Miranda v. Arizona Interactions








Frank, an undercover cop, is at Drew’s house watching a football game. Drew is an illegal arms dealer. Frank has spent months establishing his cover and Drew believes him to be just another street thug with connections to people with money. When the game is over Frank leaps from his chair and yells “I’m not lettin’ you outta here until you tell me who supplies you with your guns!” Drew gets scared and tells Frank everything he knows. Frank then tell Drew that he’s a cop and arrests Drew. Can Drew’s extrajudicial confession be used against him in a court of law?
Choice 1 Yes, because he didn’t insist on having counsel present during questioning.
Choice 2 Yes, because he didn’t exercise his right to remain silent.
Choice 3 Yes, because there was no government action.
Choice 4 Yes, because by answering the question, Drew explicitly waived his privilege.
David is arrested for real estate fraud and is properly Mirandized. After several minutes of questioning David says “I don’t want to talk to you guys any more. I got the right to remain silent,” and makes a gesture of closing a zipper on his mouth. He is brought to the general holding cell and left there for about one hour. David is then brought back to the interrogation room, given his Miranda warnings again, and asked about the recent theft of some rare guitars. He answers the first few questions, telling police where he hid the stolen instruments. Then, as if suddenly realizing that he had asserted his right to remain silent, he makes the zipper gesture once again and falls silent. Can his responses regarding the location of the guitars be used against him at trial?
Choice 1 Yes, because he was given his Miranda warnings and voluntarily chose to waive his right to remain silent by answering the questions.
Choice 2 Yes, because he was arrested for a separate crime and the Fifth Amendment privileges therefore do not apply to the case of the stolen guitars.
Choice 3 No, because police violated his rights by questioning him after he had asserted his Miranda rights during earlier questioning.
Choice 4 No, because by re-asserting his Fifth Amendment rights the privilege against self-incrimination is retroactively applied to the beginning of the second interrogation session.
When David asserts his right to remain silent regarding the guitar case, he opened his mouth again to say “And I’m not answering any more questions about those damn guitars until my lawyer gets here.” Unfortunately, David’s lawyer is taking his afternoon nap and cannot get there anytime soon. He is put back in the holding cell, and two hours later he is once again brought to the now-familiar interrogation room. He is truthfully informed that his lawyer won’t be able to get there for another few hours and he is given his Miranda warnings yet again. His questioners then point out that if he cooperates he might be able to get himself out before his lawyer even gets there, and then ask him some questions about a hit-and-run case involving a car matching the description of his Toyota. He refuses to answer the first few questions but finally blurts out in response “Yeah, that was my car, but I drink a lot and I don’t remember anything like that happening. I just woke up one morning and found the dents and blood.” Can this statement be used against David in his trial?
Choice 1 Yes, because he was given his Miranda warnings and voluntarily chose to waive his right to remain silent by answering the questions.
Choice 2 Yes, because he was truthfully told of the delay in his lawyer’s arrival and chose to answer the question in the absence of his lawyer.
Choice 3 No, because after asserting his right to counsel all questioning on all matters must cease until counsel arrives.
Choice 4 No, because the statement was obviously coerced.
Stew retired to Florida a few years ago to enjoy the sunshine and mellow atmosphere. Unfortunately, relaxing comes hard to Stew, knowing that he retired from a life in organized crime in New Jersey and could still end up doing time for some of his crimes. When Stew’s house is robbed he goes to the local police precinct to file a report. Coincidentally, the officer taking the report used to be a New Jersey cop, and remembers Stew from his days there. While taking down some standard information like name and address Officer Alto asks “Hey, you remember that year when all those trucks got hijacked? I wonder what happened to the trucks. They never was found.” Stew replies “Yeah? I’m pretty sure dem trucks got dumped in da river. Yeah…pretty damn sure.” Stew’s response is best characterized as:
Choice 1 A confession
Choice 2 An admission
Choice 3 An explicit waiver of privilege
Choice 4 An implicit waiver of privilege
Stew’s comments to Alto are enough for Alto to take him into custody for further questioning. He is brought to an interrogation room and asked more questions about the trucks. He is not given a Miranda warning. At one point during the interrogation, Stew responds to a question by saying that “Jimmy Kay was in on the whole bit. He drove dem trucks from da warehouse in Joisey and put ‘em in da river.”

Which of the following is most accurate?

Choice 1 The statement can be used against both Stew and Jimmy at trial.
Choice 2 The statement cannot be used against either Stew or Jimmy at trial.
Choice 3 The statement can be used against Stew at trial but not against Jimmy.
Choice 4 The statement can be used against Jimmy at trial but not against Stew.
Simple Simon is taken into custody and brought to the police station for questioning. Officer E. M. Pethy gives Simon the following warning in lieu of reading the usual Miranda statement prepared by the District Attorney’s office:

“You don’t have to talk to us and you don’t have to say anything you don’t want to say, Simon. You can wait until your lawyer gets here and stay quiet until then. But if you do feel like saying something, remember it could hurt you in court, because we could use it against you.”

Simon says “I want to tell you everything. I touched them. I touched their heads, and I touched their hips.” Can the statement be used against Simon in his trial?

Choice 1 Yes, because Miranda does not require any specific language of warning.
Choice 2 Yes, because Simon did not make the comment in response to a specific question, so there was no interrogation.
Choice 3 No, because he was not properly read the Miranda warning endorsed by the District Attorney.
Choice 4 No, because he was not told that these were his “rights.”

© 2003 - 2007 National Paralegal College