1. Officers arrest Fred and advise him of his Miranda rights. Fred understands his rights and verbally waives them. After 20 minutes of questioning, officers figure out that Fred is lying to them and so they tell Fred they will call the local Social Services office and have Fred's children taken away if Fred doesn't confess. Thereafter, Fred confesses.Was this confession obtained in violation of the 5th Amendment

Yes or no

1. Officers arrest Fred for larceny, advise him of his Miranda rights and obtain a valid waiver of them. As the questioning progresses, officers believe that Fred has not been truthful. They tell Fred that his fingerprints were found on the stolen items that were recovered; this is not true. They also tell Fred that if he cooperates in the investigation, the officers will tell the prosecutor that Fred was cooperative. Fred confesses to the larceny. Was this confession obtained in violation of the 5th Amendment?

Yes or no

1. Fred is arrested for making harassing phone calls and is in custody. Some of the calls were recorded. Officers want a voice exemplar (sample) of Fred's voice to compare Fred's voice to the recordings. Without giving Fred Miranda rights, officers obtain a subpoena and court order directing Fred to give the voice exemplar. Can Fred be required to provide the voice exemplar over his objection?

Yes or no

1. Based on reasonable suspicion that Jack is a bank robber they are looking for, officers perform a Terry stop at gun point, put him on the ground, handcuff him, perform a Terry frisk, and place him in the back seat of the patrol vehicle. 25 minutes later, the officers leave the scene and transport him to the office downtown. 15 minutes later when they arrive at the office, officers leave Jack in the cruiser and in cuffs, and then begin to question him. At this time, officers have not placed Jack under arrest, and they have not given Jack Miranda warnings. Jack confesses. Was this confession obtained in violation of Miranda?

Yes or no

1. Fred was arrested for selling counterfeit currency shortly after an undercover buy operation and a brief chase down a street. The arresting officer immediately performed a search incident to arrest, but was surprised to find that Fred did not have the "buy money" on his person. Without advising Fred of his Miranda rights, the officer said "Okay, Fred, show me where the money is." Fred then pointed to some bushes 200 feet away next to the sidewalk where he had been chased, and the marked "buy money" was found there. Was this information obtained from Fred in violation of Miranda?

Yes or no

1. Jack is arrested for assaulting Jill. As soon as Jack is arrested, and during the search incident to arrest and before Jack is read his Miranda rights, Jack screams out to the police, "Arrest me if you want to, but Jill got what she deserved." The officers then ask Jack his full name, date of birth, and SSN. Jack provides the information. Which, if either, of the statements that Jack made were obtained in violation of Miranda?

Arrest me if you want to but jill got what she deserve

Jack provides the information

Neither statement

Both statements

1. Officers develop probable cause that Fred just attempted to rob a Wal-Mart at gun-point and is still inside the store. The officers find Fred and arrest him in the store. During the search incident to arrest, the officers do not find a gun. An officer asks, "Where is the gun?" and Fred says,(1st)"Over by the fishing reels." The gun is found where Fred said it was. The officer then asks, "Is this the gun that you used to try and rob this store?" Fred answers(2nd)"Yes." At no time was Fred given Miranda warnings. Which of these statements was obtained in violation of Miranda?

2nd statement

Both statements

1st statement

Neither statement

1. Officers arrest Fred for larceny. When giving Fred his Miranda warnings, they tell Fred he has been arrested for larceny. Fred waives his Miranda rights and talks to officers. During the course of the interview, the officers realize that Fred is not only a thief, but also possessed a small amount of marijuana (a misdemeanor). They ask him questions about his drug possession to which Fred confesses. Were Fred's statements about his drug possession obtained in violation of Miranda?

Yes or no

1. Based upon reasonable suspicion that Fred is involved in a larceny, officers Terry stop Fred. As soon as the officers approach, Fred says, "Don't bother asking me any questions. I have a lawyer." After some more investigation the officers develop probable cause that Fred committed the larceny. The officers arrest Fred 10 minutes later and take him to the office. There the officers read Fred his Miranda rights which Fred waives. Fred confesses to the larceny. Did the officer's actions violate Miranda?

