliding board at a local park after he lost the officers during the foot pursuit. he was later apprehended and he invoked his Miranda rights and was not willing to be interrogated without his attorney. the detectives did not ask him any questions, but one said to the other in the presence of Johnny, "I sure hope none of those kids at the park get stuck by one of those nasty needles". Johnny then told them where the needles were hidden, and the detectives seized them. during Johnny's trial, will the syringes be admissible as evidence against Johnny?

yes, Johnny was in custody but was not interrogated

a prison inmate is in prison for murder and is removed from the general population so that detectives can speak to her. the detectives ask her about her involvement in a burglary that was not connected with the murder and they tell her that she may return to the general prison population at any time. they do not read her the Miranda warning, and she confesses to the crime. will the confession be admissible?

yes, she was not in custody for Miranda purposes