UT Bar Criminal Procedure 5

Question 1

Police interrogate a suspect without Miranda warnings and obtain a confession, then give warnings and have him repeat the confession as part of a deliberate two-step strategy.
Under Missouri v.
Seibert, the post-warning confession is:

Accepted Answer

Inadmissible, because midstream warnings in a deliberate two-step interrogation are ineffective

Answer

Admissible, because warnings were ultimately given

Answer

Admissible, because the first confession was voluntary

Answer

Inadmissible only if physical coercion was used

Question 2

A defendant's trial is delayed five years, largely due to prosecutorial negligence, and he asserts his speedy trial right throughout. In assessing his Sixth Amendment claim, the court must weigh:

Accepted Answer

The length of delay, reasons for the delay, the defendant's assertion of the right, and prejudice, under Barker v. Wingo

Answer

Only whether the delay exceeded the statutory speedy trial deadline

Answer

Only whether the defendant can prove actual prejudice at trial

Answer

Only whether the prosecution acted in bad faith

Question 3

Officers ask a bus passenger for consent to search his bag; he agrees, and drugs are found. He later argues the consent was invalid because officers never told him he could refuse. The consent is:

Accepted Answer

Valid, because knowledge of the right to refuse is only one factor in the totality of the circumstances, not a requirement

Answer

Invalid, because consent requires proof the person knew he could refuse

Answer

Invalid, because searches on buses are inherently coercive

Answer

Valid only if the officers had reasonable suspicion first

Question 4

A defendant convicted of a felony argues on appeal that the evidence was constitutionally insufficient. The reviewing court must ask whether:

Accepted Answer

Any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt

Answer

The appellate judges themselves are convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

Answer

The verdict was against the great weight of the evidence

Answer

The prosecution's witnesses were more credible than the defense's

Question 5

An indigent defendant faces a misdemeanor charge and receives a suspended jail sentence with probation; he was never provided appointed counsel. Under Alabama v. Shelton, the suspended sentence is:

Accepted Answer

Invalid, because a suspended sentence that may result in actual imprisonment cannot be imposed without offering appointed counsel

Answer

Valid, because no immediate jail time was imposed

Answer

Valid, because the right to counsel applies only to felonies

Answer

Invalid only if probation is later revoked

Question 6

Police arrest a man based on a warrant that court staff negligently failed to remove from the database after it was recalled; a search incident to arrest yields drugs. Under Herring v. United States, the drugs are:

Accepted Answer

Admissible, because isolated negligence in recordkeeping does not trigger the exclusionary rule

Answer

Inadmissible, because the arrest was without a valid warrant

Answer

Inadmissible, because good faith does not apply to database errors

Answer

Admissible only if the error was made by a different police department

Question 7

At sentencing, a judge finds facts by a preponderance of the evidence that increase the defendant's sentence above the statutory maximum authorized by the jury's verdict. Under Apprendi v. New Jersey, this is:

Accepted Answer

Unconstitutional, because any fact increasing the penalty beyond the statutory maximum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt

Answer

Constitutional, because judges have traditional discretion at sentencing

Answer

Constitutional, if the finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence

Answer

Unconstitutional only in capital cases