Yes or no

1. Fred is arrested for arson. After being read his Miranda rights, Fred says, "I don't want to talk to law enforcement." The officers immediately end their attempt to question Fred and return him to his jail cell awaiting his initial appearance in the morning. About 2 hours later as the officers get ready to leave, they stop by Fred's cell and ask him if he would like to talk to them. Fred says he does want to talk, and the officers re-advise Fred of his Miranda rights all of which Fred validly waives. Fred confesses. Did the officer's actions violate Miranda?

Yes or no

1. Fred is arrested for arson. After being read his Miranda rights, Fred says, "I want a lawyer." The officers stop the attempt to question Fred.Consistent with Miranda, officers may again attempt to question Fred once Fred is released from custody or initiates questioning on his own. (Assume Fred does not have a 6th amendment right to counsel)

True or false

1. Fred is arrested for shoplifting at the ACME Express store (a misdemeanor). He validly waives his Miranda rights. About an hour into the interview, Fred realizes things are more serious than he thought and he says to the officers, "A lawyer might be a good idea."May the officers continue questioning Fred?

Yes or no

1. The Jones Corporation is under investigation for fraud. Agents have reason to believe that the corporation possesses documents that will show it is engaged in the fraud. The agents obtain a subpoena for the records and serve it on Mrs. Smith, the records custodian.Is Smith's claim that producing the records might violate the corporations 5th Amendment right against self- incrimination valid?

Yes or no

1. Fred has been indicted for larceny and is not in custody. He has not asserted his right to counsel. Federal Agent Jones wants to talk to Fred about the larceny, plus another crime, arson. As to the arson, Fred has not been indicted, has not made an initial appearance, and the prosecutor has not filed charges. Which of the following is a true statement?

a. Jones must get a waiver of Miranda rights before he can question Fred about either offense.

b. Jones must get a waiver of 6th Amendment rights before he talks to Fred about the arson.

c. Jones must get a waiver of 6th Amendment rights before he talks to Fred about the larceny.

d. Jones must get a waiver of 6th Amendment rights before he talks to Fred about either the larceny or the arson.

1. Fred has been indicted for larceny and is in jail awaiting his initial appearance. He has not asserted his right to counsel. Agents decide they want to have an undercover officer pretending to be a fellow prisoner, get close to Fred, and report back any relevant information. Can the undercover officer listen to whatever Fred says but may not attempt to question Fred about the larceny?

Yes or no

1. The 6th Amendment provides the right to counsel at all criminal proceedings. It applies at all critical stages of criminal prosecution after formal proceedings have begun. Identify critical stages. Select all that apply.

Handwriting Sample

Felony Trial

Post Indictment Interrogation

Arraignment

Guilty Plea

Pre-Charge Line Up

1. In Powell v. Alabama, the Court held that the trials denied due process because the defendants were not given reasonable time and opportunity to secure counsel in their defense.

True or false

1. Two indigent men, were arrested and charged with thirteen felonies, including armed robbery and assault with intent to commit murder. A single public defender represented both defendants. The public defender asked the trial court for a continuance because he was unprepared, there was a conflict of interest between the two defendants, and Douglas requested a new attorney. The judge denied the request for a continuance. The defendants then requested that the public defender be removed from the case. The judge granted that request but denied their request to appoint a new attorney. The defendants completed the trial without any representation. A jury found the defendants guilty of all thirteen felonies. Did the trial court's refusal to appoint new counsel violate the defendants' equal protection rights?

Yes or no

1. The defendant was brought to trial for carrying a concealed weapon. Under state law, the offense carried a possible penalty of up to six months in jail and $1,000 in fines. The defendant was indigent, and no attorney was appointed. At trial, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to 90 days of incarceration. Defendant petitioned for habeas corpus on the grounds that he had been denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel extend to a defendant charged with a petty or misdemeanor offense?

