Question 1

A grant of immunity removes the privilege against self-incrimination, if the grant:

Accepted Answer

A grant of immunity removes the privilege against self-incrimination only if it provides that the compelled statement cannot be used in a future prosecution. This is known as "use and derivative use" immunity, which means that the testimony itself and any evidence derived from it cannot be used against the witness in any future prosecution. Without this type of immunity, a witness could still incriminate themselves by providing testimony that leads to evidence that could be used against them. This type of grant of immunity is typically provided by the prosecution in exchange for a witness's cooperation in an investigation. The other options (acceptance by defendant, part of plea bargain, and approval by defense counsel) may be relevant factors in the granting of immunity, but they do not specifically remove the privilege against self-incrimination. A grant of immunity is a legal agreement that allows a person to provide testimony or evidence without fear of being prosecuted for any crimes they may reveal. If a grant of immunity is provided, it removes the privilege against self-incrimination, but only if the grant includes a provision stating that the compelled statement cannot be used in a future prosecution. Acceptance by the defendant, being part of a negotiated plea bargain, or approval by defense counsel are not necessarily required for a grant of immunity to remove the privilege against self-incrimination.

Question 2

The privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to:

Accepted Answer

The privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to physical or biometric samples such as handwriting, voice, or fingerprints as they do not reveal any testimonial or communicative evidence. Therefore, all the choices (A), (B), and (C) are correct. The privilege against self-incrimination applies only to verbal or written statements. Handwriting samples, voice samples, and fingerprinting are considered physical evidence and do not violate the privilege against self-incrimination.

Question 3

The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects against:

Accepted Answer

The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects individuals from being forced or compelled to incriminate themselves. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects individuals from being compelled to incriminate themselves, meaning they cannot be forced to testify against themselves in criminal proceedings. It does not relate to the other answer choices.

Question 4

Interrogation may occur:

Accepted Answer

Interrogation can occur at any point following an arrest, including prior to booking, prior to the filing of charges, and prior to trial. Interrogation may occur at any of the listed stages: following arrest but prior to booking, following arrest but prior to the filing of charges, and following arrest but prior to trial.

Question 5

The voluntariness of a confession is determined by:

Accepted Answer

The voluntariness of a confession is determined by the trial judge. It is the judge's responsibility to determine whether a confession was given freely and voluntarily. This determination is based on a totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession, including the defendant's age, education, and intelligence, as well as the duration and conditions of the questioning. The prosecutor and jury do not have a role in determining the voluntariness of a confession. The voluntariness of a confession is a legal determination made by the trial judge.

Question 6

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches:

Accepted Answer

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at the commencement of judicial proceedings. This includes critical stages of the proceedings, such as arraignments, preliminary hearings, and post-indictment lineups. It does not automatically apply during custodial interrogation, but a defendant has the right to request counsel during questioning. The right also applies at trial, but it attaches before the trial actually begins. The defendant must have access to counsel during any critical stages of the trial, such as jury selection and the closing arguments. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at the commencement of the judicial proceedings, which includes formal charges being filed, initial appearance before a magistrate, or arraignment. It does not attach automatically during custodial interrogation or whenever requested by the defendant. And while the right to counsel continues during trial, it initially attaches at the commencement of the judicial proceedings.

Question 7

For purposes of Miranda, custody occurs when:

Accepted Answer

According to Miranda v. Arizona, custody occurs when a person has been arrested or otherwise deprived of their freedom of movement in a significant way. This means that if a person is simply stopped and questioned by police, they are not considered to be in custody for purposes of Miranda. However, once a person has been arrested, they must be read their Miranda rights before any interrogation can take place. Thus, choice C (the defendant has been arrested) is the best choice for when custody occurs under Miranda. Custody for purposes of Miranda occurs when the defendant has been arrested. The other options (A, B, and D) may involve some level of police contact or interaction, but they do not necessarily meet the criteria for custody under Miranda.

Question 8

D was arrested for shoplifting, advised of her Miranda rights, and confessed to murder.The court should:

Accepted Answer

The court should admit the confession in evidence if D understood and voluntarily waived her Miranda rights, as this indicates that the confession was given voluntarily and admissible in court. However, if the prosecution does not have a signed Waiver of Rights Form from D, this could potentially create doubt about whether D's confession was given voluntarily, so this would not be the best choice. Option C is also a possibility, as confession being voluntary is a key factor in determining its admissibility, but option B is more specific and directly addresses the issue of Miranda rights. Option D is not applicable, as the presence of defense counsel is not necessarily required for a confession to be admissible as long as the defendant voluntarily waived their Miranda rights. The confession should be admitted in evidence if D understood and voluntarily waived her Miranda rights. This is because the Miranda rights ensure that a suspect is informed of their right to remain silent and have an attorney present during questioning, and waiving these rights indicates that the suspect understands and consents to being questioned without an attorney. As long as the confession was made voluntarily and without coercion, it can be admitted in evidence.

