The police received an anonymous telephone call that Paul was engaged in illegal gambling operations consisting of betting on professional sporting events. The informant did not say how he knew any of this information. Officers Laverne and Shirley went to Paul=s place of business (Joe=s Restaurant, where Paul worked as a waiter) and were given permission to speak to him. They advised Paul that they had full knowledge of his involvement in illegal gambling operations, and that he would probably be sent to jail as a consequence of these activities.

When Paul responded, AI=ve got nothing to say to you gals,@ he was told that he should consider himself under arrest. Before Paul was advised of his Miranda rights, Officer Shirley told Paul, AConfession is good for the soul,@ and asked Paul if he would like to make a statement about his illegal activities. Paul hesitated, but then informed the officers that he did Atake@ bets on sporting events. He then voluntarily led the officers back to the garage adjacent to his home, where he showed them notebooks in which were written names of bettors, the amounts of money they had wagered, and the corresponding events.

The police also searched Paul=s person, and found a pocket notebook which revealed bets that had been placed with Paul that day. The police then advised Paul that they were too busy to him to the station house for booking then, but that they were confiscating the notebook as evidence. Paul did not protest this action. About two weeks later, Paul was subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury investigating illegal gambling. He appeared with an attorney whom he had retained, but was advised that he was not entitled to have counsel present. In a rage, Paul walked out. He has refused to return until his lawyer is allowed to be with him, even though he has been warned that he could be cited for contempt.

7. In the grand jury proceedings, Paul=s confession as to his involvement in illegal gambling is:

I. Admissible, because a Miranda rights violation does not result in suppression.

II. Inadmissible, because it was given after Paul was improperly arrested.

III. Inadmissible, because it was obtained in violation of Paul=s Miranda rights.

A. I only.

B. II only.

C. III only.

D. II and III.

8. Can Paul be compelled to appear as a witness at the grand jury proceedings?

A. No, because the police initially lacked probable cause to arrest him.

B. No, because he was not given Miranda warnings.

C. Yes, despite the lack of Miranda warnings.

D. Yes, but only if the grand jury has reason to believe that Paul was involved in gambling operations, without reference to Paul=s confession.

9. Which of the following statements is correct:

A. Paul had an absolute right to have counsel present at the grand jury proceedings.

B. There is no right to have counsel present at grand jury proceedings.

C. Paul had no right to have counsel present at the grand jury proceedings if evidence obtained from his was inadmissible in a criminal case.

D. Paul had a right to have counsel present because he was arrested in connection with the purpose of the grand jury proceedings

10. As a consequence of Paul=s refusal to answer any questions, which of the following is

correct?

I. Paul could be convicted of perjury.

II. Paul could be convicted of contempt.

III. Paul cannot be convicted of any crime because the evidence obtained from his is inadmissible in a criminal case.

A. I only

B. II only.

C. III only

D. None of the above.

11. In the subsequent trial of Paul for the crime of participating in an illegal gambling

operation, which of the following items of evidence obtained by the police officers would be admissible?

A. Paul=s confession, but nothing else.

B. The regular size notebooks, but noting else.

C. The pocket notebook, but nothing else.

D. None of the evidence.