A defendant is charged with a felony. While in police custody, the defendant was questioned by officers and confessed. However, the officers did not inform the defendant of their right to refuse to answer questions or to have legal assistance during the questioning. At trial, the defendant seeks to suppress the confession. What is the BEST reason the defendant's confession is inadmissible?
The defendant was not told that all statements made during questioning could potentially be used against them at trial.
The confession was not supported by any additional evidence tying the defendant to the crime.
The confession was obtained after asking several leading questions during custody.
The defendant was not informed of their rights to remain silent and to consult with an attorney during questioning.
The correct answer is that the defendant was not informed of their rights to remain silent and to consult with an attorney during custodial questioning. This is a violation of the Fifth Amendment requirement that individuals in police custody must be advised of these rights before interrogation begins. Known as the Miranda rule, this safeguard is intended to prevent coerced confessions and to preserve the fairness of the criminal justice process. The other options fail because they do not address the fundamental procedural requirement of informing a suspect of their rights before questioning. For example, 'leading questions' or the lack of supporting evidence do not invalidate a confession unless these issues are tied to a constitutional violation, which is not indicated here.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.