Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
25. How should the court proceed?
A defendant was on trial for burglary. The prosecutor called the arresting officer to testify that shortly after her arrest and interrogation, the defendant had orally admitted her guilt to the officer. Before the officer testified, the defendant objected that no Miranda warnings had been given to her, and she requested a hearing outside the presence of the jury to hear evidence on that issue.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
B is incorrect. Rule 104(c)(1) of the FRE provides that the court must conduct a hearing on the admissibility of a confession outside the hearing of the jury.
C is incorrect. Oral confessions are also admissible in criminal cases.
D is incorrect. A confession of a criminal defendant is indeed a statement of a party-opponent, and statements of party-opponents are admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(A) of the FRE. But the rules of evidence cannot alter the constitutional requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a confession made by a person under arrest and subjected to interrogation is admissible.