VA Bar Criminal Procedure 3

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?

Accepted Answer

Inadmissible, because custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings violates the Fifth Amendment

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

As an ambiguous request that does not require officers to cease questioning

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

Yes, because officers scrupulously honored the invocation, sufficient time passed, and fresh warnings were given

Answer

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 stop—before any arrest—an 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?

Accepted Answer

No, because Miranda only applies to custodial interrogation, and a routine traffic stop does not constitute custody

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific, so it does not bar questioning about the uncharged burglary

Answer

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.

(VA Bar) Virginia Bar Exam Practice Test

(VA Bar) Virginia Bar Exam Practice Test

VA Bar Criminal Procedure 3