VA Bar Criminal Procedure 3 ā Questions and Answers
Question 1: A suspect is arrested, placed in an interrogation room, and questioned without receiving Miranda warnings. He confesses. What is the admissibility of this confession?
- Admissible, because Miranda only applies after formal charges are filed
- Inadmissible, because custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings violates the Fifth Amendment (Correct answer)
- Admissible, if the confession was otherwise voluntary
- Inadmissible only if the suspect had previously invoked his right to silence
Correct answer: Inadmissible, because custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings violates the Fifth Amendment
Miranda requires that suspects in custody receive warnings before interrogation; statements obtained in violation of this rule are generally inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief.
Question 2: After Miranda warnings, a suspect says, 'Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.' Officers continue questioning and obtain incriminating statements. Under Davis v. United States, how should courts treat this statement?
- As an unambiguous invocation that immediately halts all questioning
- As an ambiguous request that does not require officers to cease questioning (Correct answer)
- As an implied waiver of the right to counsel
- As an automatic invocation requiring a mandatory 24-hour pause
Correct answer: As an ambiguous request that does not require officers to cease questioning
Davis v. United States held that an equivocal or ambiguous request for counsel does not require officers to stop questioning; the suspect must make an unambiguous invocation.
Question 3: A suspect unambiguously invokes his right to remain silent. Three hours later, a different officer re-advises Miranda rights and begins questioning a different crime. The suspect then makes incriminating statements. Are they admissible under Michigan v. Mosley?
- No, because invoking silence is a permanent bar to all subsequent questioning during custody
- Yes, because officers scrupulously honored the invocation, sufficient time passed, and fresh warnings were given (Correct answer)
- No, because any renewed questioning after invocation is per se unconstitutional
- Yes, because new Miranda warnings always reset the right to silence
Correct answer: Yes, because officers scrupulously honored the invocation, sufficient time passed, and fresh warnings were given
Mosley permits renewed questioning after a reasonable time if officers scrupulously honor the prior invocation, re-advise Miranda, and limit new questions to a different crime.
Question 4: During a routine traffic stopābefore any arrestāan officer asks, 'Have you had anything to drink tonight?' and the driver admits to drinking. The defendant moves to suppress this as a Miranda violation. Should the court suppress it?
- Yes, because any question designed to elicit incriminating information requires Miranda warnings
- No, because Miranda only applies to custodial interrogation, and a routine traffic stop does not constitute custody (Correct answer)
- Yes, because the question was objectively likely to elicit an incriminating response
- No, because the driver answered voluntarily
Correct answer: No, because Miranda only applies to custodial interrogation, and a routine traffic stop does not constitute custody
Berkemer v. McCarty held that ordinary traffic stops do not constitute custody for Miranda purposes, so no warnings are required before roadside questioning.
Question 5: A suspect invokes his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at arraignment on a robbery charge. Days later, police approach him in jail and question him about an unrelated burglary; he makes incriminating statements about both crimes. Under McNeil v. Wisconsin, what is the result?
- The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific, so it does not bar questioning about the uncharged burglary (Correct answer)
- All questioning is barred because any invocation of counsel prevents future interrogation
- The statements about the robbery are admissible but those about burglary are not
- All statements are suppressed because counsel was invoked before any questioning
Correct answer: The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific, so it does not bar questioning about the uncharged burglary
McNeil v. Wisconsin established that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, once invoked, is offense-specific and does not automatically bar police questioning about separate, uncharged crimes.
Question 6: A suspect receives Miranda warnings and makes a statement, but later claims police promised leniency in exchange for his cooperation. If the promise of leniency is proven, this affects admissibility how?
- The statement remains admissible because proper Miranda warnings were given
- The statement is inadmissible under the voluntariness test regardless of Miranda compliance (Correct answer)
- The statement is admissible only if counsel was present during interrogation
- The statement is inadmissible only if the promise was in writing
Correct answer: The statement is inadmissible under the voluntariness test regardless of Miranda compliance
A confession induced by police promises of leniency is involuntary under the Due Process Clause and is inadmissible even if Miranda warnings were properly given.
Question 7: Under the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, which of the following CANNOT be compelled from a defendant over his objection?
- A blood sample to test for alcohol content
- Handwriting exemplars
- Testimonial or communicative disclosures (Correct answer)
- Voice exemplars for comparison purposes
Correct answer: Testimonial or communicative disclosures
The Fifth Amendment protects only testimonial or communicative evidence; physical evidence such as blood, handwriting, or voice exemplars is not protected by the privilege.
VA Bar Criminal Procedure 3
A suspect is arrested, placed in an interrogation room, and questioned without receiving Miranda warnings.
He confesses.
What is the admissibility of this confession?