Yes or no

1. The defendant was indicted on mail fraud charges related to a check-kiting scheme. The United States (plaintiff) spent four and one-half years investigating the case. Shortly before the trial, Defendant's attorney withdrew from representation. The court appointed a young real estate lawyer to represent Defendant. The appointed attorney had only 25 days to prepare for trial. Defendant's co-defendants agreed to testify on behalf of the prosecution and Defendant was convicted on 11 of 13 counts. Defendant appealed and the federal court of appeals reversed the conviction upon the conclusion that Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated. The United States petitioned the Supreme Court for review.In the absence of a showing of particularized errors by defense counsel, must a defendant claiming a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel demonstrate that the totality of the circumstances supports a presumption of ineffective assistance?

Yes or no

1. The defendant was charged with grand theft. He filed a request to represent himself in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The judge initially accepted the request, but later called the defendant back in to question him about his knowledge of the hearsay rule and other court procedures. Based on Defendant's answers, the judge determined that Defendant did not intelligently and knowingly waive his right to counsel and the judge appointed a public defender. The jury convicted Defendant. On appeal, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court judge's ruling that Defendant had no constitutional right to represent himself. The California Supreme Court denied review.Can a defendant be denied the right to present his own defense and be forced to accept representation by counsel?

Yes or no

1. Fabio, age 25, was a suspect in a killing. He had no previous criminal history or experience with official interrogation. He had only six months of high school education and a history of emotional instability. Fabio was questioned by officials for nearly eight straight hours, long into the night, before he confessed. He repeatedly refused to answer questions and even requested his attorney. During the interrogation, the officers used a "childhood friend" of Fabio's who had become a police officer. This officer told the suspect that the situation had gotten the officer in trouble and that his job was in jeopardy. He played up the terrible effect this would have on the officer's family. At almost sunrise, the government obtained the final pieces of Fabio's confession.Was Fabio's statement voluntarily given?

Yes or no

1. The defendant approached an officer and stated that he had committed murder and wanted to discuss it. The officer advised the defendant of his Miranda rights. The defendant said that he understood his rights but still wanted to talk about the murder. Shortly thereafter, a detective arrived and again advised the defendant of his rights. After the defendant responded that he had traveled all the way from Boston to confess to the murder, he was taken to police headquarters. He then confessed and pointed out the exact location of the murder. The subsequent psychiatric evaluation revealed that the defendant was following the "voice of God" in confessing to the murder.Was the defendant's waiver of his Miranda rights and his statements coerced?

Yes or no

1. The police arrested Denny Defendant, transported him to the police station, and interrogated him there concerning his involvement in narcotics trafficking. Would such an interrogation require Miranda warnings?

Yes or no

1. Assume the police briefly chased Denny and, upon overtaking him, asked what he was doing. He responded: "I ain't taking this drug rap myself. I'm just the little guy."Could this statement be introduced against Denny at trial in light of the absence ofMiranda warnings?

Yes or no

1. Assume that Denny made a break for it and the police were unable to catch him. Later that day, he decided to find out why the police were after him and went to the police station. After introducing himself and explaining the reason for his appearance, he was taken to an interrogation room and questioned by two detectives. Denny ultimately made an incriminating statement and was then placed under arrest.Could this statement be introduced against Denny at trial in light of the absence of Miranda warnings?

Yes or no

1. David Washington pleaded guilty to murder in a Florida state court. At sentencing, his attorney did not seek out character witnesses or request a psychiatric evaluation. Subsequently, the trial court sentenced Mr. Washington to death finding no mitigating circumstances to rule otherwise. After exhausting his state court remedies, Mr. Washington sought habeas corpus relief in a Florida federal district court. He argued that his Sixth Amendment right was violated because he had ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The district court denied the petition. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed. The court held that the Sixth Amendment accorded criminal defendants a right to counsel rendering "reasonably effective assistance given the totality of the circumstances." It then remanded the case to the district court to apply this standard and determine whether Mr. Washington's counsel was sufficiently prejudicial to justify the reversal of his sentence.Has a defendant suffered from the ineffective assistance of counsel where the attorney's conduct has fallen below the objective standard of reasonableness and the defendant has been prejudiced by this conduct

Yes or no

1. Daisy is arrested after stabbing to death her neighbor. After being properly read her rights, Officer Fife asks how she knew the deceased. Daisy replies, "Well, all I can say is that I couldn't stand the sound of her barking dog and I'm glad she's dead."Is Daisy's response admissible at her criminal trial?

