Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Right To Counsel

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Right To CounselQuestion 1 of 20

A defendant was arrested and charged with burglary. At his arraignment, he was appointed counsel. While in jail awaiting trial, he sent a note to the prosecutors, stating, "I want to talk about my case. I don't need my lawyer for this." The prosecutors arranged a meeting with the defendant without notifying his defense counsel. They administered Miranda warnings, the defendant signed a waiver, and he confessed to the burglary.

Is the defendant's confession admissible? Select one.

Yes, because the defendant initiated the contact with the prosecutors and validly waived his right to counsel.

Yes, because the prosecutors provided fresh Miranda warnings, which is sufficient to protect his rights.

No, because once the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, all questioning must be done through defense counsel.

No, because any waiver of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel made without counsel present is presumptively invalid.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Right To Counsel

Practice Right To Counsel in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Right To Counsel, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Is the defendant's confession admissible? Select one.

Yes, because the defendant initiated the contact with the prosecutors and validly waived his right to counsel. (correct answer)
Yes, because the prosecutors provided fresh Miranda warnings, which is sufficient to protect his rights.
No, because once the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, all questioning must be done through defense counsel.
No, because any waiver of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel made without counsel present is presumptively invalid.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. Although the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached and he was represented, a defendant can waive this right. A waiver is valid if it is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. A key factor is who initiated the communication. Here, the defendant himself initiated contact with the prosecutors for the express purpose of discussing the case, and he explicitly stated he did not want his lawyer present. After receiving Miranda warnings, he signed a waiver. These facts strongly support a finding that he validly waived his Sixth Amendment rights. B is incorrect because Miranda warnings alone are not always sufficient to secure a valid waiver of the Sixth Amendment right, though they are a factor. C and D are incorrect because they state an absolute rule; the right can be waived if the defendant initiates the contact.

Question 2

Police suspected a man of committing a bank robbery. They had not yet secured an arrest warrant or filed charges. They arrested him for a minor, unrelated traffic violation to bring him to the station for questioning about the robbery. At the station, an officer began to question him about the traffic offense. The man said, "I'm not saying anything until I see a lawyer." The officer stopped questioning. Thirty minutes later, a different detective entered the room, gave the man fresh Miranda warnings, and began asking him about the bank robbery. The man waived his rights and confessed to the robbery.

The man's confession to the robbery is most likely... Select one.

Admissible, because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific and had not attached for the robbery.
Admissible, because the man's invocation of his right to counsel was related only to the traffic offense.
Inadmissible, because once a suspect in custody invokes the right to counsel, police may not re-initiate questioning about any offense. (correct answer)
Inadmissible, because the arrest for the traffic violation was a pretext to question him about the robbery.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The man was in custody and unequivocally invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel. Under Edwards v. Arizona, once a suspect in custody invokes this right, all interrogation must cease until counsel is present. This protection is not offense-specific. The police cannot circumvent this rule by waiting a short period and having a different officer ask about a different crime. A is incorrect because this is a Fifth Amendment issue, not a Sixth Amendment one, so the offense-specific nature of the Sixth Amendment is irrelevant. B is incorrect because the Fifth Amendment right to counsel is not offense-specific. D is incorrect because while the arrest may have been pretextual, the reason for suppression is the violation of the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to counsel, which is a more direct and certain basis.

Question 3

A defendant was arrested pursuant to a warrant for credit card fraud. He was taken to an interrogation room where police read him his Miranda rights. The defendant stated, "I want a lawyer." Interrogation ceased. The next day, he was brought before a magistrate for his initial appearance on the fraud charge. He was not yet represented by counsel. After the hearing, the police returned him to the interrogation room and began questioning him about a recent, unsolved homicide. They did not re-read the Miranda warnings.

The defendant confessed to the homicide. His confession is most likely... Select one.

