Chat with AIExam 15: Self-Incrimination
Officers must stop questioning immediately if a suspect makes an ambiguous request to have an attorney present during questioning.
(34) 
VerifiedFalse
List three situations in which the Supreme Court allows the police to question a suspect more than once. Which of these, if any, do you think follows the spirit of the original Miranda decision?
(37) VerifiedThree situations in which the Supreme Court allows the police to question a suspect after the police previously questioned them would be: [Note: student only needs to list three of these]
· Prior Interrogation without Valid Miranda Warnings ?- If the first interrogation session was conducted without a valid Miranda waiver, there needs to be a lapse of time between the two sessions. The Supreme Court has not set a specific length of time that satisfies this requirement. If there is enough time so that the suspect will not be influenced by the prior session, a new session can be conducted.The first thing that must be done at the new session is administer the Miranda warnings correctly. If the suspect makes a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of the Miranda rights, the officers may question him/her as if it were the first interrogation session.
· Prior Interrogation with Valid Miranda Warnings ?2- If the Miranda warnings were administered correctly prior to the previous interrogation session, the procedures are fairly simple. The investigators are required to administer the Miranda warnings again only if the suspect may have forgotten his/her rights. The Supreme Court has not dictated an exact procedure. The investigator usually asks the suspect if he/she remembers the Miranda warnings.If the response is positive, the interrogation can resume without giving a new set of warnings. If the suspect indicates in any way that he/she does not remember the warnings, the investigator should give them again. If the suspect waives his/her rights, the interrogation can continue.
· Suspect Invoked Right to Remain Silent?2- In Michigan v. Mosley the Supreme Court established guidelines for resuming questioning after the suspect invoked the right to remain silent.There must be a substantial amount of time between the end of the first session and the attempt to start another one. The suspect must realize that his/her rights are being scrupulously honored, but the police do not need to arrange for an attorney. In Mosley there was a 2 hour time period during which the suspect remained in a holding cell. After the time has lapsed, the interrogator must start with new Miranda warnings. If the suspect is willing to talk, the investigators can ask questions until the suspect stops the interrogation or the officers decide to discontinue it.
· Suspect Invoked Right to Attorney?2- If a suspect requests an attorney during interrogation, the questioning must stop. There must be an attorney present if the officers attempt to resume questioning ( Minnick v. Mississippi ).The first thing that must be done is obtain a Miranda waiver.It is highly likely that the attorney will instruct the suspect not to waive his/her rights, and if he/she waives the rights, not to answer any questions. For this reason, police rarely attempt to resume questioning after a suspect requests an attorney. The Supreme Court ruled that invoking the right to counsel stops questioning regarding any crime by any agency.
A person who has been given immunity can invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination:
(37) VerifiedC
Miranda warnings are not required when a suspect is questioned by an undercover police officer posing as a cellmate.
(32) The privilege against self-incrimination can only be invoked if the suspect could be charged in criminal court as a result of statements made.
(27) After Eric was booked for driving under the influence of marijuana he was placed in an interrogation room. Officer Franklin gave him a form with the Miranda warnings on it. He told Eric to read it and sign at the bottom. Officer Franklin began questioning Eric as soon as he had signed the form. Officer Franklin: "Ok, Eric, I want you to tell me where you got the marijuana you were smoking tonight." Eric: "Hey, you can't ask me about that! I was arraigned yesterday!" Officer Franklin: "You got it wrong. You were just arrested. Yesterday in court doesn't count on this new charge." Eric: "Well, George said to never, ever talk to you!" Officer Franklin: "Who is George?" Eric: "The guy I get my marijuana from. Now get out of here, I got nothing to say to you." Officer Franklin left the room. Two hours later Officer Hill entered the room. Officer Hill: "Hi, Eric. I've got a couple of questions for you. Not about that stuff Officer Franklin was talking about. But where did you get that red car that you were driving when Officer Davis stopped you? Eric: "Neat car, huh?" Officer Hill: "Yes, neat car, but where'd you get it?" Eric: "Some sweet little old lady gave it to me." Officer Hill: "Talk sense. She didn't give it to you, you put a gun in her face and she fainted." Eric: "Aw, come on. She would have fainted even if I didn't have a gun!" Assume for this question that Eric received a valid set of Miranda warnings : Is Eric's statement to Officer Franklin that George supplied marijuana admissible in court?
(32) Statements obtained from the defendant in violation of Miranda can be used for impeachment as long as the statements were made voluntarily.
(33) Prior to questioning a suspect who is in custody, the police must obtain the suspect's explicit consent to talk to them.
(31) In which of the following situations can a person successfully invoke the Fifth Amendment as a reason not to cooperate:
(38) Lonnie was the driver of a car involved in a hit-and-run accident that left a pedestrian in critical condition. A high speed pursuit ended when Lonnie crashed his car into a fence. He ran from the scene but was captured three blocks away. He was driven to the police station by Officer Marsh and Officer Nelson. During the drive the officers discussed the case: Officer Marsh: "Did you hear any more about the pedestrian?" "Have you heard anything about the pedestrian?" Officer Nelson: "Only what the EMT said - the poor guy is in bad shape, may not make it through the night." Officer Marsh: "So it could be a murder case?" Lonnie: "No!! I didn't mean to kill anyone!" One hour later Detective Olson questioned Lonnie in an interrogation room. He started by giving Lonnie the Miranda warnings and making sure Lonnie understood them. He then asked questions and Lonnie admitted that he was driving too fast, but he said he didn't hit the pedestrian. Detective Olson then told Lonnie that he had to stand in a line-up so people who witnessed the accident could decide if he was the person who was driving when the pedestrian was hit. Will Lonnie's statement that he didn't mean to kill anyone be admissible in court?
(32) A person who is subpoenaed to testify in a criminal trial (not a defendant) can invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by:
(31) Compare and contrast interrogation during a stop based on reasonable suspicion and one after arrest.
(37) Miranda warnings are required when officers stop and question a suspect based on reasonable suspicion.
(28) If Miranda warnings are given correctly and the suspect does not invoke his/her rights, officers may conduct more than one interrogation session without giving Miranda warnings again.
(24) List three situations that are not covered by the Fifth Amendment because they are not incriminating. List three situations that are not covered by the Fifth Amendment because they are not testimonial.
(51) If a suspect invokes the Miranda rights to an attorney during custodial interrogation:
(31) 
Filters
- Essay(0)
- Multiple Choice(0)
- Short Answer(0)
- True False(0)
- Matching(0)