Frank Curdew in taken in handcuffs to the police station and charged with stealing chickens. He is taken into a room with the words “Interrogation Room” written in large letters across the door. He is told to sit down and wait for an officer to come in, and the door is closed and locked behind him. In the room is a table which contains paper and a pen. After twenty minutes of waiting, Frank decides he might as well get this over with and writes out his confession. Can the confession be used against him at trial?

Yes, because it is written in his own handwriting and there is no doubt that he was the author of the confession.
Yes, because it is written in ink and not in pencil.
Yes, because he was not in custody.
Yes, because there was no interrogation.

In the set of facts above, assume that the paper placed on the table said “Confession Form” at the top. It further reads “I, Frank Curdew, hereby admit my fault and confess to violating U.S.C.A. Section 435.7, theft of poultry and transportation thereof across state lines.” After twenty minutes of waiting, as beads of sweat fall from Curdew’s face onto the paper, he signs the form and starts pounding on the door “Now let me out you monsters!” Can the confession be used against him at trial?

Yes, because it was signed by him, there is no doubt that his signature is authentic, and there was no interrogation.
Yes, because it cites the specific statute which he is accused of violating rather than a generic confession..
No, because he was in custody and not offered an attorney.
No, because the form constitutes an interrogation.

P. G. Herman is a suspected of various sex crimes. Officer Dirk Diggler follows Herman into an X-rated movie theater and sits down next to him. “I’m Officer Diggler, and I want to know what you’ve been doing lately, Herman. I know you’re up to no good, and that you’re a pervert. Come clean, Herman, come clean. Tell me now, Herman. C’mon, let’s hear it. Well? How about it?” Diggler continues in this vein for several minutes at which point Herman confesses.

Evaluate the following statement: Herman’s extrajudicial confession cannot be used against him at his criminal trial because his Fifth Amendment rights would be violated by such use.

TRUE, because the interrogation was conducted before Herman was read a Miranda warning.
FALSE, because no Miranda warning was required for the interrogation.

P. G. Herman is in trouble again. He has been taken into custody by the L.A.P.D. for stealing newspapers and is sitting in the hallway handcuffed to a bench. Patrolman Peters is just coming into the precinct house at the end of a long, hard shift. Too tired to make it to the locker room, he decides to sit on the hallway bench and catch his breath. Noticing Herman, he asks “Hey, didn’t I see you soliciting prostitution the other night?” Herman replies “Were you in that patrol car? Yeah, that was me. Couldn’t agree on a price, though, so I went home alone.” Can Herman’s confession to Peters be used against him at his criminal trial?

Yes, because Peters asked him about a matter unrelated to the crime for which he had been taken into custody.
Yes, because Peters was engaging in casual conversation and not actually questioning the suspect.
No, because Peter’s question constituted an interrogation.
No, because Herman’s confession was not a sworn statement of guilt.