OR Bar Criminal Procedure 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under Miranda v. Arizona, the obligation to administer Miranda warnings is triggered when:
- Police question any person who may have information about a crime
- A suspect is in custody and subject to interrogation (Correct answer)
- Police have probable cause to believe a person committed a crime
- A person is detained, even briefly, for investigatory purposes
Correct answer: A suspect is in custody and subject to interrogation
Miranda warnings are required only when both elements are present: the suspect is in custody (deprived of freedom in a significant way) and subject to interrogation (express questioning or its functional equivalent).
Question 2: The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is characterized as 'offense-specific,' which means:
- The right applies only to the most serious criminal charge the defendant faces
- Once the right attaches for one charged offense, police may still question the defendant about separate uncharged offenses without counsel present (Correct answer)
- The right requires appointment of counsel only for offenses punishable by imprisonment
- Counsel must be present at every critical stage of any criminal proceeding
Correct answer: Once the right attaches for one charged offense, police may still question the defendant about separate uncharged offenses without counsel present
The Sixth Amendment right is offense-specific under McNeil v. Wisconsin — its attachment to formally charged offenses does not bar uncounseled questioning about separate, uncharged matters.
Question 3: Under the Double Jeopardy Clause, which of the following BARS a subsequent prosecution?
- Retrial after a mistrial declared due to manifest necessity
- Retrial after a conviction is reversed on appeal for legally insufficient evidence (Correct answer)
- Prosecution by a different sovereign for the same underlying conduct
- Retrial following a mistrial caused by a hung jury
Correct answer: Retrial after a conviction is reversed on appeal for legally insufficient evidence
Under Burks v. United States, a reversal for insufficient evidence is treated as an acquittal and bars retrial; manifest necessity mistrials, dual sovereignty prosecutions, and hung jury retrials do not bar retrial.
Question 4: Under Batson v. Kentucky, the Equal Protection Clause is violated when:
- A prosecutor uses peremptory challenges to deliberately exclude jurors based on race (Correct answer)
- A jury venire statistically underrepresents a racial group
- A prosecutor uses for-cause challenges in a racially discriminatory pattern
- The composition of the seated jury does not reflect the racial makeup of the community
Correct answer: A prosecutor uses peremptory challenges to deliberately exclude jurors based on race
Batson holds that purposeful racial discrimination in the use of peremptory challenges violates the Equal Protection Clause, establishing a three-step burden-shifting framework for adjudicating such claims.
Question 5: Following Ramos v. Louisiana (2020), which of the following is TRUE regarding jury unanimity in criminal trials?
- States may still permit non-unanimous verdicts for non-capital felonies
- The Sixth Amendment requires a unanimous jury verdict for conviction of any serious criminal offense (Correct answer)
- Non-unanimous verdicts are permissible only when the defendant waives the unanimity right
- Federal courts must use unanimous verdicts while state courts retain discretion
Correct answer: The Sixth Amendment requires a unanimous jury verdict for conviction of any serious criminal offense
Ramos v. Louisiana held the Sixth Amendment unanimity requirement applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, directly invalidating Oregon's longstanding non-unanimous verdict practice.
Question 6: Under Crawford v. Washington, 'testimonial' statements by an out-of-court declarant are admissible against a criminal defendant only when:
- The statement falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception regardless of the declarant's availability
- The declarant is unavailable AND the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant (Correct answer)
- The statement was made under oath in a prior judicial proceeding
- The trial court determines the statement bears adequate indicia of reliability
Correct answer: The declarant is unavailable AND the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant
Crawford overruled Ohio v. Roberts and held that testimonial hearsay is barred by the Confrontation Clause unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
Question 7: Under Strickland v. Washington, a defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must prove:
- Counsel made errors that no competent attorney would have made
- Counsel's performance was deficient AND there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have differed absent the errors (Correct answer)
- Counsel failed to adequately communicate with the defendant before critical trial decisions
- Counsel's cumulative errors taken together deprived the defendant of a fair trial
Correct answer: Counsel's performance was deficient AND there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have differed absent the errors
Strickland's two-prong test requires showing both deficient performance (below an objective standard of reasonableness) and resulting prejudice (reasonable probability of a different outcome).
OR Bar Criminal Procedure 2
Under Miranda v.
Arizona, the obligation to administer Miranda warnings is triggered when: