1. Berghuis v. Thompkins: The defendant was involved in a shooting incident in which one person was killed and the other injured. The police interrogated him after issuing the Miranda warnings. The defendant kept silent for nearly three hours. To an officer's question "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" the defendant answered "yes." The Court in the case held that the police ___________ the defendant's right to remain silent.

		violated
		did not violate

10 points

QUESTION 61

1. Which one of the followings represents the ruling of the Court?

		If there is no unambiguous indication from a suspect as to whether he wants to exercise his right to remain silent, the police must do their best to judge whether he wants to exercise his right.
		If there is no unambiguous indication from a suspect as to whether he wants to exercise his right to remain silent, the police may presume that he does not want to exercise the right.

10 points

QUESTION 62

1. In Berghuis v. Thompkins, with respect to whether the defendant waived his right to remain silent the Court held that _________________.

		the defendant did not waive his right
		the defendant waived his right expressly by signing a waiver card
		the defendant waived his right implicitly by engaging in conduct insistent with the exercise of the right

10 points

QUESTION 63

1. Paul was arrested for burglary. After his arrest, his sister retained a lawyer for him. The lawyer called the police and asked that they not interrogate Paul. The police nonetheless interrogated Paul without informing him of the lawyer retained for him by his sister. The police issued the Miranda warnings. Paul stated that he understood his rights and he wanted to talk to the police. He confessed to the crime. At trial, Paul requests for exclusion of his confession. If you were the judge, you should rule that the police ________________ Paul's Miranda rights.

		violated
		did not violate

10 points

QUESTION 64

1. Schmerber v. California : The defendant was convicted of drunk driving. He was arrested at a hospital while receiving treatment for injuries suffered in an accident caused by his drunk driving. The police asked a physician to draw his blood for chemical analysis over the defendant's objection. The defendant argued that forcing him to provide incriminating evidence (the blood) violated his Fifth Amendment right. The Court held that the police action _____________ the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

		violated
		did not violate

10 points

QUESTION 65

1. In the case, the defendant claimed that the police violated his Fourth Amendment right for they conducted an illegal search of his body. Which one of the followings describes the ruling of the Court?

		The police violated his right because they forcefully drew blood from him.
		The police violated his right because they did not have probable cause to draw his blood.
		The police did not violate his right because they had a warrant to draw his blood.
		The police did not violate his right because they had probable cause to arrest him and there was an emergency.

10 points

QUESTION 66

1. Doug is on trial for murder. The police found a bloody glove at the scene of the crime and believed that it was left there by Doug. The prosecution at trial asks Doug to put on the glove. Doug refuses, claiming that the request violates the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. If you were the judge, you should rule that the request ___________ in violation of the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

		is
		is not

1

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

QUESTION 60 The Court in Berghuis v Thompkins held that the police violated the defendants right to ... View the full answer