Question 9

According to Miranda, custody includes:

Accepted Answer

Miranda defined custody as significant restraint on the person's freedom. This includes situations where the person is not free to leave or move around freely, such as being placed under arrest or being detained in a police interrogation room. It does not include all Fourth Amendment seizures, traffic stops, or mere presence at the police station. Custody, as defined by Miranda, refers to significant restraints on the person's freedom of movement. This can include being placed under arrest, being detained in a police vehicle, or being held in a police station against one's will. It does not include routine traffic stops or other brief interactions with law enforcement that do not involve significant restrictions on the person's freedom.

Question 10

A confession must be corroborated by:

Accepted Answer

A confession alone is not considered sufficient evidence to convict someone. It must be corroborated by independent evidence establishing its trustworthiness. This ensures that the confession is not coerced or obtained through improper means. Corroboration can come in the form of physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, or other statements made by the defendant. An accomplice's testimony, while helpful, is not necessary for corroboration. Direct evidence may also be helpful but is not the only way to establish trustworthiness. A confession alone is not sufficient to prove guilt, as it could be coerced or false. Therefore, it must be corroborated by independent evidence that supports the confession's trustworthiness. This could include physical evidence, witness testimony, or other corroborating statements made by the defendant. An accomplice's statement could potentially be used as corroborating evidence, but it is not necessary and could also be unreliable. Direct evidence may not always be available, and other statements of the defendant may not necessarily be trustworthy. Therefore, choice B is the best option.

Question 11

Under Miranda, interrogation includes:

Accepted Answer

Miranda covers not only express questioning, but also implied questioning, which includes any words or actions by the police that are likely to elicit an incriminating response from the defendant. This can include casual conversation or statements made outside of formal questioning. Therefore, option D is the best choice. Miranda defines interrogation as both express questioning and any words or actions on the part of the police that they should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. Therefore, D is the best choice as it includes both express and implied questioning.

Question 12

To be admissible in evidence, confessions must:

Accepted Answer

Confessions must be voluntary, meaning they were not made under any threats, promises, or coercion. They must also not violate the Miranda decision, meaning the suspect was informed of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney. Additionally, confessions should be corroborated with other evidence to support their reliability. Therefore, all three options (A, B, and C) must be met for a confession to be admissible in evidence. Confessions must be voluntary, meaning that they were not obtained through coercion, threats, or promises of leniency. They must also not violate the Miranda decision, which requires that suspects be informed of their rights to remain silent and have an attorney present during questioning. Additionally, some jurisdictions require that confessions be corroborated by other evidence. Therefore, all of the options are correct.

Question 13

D was arrested without a warrant and without probable cause.The police also failed to advise D of her Miranda rights.The trial judge should:

Accepted Answer

An illegal arrest or failure to advise of Miranda rights does not automatically invalidate the prosecution's case or deprive the court of jurisdiction. The court can still proceed with the trial, and the remedy for such violations typically involves the suppression of evidence obtained as a result of the violations, rather than dismissal of charges.

Question 14

According to Miranda:

Accepted Answer

Miranda held that custodial interrogation is inherently coercive because the suspect is not free to leave and is often in a vulnerable state. This requirement led to the creation of the Miranda warning which advises suspects of their rights during custodial interrogation. Therefore, option A is the correct choice. Miranda held that custodial interrogation is inherently coercive due to the fear and isolation that a suspect may experience in police custody. This led to the development of the Miranda warning to inform suspects of their rights prior to interrogation. The other options are incorrect as they do not accurately reflect the holding of Miranda.

Question 15

What is not part of the required Miranda warnings:

Accepted Answer

The Miranda warnings do not require that the suspect be informed of the specific crime they are suspected of. The other options (A, C, and D) are all part of the required Miranda warnings. The Miranda warnings do not require the police to inform the suspect of the specific crime they are suspected of. The warnings only inform the suspect of their rights to an attorney, to remain silent, and that any statement they make can be used against them.

Quiz 12: Interrogation and Self-Incrimination