Yes or no

1. Sixth Amendment applies to government actors at which point in the criminal process?

Once an investigation has begun

Once a support has been brought in for questioning

Once judicial proceedings has been initiated against a suspect

Once an investigation focuses on a specific individual

1. If a suspect makes a confession that results from drugs administered from the police that overpower the subject's rational intellect and free will, the confession is said to be ______.

Involuntary

Forced

Irrational

Coerced

1. Escobedo v. Illinois extended the Sixth Amendment right to a lawyer to ______.

The period prior to arrest

Pretrial proceedings

The period prior to indictment

Posttrial motions

1. What is required in court in order to establish a waiver ofMiranda warnings?

The prosecution must establish a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defense must establish a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver by a preponderance of the evidence.

The prosecution must establish a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver by a preponderance of the evidence.

The defense must establish a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. When police interrogate a suspect using the "question first and warn later" technique, which statements are admissible at trial?

The statement after the warning is admissible, if the suspect understands that the initial statements are not.

Only the statement after the warning is admissible.

Any statements before and after the warning are admissible.

Any statements before the actual arrest took place.

1. At what point must police cease questioning due to an invocation ofMiranda?

when the suspect clearly and unambiguously requests the presence of an attorney

when there is any indication the suspect desires an attorney

when the suspect clearly states "I want to speak to a lawyer"

when the suspect gives a statement that a reasonable officer should understand to be an invocation

1. Once a suspect is in custody, words or actions on the part of the police that the police reasonably should know are likely to elicit some response require the officer to first read the Miranda warning.

True or false

1. The defendant was arrested for participating in a murder. The officers specifically refrained from providing her with Miranda warnings and took her to the police station. After 30 to 40 minutes or interrogation, she admitted to her role in the crime. The officers gave the defendant a short break, turned on a tape recorder, provided her Miranda warnings, and obtained a signed waiver of those protections. The officer then resumed questioning the defendant and she repeated her admissions. The officer testified that he made a "conscious decision" to withhold Miranda warnings from the defendant; using an interrogation technique he had been taught.Is the defendant's admission admissible in court?

Yes or no

1. The defendants were arrested for attempting to sell a controlled substance and were provided Miranda warnings. At trial, they testified that the government had "framed" them. The government then sought to introduce evidence that the defendants had not made any statements to this effect after their arrest.Was the government's use of the defendants' post-arrest silence on cross-examination a violation of their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent?

Yes or no

1. If Officer Jones interrogates the defendant after the defendant has been indicted for robbery, is this a violation of the defendant's 6th Amendment right to counsel?

Yes or no

Following the interrogation, Denny is charged with loitering, a misdemeanor. He is brought to court the following morning for arraignment.Does he have a 6th amendment right to counsel?

Yes or no

Denny is arrested for a burglary that took place 8 years ago. In this state, the statute of limitations for burglary is 7 years. Denny's attorney, believing that it's morally wrong to get a client off on a "technicality," fails to argue that the charge is barred by the statute, and Denny is found guilty.Did the attorney's failure to object to the charge on such an obvious basis constitute ineffective assistance of counsel?

Yes or no

1. A defendant in the State must prove the following to show that his/her counsel was ineffective: (select all that apply)

attorney's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness

attorney's failure to follow the advice of the defendant's

attorney's failure to win the case

the attorney's failure to act competently prejudiced the defendant

1. An informant was placed in the defendant's cell after the defendant was indicted and elicits incriminating statements. Is this a violation of the defendant's sixth amendment right to counsel?

Yes or no

1. Fife: Look, I'm your only friend now. I can make the difference between you doing hard time and getting off easy. But you've got to admit what you did, and then I'll help you. Denny confesses to avoid hard time.Is Denny's confession voluntary?

Yes or no

1. Officer Fife injects Denny with a truth serum and then begins questioning him at the hospital. Denny confesses.Is Denny's confession voluntary?

Yes or no