Admissible, because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific, and he was being questioned about an uncharged crime.
Admissible, because the initial appearance for the fraud charge had no bearing on the investigation of the homicide.
Inadmissible, because his Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached at the initial appearance, preventing any subsequent police-initiated interrogation.
Inadmissible, because his invocation of the Fifth Amendment right to counsel the previous day prevented further interrogation on any crime while he remained in custody. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter a criminal procedure question involving both Miranda rights and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, you need to carefully track which constitutional protection applies and when each is triggered. The correct answer is D because once a suspect invokes their Fifth Amendment right to counsel during custodial interrogation, all police-initiated questioning must cease until an attorney is present. This rule from Edwards v. Arizona applies regardless of what crime the police want to discuss. Here, the defendant clearly invoked his right to counsel by stating "I want a lawyer," so the police violated Edwards by initiating questioning about the homicide the next day without his attorney present. Answer A incorrectly focuses on the Sixth Amendment, which is offense-specific and only attached to the fraud charge at the initial appearance. While true that the Sixth Amendment wouldn't protect against questioning about the uncharged homicide, this misses the broader Fifth Amendment protection that was already in effect. Answer B makes the same error as A by ignoring the continuing effect of the defendant's Miranda invocation from the previous day. Answer C incorrectly applies Sixth Amendment analysis. Although the right to counsel attached at the initial appearance for the fraud charge, the Sixth Amendment is indeed offense-specific, so it wouldn't prevent questioning about the separate homicide. Remember this key distinction: Fifth Amendment Miranda protections continue across all questioning while in custody after invocation, while Sixth Amendment protections only apply to the specific charged offense. Always check whether Edwards applies before analyzing Sixth Amendment issues.

Question 4

A man was arrested for armed robbery based on an arrest warrant issued by a magistrate. After being booked at the station, but before his initial appearance, police placed him in a live lineup. The man requested an attorney, but the police told him the lineup would proceed without one. An eyewitness identified the man in the lineup. The next day, the man was formally charged with armed robbery.

The defendant's attorney files a motion to suppress the pre-trial identification. How should the court rule on the motion? Select one.

Grant the motion, because the lineup was conducted after the defendant requested an attorney, in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights.
Grant the motion, because the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached at the time of the lineup. (correct answer)
Deny the motion, because a pre-charge lineup is not a critical stage of the criminal prosecution requiring the presence of counsel.
Deny the motion, unless the lineup procedure was so unnecessarily suggestive that it created a substantial likelihood of misidentification.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches upon the initiation of adversarial judicial proceedings. This can occur at various points, including a formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment. In some jurisdictions, the issuance of an arrest warrant and the subsequent arrest also marks the initiation of formal proceedings. Therefore, at the time of the lineup, the defendant's Sixth Amendment right had attached, and a post-attachment live lineup is a critical stage requiring the presence of counsel. A is incorrect because the Fifth Amendment right to counsel applies to custodial interrogation, not lineups. C is incorrect because while a pre-charge lineup is generally not a critical stage, here, adversarial proceedings had been initiated via the arrest warrant, making this a post-attachment lineup. D describes the due process standard for identifications, which is a separate issue from the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The primary violation here is the denial of counsel at a critical stage.

Question 5

A defendant was indicted by a grand jury for felony fraud. He retained an attorney who entered an appearance on his behalf. Two weeks later, investigators placed an undercover informant in the defendant's jail cell. The informant, following police instructions, did not ask any questions but listened as the defendant voluntarily boasted about the details of the fraud scheme. The defendant made several incriminating statements about the charged fraud.

The defendant's attorney moves to suppress the incriminating statements made to the informant. What is the most likely outcome of this motion? Select one.

The motion will be denied, because the informant did not interrogate the defendant but was merely a passive listener.
The motion will be denied, because the defendant's statements were voluntary and not the result of coercion.
The motion will be granted, because the government deliberately elicited incriminating statements from the defendant after his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached. (correct answer)
The motion will be granted, because the defendant was not given Miranda warnings before speaking with the informant.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which attaches after indictment, was violated. Under Massiah v. United States, the government may not deliberately elicit incriminating statements from an indicted defendant in the absence of their counsel. Placing an informant in a cell to gather information constitutes deliberate elicitation, even if the informant does not ask direct questions. A is incorrect because passive listening by a government agent sent to gather information is still considered 'deliberate elicitation.' B is incorrect because voluntariness is a Fifth Amendment/Due Process standard, not the standard for a Sixth Amendment violation of this type. The issue is the interference with the right to counsel, not coercion. D is incorrect because Miranda warnings are required for custodial interrogation, and the use of an undercover agent is not considered interrogation for Fifth Amendment purposes because the defendant does not know he is speaking to a state agent.

Question 6

During a custodial interrogation for suspicion of larceny, a suspect told detectives, "I'm not sure what to do, maybe a lawyer would know." The detectives responded, "It's up to you, but we can only record what you tell us yourself. Do you want to continue talking with us?" The suspect sighed and said, "Fine," then proceeded to make incriminating statements. He was later formally charged.

