A woman was arrested, given Miranda warnings, and questioned about an armed robbery. After she asked to speak with an attorney, the police stopped questioning her about the robbery. Several hours later, the police gave the woman a fresh set of Miranda warnings and began to question her about a different robbery. She did not repeat her request for an attorney and instead made several incriminating statements about the robbery. At the woman's trial for the robbery for which she made incriminating statements, the prosecution seeks to have her statements introduced into evidence.

If the woman's attorney objects on appropriate grounds, how should the court rule?

Question

Social Studies

Gardner

10 March, 15:14

A woman was arrested, given Miranda warnings, and questioned about an armed robbery. After she asked to speak with an attorney, the police stopped questioning her about the robbery. Several hours later, the police gave the woman a fresh set of Miranda warnings and began to question her about a different robbery. She did not repeat her request for an attorney and instead made several incriminating statements about the robbery. At the woman's trial for the robbery for which she made incriminating statements, the prosecution seeks to have her statements introduced into evidence.

If the woman's attorney objects on appropriate grounds, how should the court rule?

+1

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Jesus Cortez · Answer 1

The court should sustain the objection

Explanation:

The woman may have her statements excluded for the purpose of evidence for prosecution. This will be based on the fact that the police did not honor the woman's request for an attorney and went ahead to proceed with custodial investigation (violation of Miranda's right to counsel). All questions should have therefore ceased until the accused is provided with an attorney or initiates further questioning herself. On this basis the court should sustain the objection.