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

Seibert bars the question-first, warn-later tactic because midstream Miranda warnings cannot effectively advise the suspect of his rights.

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

Barker v. Wingo established a four-factor balancing test for constitutional speedy trial claims, with dismissal with prejudice as the remedy for a violation.

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

Under Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, voluntariness of consent is judged by the totality of the circumstances, and warnings of the right to refuse are not required.

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

Jackson v. Virginia sets the due process standard for sufficiency review, deferring to the jury by viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

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

Shelton held that a suspended sentence that may end in incarceration may not be imposed unless the defendant was afforded counsel.

(UT Bar) Utah Bar Exam Practice Test

(UT Bar) Utah Bar Exam Practice Test

UT Bar Criminal Procedure 5