A motion to suppress the suspect's statements will most likely be... Select one.

Granted, because the detectives had a duty to stop the interrogation as soon as the suspect mentioned a lawyer.
Granted, because the detectives improperly minimized the importance of the suspect's right to counsel.
Denied, because the suspect's reference to a lawyer was ambiguous and not an unequivocal request for counsel. (correct answer)
Denied, because the suspect's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not yet attached at the time of the interrogation.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Under Davis v. United States, a suspect must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney. The statement, "maybe a lawyer would know," is a classic example of an ambiguous or equivocal reference to counsel. The police are not required to cease questioning in response to an ambiguous statement. A is incorrect because the duty to stop only arises from an unambiguous request. B is incorrect because while the detectives' response might be persuasive, it is not an independent constitutional violation that would lead to suppression so long as the initial statement was ambiguous. D states a correct legal principle (the 6th Amendment right had not attached) but it is not the dispositive reason; the issue is the suspect's failed invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel.

Question 7

A defendant was charged with securities fraud. Believing that all lawyers are corrupt, the defendant intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to counsel at his arraignment and proceeded pro se. The trial was complex, involving voluminous financial records. The defendant did a poor job cross-examining the prosecution's expert witnesses and failed to make several key evidentiary objections. He was convicted. He now appeals his conviction, arguing that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.

How is the appellate court likely to rule on the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel? Select one.

The conviction will be affirmed, because a defendant who voluntarily represents himself cannot later claim ineffective assistance of counsel. (correct answer)
The conviction will be affirmed, because the defendant failed to show that his own errors prejudiced the outcome of the trial.
The conviction will be reversed, because the complexity of the case made the defendant's waiver of counsel invalid.
The conviction will be reversed, because the trial court had a duty to appoint standby counsel to assist the defendant.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to counsel, but a defendant also has a right to represent himself (pro se) if he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waives his right to an attorney. A defendant who chooses to represent himself cannot thereafter complain that the quality of his own defense amounted to a denial of effective assistance of counsel. B is incorrect because the Strickland test for prejudice applies to claims against an attorney, not a pro se defendant. C is incorrect because while a court must ensure a waiver is valid, the complexity of the case does not invalidate an otherwise knowing and intelligent waiver. D is incorrect because while a court may appoint standby counsel, it is not constitutionally required to do so.

Question 8

The defendant's attorney files a motion to suppress the pre-trial identification. How should the court rule on the motion? Select one.

Grant the motion, because the lineup was conducted after the defendant requested an attorney, in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights.
Grant the motion, because the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached at the time of the lineup. (correct answer)
Deny the motion, because a pre-charge lineup is not a critical stage of the criminal prosecution requiring the presence of counsel.
Deny the motion, unless the lineup procedure was so unnecessarily suggestive that it created a substantial likelihood of misidentification.

Question 9

The defendant's attorney moves to suppress the incriminating statements made to the informant. What is the most likely outcome of this motion? Select one.

The motion will be denied, because the informant did not interrogate the defendant but was merely a passive listener.
The motion will be denied, because the defendant's statements were voluntary and not the result of coercion.
The motion will be granted, because the government deliberately elicited incriminating statements from the defendant after his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached. (correct answer)
The motion will be granted, because the defendant was not given Miranda warnings before speaking with the informant.

Question 10

Following his indictment for tax evasion, a defendant had his first meeting with his newly retained lawyer. The lawyer advised him to plead guilty. Displeased with this advice, the defendant fired the lawyer on the spot. At his next court appearance, the defendant informed the judge he had fired his lawyer and would find a new one. The judge gave him two weeks. The defendant failed to retain new counsel. At the next hearing, he again requested more time. The judge denied the request, stating the defendant was just trying to delay the trial, and ordered the trial to begin with the defendant representing himself.

The defendant was convicted. On appeal, what is his strongest argument? Select one.

His Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated because the court forced him to proceed to trial without an attorney. (correct answer)
His Sixth Amendment right was violated because he received ineffective assistance from his first lawyer.
His due process rights were violated because the judge's refusal to grant a continuance was an abuse of discretion.
His Sixth Amendment right was not violated because his failure to secure new counsel constituted a waiver of that right.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. A defendant has a right to counsel of his choice, but this right is not absolute and cannot be used solely to delay proceedings. However, a court cannot force a defendant to go to trial pro se simply because he has failed to secure counsel, unless his conduct amounts to a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel. Here, the defendant expressed his desire for counsel, and his failure to retain one in two weeks does not automatically constitute a waiver. Forcing him to trial without counsel under these circumstances is a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. B is incorrect because advice to plead guilty is not per se ineffective assistance. C is a plausible but weaker argument than the direct Sixth Amendment violation. D is incorrect because a waiver of the right to counsel must be explicit, knowing, and voluntary; it is not typically found by mere inaction, especially after only two weeks.

Question 11

The defendant confessed to the homicide. His confession is most likely... Select one.

Admissible, because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific, and he was being questioned about an uncharged crime.
Admissible, because the initial appearance for the fraud charge had no bearing on the investigation of the homicide.
Inadmissible, because his Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached at the initial appearance, preventing any subsequent police-initiated interrogation.
Inadmissible, because his invocation of the Fifth Amendment right to counsel the previous day prevented further interrogation on any crime while he remained in custody. (correct answer)

Question 12

A defendant was subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury investigating a drug trafficking ring. The defendant was told he was a target of the investigation. He appeared at the grand jury proceeding but was informed by the prosecutor that his attorney would have to wait outside the grand jury room. The defendant then refused to answer questions, asserting a right to have his counsel present during the questioning.

Does the defendant have a constitutional right to have his attorney present with him inside the grand jury room during questioning? Select one.

Yes, because a grand jury proceeding is a critical stage of a criminal prosecution.
Yes, because he is a target of the investigation, which triggers his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
No, because a grand jury proceeding is investigatory and is not an adversarial hearing that triggers the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. (correct answer)
No, but he does have a Fifth Amendment right to counsel inside the room if he is in custody at the time of the testimony.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The Supreme Court has held that a grand jury proceeding is not a 'critical stage' of criminal prosecution for Sixth Amendment purposes. It is an investigatory tool, and formal adversarial proceedings have not yet been initiated against the witness, even if they are a target. Therefore, there is no Sixth Amendment right to have counsel present inside the room. A is incorrect because a grand jury is not considered a critical stage. B is incorrect because being a 'target' does not, by itself, initiate adversarial proceedings and attach the Sixth Amendment right. D is incorrect because even if the witness were in custody, the Fifth Amendment right to counsel applies to police-initiated interrogation, not testimony before a grand jury, which has its own protections (like the privilege against self-incrimination).

Question 13

A woman was arrested for shoplifting a $50 item, a misdemeanor in the jurisdiction. At her arraignment, she pleaded not guilty. The judge asked if she wanted an attorney. She replied that she could not afford one. The judge, citing budget cuts, informed her that the court no longer appoints counsel for non-felony offenses. The woman represented herself at trial and was convicted. The judge sentenced her to a $500 fine and 100 hours of community service, but no jail time.

On appeal, the woman argues her Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated. Is she likely to succeed? Select one.

Yes, because an indigent defendant has a right to appointed counsel in any criminal proceeding.
Yes, because the potential for jail time, even if not imposed, triggers the right to counsel.
No, because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply to misdemeanors.
No, because she was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. The Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel for indigent defendants in misdemeanor cases attaches only if the defendant is actually sentenced to imprisonment. Since the woman was sentenced only to a fine and community service, and not to any jail time, her Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated by the court's failure to appoint an attorney. A is incorrect as the right is not absolute in all criminal proceedings. B is incorrect; under Scott v. Illinois, the right is triggered by the actual imposition of a jail sentence, not merely the possibility of one. C is incorrect as the right does apply to misdemeanors, but only when imprisonment is imposed.

Question 14

A defendant was indicted for a complex wire fraud scheme. At his arraignment, he validly waived his right to counsel and chose to represent himself. During pre-trial discovery, the prosecution produced over 50,000 pages of financial documents. The trial judge, concerned about the defendant's ability to manage the case, appointed a 'standby counsel' to be available for consultation, over the defendant's objection. The defendant rarely consulted the standby counsel and was ultimately convicted.

On appeal, the defendant argues that the appointment of standby counsel violated his Sixth Amendment rights. What is the likely result? Select one.

