TX Bar Criminal Law and Procedure 3

Question 1

During custodial interrogation, a suspect says 'I think I want a lawyer.' Officers continue questioning without providing counsel and obtain incriminating statements. Under Davis v. United States, the suspect's statement about a lawyer:

Accepted Answer

Was not sufficient because the right to counsel must be invoked unambiguously; ambiguous references do not obligate police to stop questioning

Answer

Under Davis v. United States, a suspect must unambiguously invoke the right to counsel; ambiguous or equivocal statements about wanting an attorney do not require police to cease questioning.

Question 2

A defendant is convicted of simple drug possession. The state then charges him with possession with intent to distribute arising from the same seized drugs. Under the Blockburger test, the second prosecution:

Accepted Answer

Is not barred because possession with intent to distribute requires proof of intent to distribute, an element simple possession does not require

Answer

Under Blockburger, double jeopardy does not bar successive prosecutions when each offense requires proof of an element the other does not; intent to distribute is required by the second offense but not simple possession.

Question 3

Officers apprehend a robbery suspect at the scene but find no gun on him. Without Miranda warnings, an officer asks 'Where is the gun?' to prevent bystanders from being harmed. The suspect reveals the gun's location. Under New York v. Quarles, this statement is:

Accepted Answer

Admissible under the public safety exception to Miranda because the question addressed an immediate threat to public safety

Answer

Under New York v. Quarles, the public safety exception permits officers to question a suspect in custody without Miranda warnings when necessary to address an immediate threat to public safety.

Question 4

A defendant is acquitted of robbery based on the jury's finding that he was not present at the crime scene. The state then charges him with assault arising from the same event. Under Ashe v. Swenson, double jeopardy's collateral estoppel component:

Accepted Answer

Bars the second prosecution because the jury necessarily decided the defendant was not present at the scene of both crimes

Answer

Under Ashe v. Swenson, collateral estoppel is incorporated into the Double Jeopardy Clause and bars relitigation of ultimate facts necessarily decided in a prior acquittal.

Question 5

A jury deliberates for six days without reaching a verdict and is dismissed over the defendant's objection. The prosecutor seeks to retry the defendant. Double jeopardy:

Accepted Answer

Does not bar retrial because a hung jury constitutes manifest necessity for a mistrial, permitting a new trial

Answer

A hung jury constitutes 'manifest necessity' for a mistrial, and retrial after such a mistrial does not violate double jeopardy even over the defendant's objection.

(TX Bar) Texas Bar Exam Practice Test

(TX Bar) Texas Bar Exam Practice Test

TX Bar Criminal Law and Procedure 3