The conviction will be reversed, because the unwanted appointment of standby counsel violates the defendant's right to self-representation.
The conviction will be reversed, because the standby counsel's presence may have undermined the jury's perception of the defendant's autonomy.
The conviction will be affirmed, only if the standby counsel did not actively participate in the trial without the defendant's consent.
The conviction will be affirmed, because a court has the discretion to appoint standby counsel to ensure a fair trial, even over a defendant's objection. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter Sixth Amendment self-representation questions, focus on the balance between a defendant's autonomy and the court's need to maintain orderly proceedings. The key principle from Faretta v. California is that while defendants have the right to represent themselves, courts retain significant discretion to manage trials effectively. The correct answer is D because courts have broad authority to appoint standby counsel even over a defendant's objection. This appointment serves judicial efficiency and ensures backup assistance is available without violating Faretta rights. The Supreme Court has consistently held that standby counsel appointment alone doesn't infringe on self-representation rights, as long as the counsel doesn't actively interfere with the defendant's control over the case. Answer A is wrong because the mere appointment of standby counsel doesn't violate self-representation rights – only active interference without consent does. Answer B incorrectly assumes that jury perception issues automatically create constitutional violations; the defendant retains actual control over his defense strategy and presentation. Answer C sets too restrictive a standard by suggesting the conviction should only be affirmed conditionally – in reality, standby counsel appointment is presumptively valid regardless of participation level, as long as they don't usurp the defendant's decision-making authority. Remember this pattern: on bar exam criminal procedure questions involving self-representation, distinguish between appointment (almost always permissible) and interference (potentially problematic). Courts strongly favor maintaining trial management authority while respecting Faretta rights, so answers supporting judicial discretion are typically correct.

Question 15

A woman was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI), a misdemeanor. At the police station, she unequivocally requested an attorney. The police stopped their questioning. An hour later, before the attorney arrived, a different officer asked the woman to provide a handwriting sample for comparison with a forged check found in her car, a crime for which she was also a suspect but had not been charged. She provided the sample. At her DUI trial, the judge found her guilty and sentenced her to 30 days in jail.

Which of the following describes the most significant violation of the woman's constitutional rights? Select one.

Her Fifth Amendment right to counsel was violated when police took the handwriting sample after she had requested an attorney.
Her Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated because she was not provided an attorney for her misdemeanor DUI trial. (correct answer)
Her Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when police took the handwriting sample without her attorney present.
No violation occurred because taking a handwriting sample does not implicate the right to counsel and she received counsel for her trial.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to counsel in misdemeanor cases, but only if the defendant is actually sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Because the woman was sentenced to 30 days in jail for the DUI, she had a constitutional right to be represented by counsel at that trial. A is incorrect because the Fifth Amendment right to counsel applies to custodial interrogation, not to the compelled production of physical evidence like a handwriting sample, which is not testimonial. C is incorrect for two reasons: first, taking a handwriting sample is not a 'critical stage' for Sixth Amendment purposes, and second, her Sixth Amendment right had not yet attached for the forgery crime. D is incorrect because a clear constitutional violation occurred when she was sentenced to jail time without being afforded counsel for the trial.

Question 16

A defendant was charged with robbery. After his indictment, the prosecutor showed the victim a photo array containing six pictures, including one of the defendant. The defendant's attorney was not notified of, nor present at, the photo identification procedure. The victim identified the defendant. At trial, the defense attorney moved to suppress the identification.

How should the court rule on the motion to suppress the pre-trial photo identification? Select one.

Grant the motion, because a photo array is a critical stage of the prosecution that requires the presence of counsel once the Sixth Amendment right has attached.
Grant the motion, because the identification was the result of a custodial interrogation conducted without the defendant's counsel present.
Deny the motion, because a defendant does not have a Sixth Amendment right to have counsel present during a photo array identification procedure. (correct answer)
Deny the motion, because the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach until the trial itself begins.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The Supreme Court has held that a defendant does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a photo array identification, regardless of whether it occurs before or after the initiation of adversarial proceedings. Unlike a live lineup, a photo array is not considered a 'critical stage' requiring counsel's presence because the defendant is not physically present, and the procedure can be effectively reconstructed at trial. A is incorrect because it misstates the law; a photo array is not a critical stage. B is incorrect as a photo identification procedure is not an 'interrogation' of the defendant. D is incorrect because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches well before trial, upon the initiation of adversarial proceedings such as an indictment.

Question 17

You are representing a client who was arrested for burglary. During a custodial interrogation, your client told the police, "I want my lawyer." The interrogation ceased. Your client was then released from custody pending charges. Two months later, the same police department arrested him for an unrelated arson. They provided him with fresh Miranda warnings, and he agreed to speak without a lawyer present, subsequently confessing to the arson.

You are considering filing a motion to suppress the arson confession based on a violation of your client's right to counsel. What is the likely outcome of such a motion? Select one.

It will be granted, because once a suspect invokes the right to counsel, police may not re-initiate questioning about any crime without counsel present.
It will be granted, because the second interrogation concerned a crime that was investigated by the same police department.
It will be denied, because the defendant was not in custody for two months between the invocation of his right and the subsequent interrogation. (correct answer)
It will be denied, because the defendant's invocation of the right to counsel was only for the burglary charge and did not apply to the arson.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The protection of Edwards v. Arizona, which prevents police from re-initiating questioning after a suspect invokes their Fifth Amendment right to counsel, applies only to continuous custody. The Supreme Court held in Maryland v. Shatzer that if there is a break in custody of at least 14 days, the police may re-approach the suspect, provide fresh Miranda warnings, and seek a waiver. Here, the break in custody was two months, so the police were free to question him about the arson. A is incorrect because it fails to account for the break-in-custody exception. B is irrelevant. D is incorrect because the Fifth Amendment right to counsel, unlike the Sixth, is not offense-specific; however, the break-in-custody rule is dispositive here.

Question 18

A defendant was convicted of aggravated assault after a jury trial. At his sentencing hearing, the defendant's court-appointed attorney failed to appear. The defendant informed the judge that his attorney was unavailable. The judge, noting a crowded docket, decided to proceed with the sentencing anyway. The defendant spoke on his own behalf, and the judge sentenced him to the maximum term allowed by statute.

On appeal, what is the defendant's strongest argument that his constitutional rights were violated? Select one.

The court violated his right to a speedy trial by proceeding without his chosen counsel.
The court violated his Sixth Amendment right by denying him the assistance of counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings. (correct answer)
The court violated his due process rights by failing to grant a continuance so that his counsel could be present.
The court violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by forcing him to speak on his own behalf.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. Sentencing is a critical stage of a criminal prosecution to which the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies. The complete denial of counsel at a critical stage is a per se violation of the Sixth Amendment and requires automatic reversal. A is incorrect because proceeding with the hearing does not implicate the right to a speedy trial. C is a plausible argument, but the Sixth Amendment provides a more specific and powerful basis for appeal, as the denial of counsel at a critical stage is structural error. D is incorrect because the defendant was not compelled to incriminate himself; he was forced to proceed without the assistance of counsel for allocution and argument, which is a Sixth Amendment issue.

Question 19

A defendant was indicted for kidnapping. He was appointed counsel and released on bail. A month later, police arrested the same defendant for an unrelated murder that occurred after the kidnapping charge was filed. The officers, aware that the defendant had counsel for the kidnapping charge, provided him with Miranda warnings for the murder investigation. The defendant waived his rights and confessed to the murder.

The defendant's attorney files a motion to suppress the murder confession. The motion will most likely be... Select one.

Granted, because the police initiated questioning of a represented defendant without his counsel present.
Granted, because the murder and kidnapping are sufficiently related that the right to counsel carried over from one to the other.
Denied, because the defendant was not in custody for the kidnapping charge when he was questioned about the murder.
Denied, because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific and had not attached for the murder charge. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific. The fact that the defendant's right to counsel had attached for the kidnapping charge does not provide him with any Sixth Amendment protection regarding the separate, uncharged murder. Police are free to question a suspect about crimes for which the Sixth Amendment right has not attached. Because the questioning constituted a custodial interrogation, the police were required to give Miranda warnings, which they did. The defendant's waiver was effective for Fifth Amendment purposes. A is incorrect because the rule against questioning a represented defendant applies only to the specific offense for which he is represented. B is incorrect as the crimes are factually distinct and were charged separately. C is irrelevant; the critical fact is that he was in custody for the murder interrogation.

Question 20

On appeal, the woman argues her Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated. Is she likely to succeed? Select one.

Yes, because an indigent defendant has a right to appointed counsel in any criminal proceeding.
Yes, because the potential for jail time, even if not imposed, triggers the right to counsel.
No, because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply to misdemeanors.
No, because she was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment. (correct answer)