Bar Exam — MBE (Multistate Bar Exam)Criminal Law and ProcedureMedium
A defendant is arrested and taken to the police station. Before being interrogated, the defendant is informed of his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney. The defendant states, 'I think I should talk to a lawyer.' The police then continue to question the defendant, who eventually confesses. Is the confession admissible in court?
- ANo, because the defendant unambiguously invoked his right to counsel.
- BYes, because the police did not coerce the confession.
- CNo, because the defendant was not given a chance to call a lawyer.
- DYes, because the defendant did not explicitly say 'I want a lawyer.'
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: A. No, because the defendant unambiguously invoked his right to counsel.
Once a suspect unequivocally invokes their right to counsel under Miranda, all interrogation must cease until counsel is present or the suspect initiates further communication with the police. The statement 'I think I should talk to a lawyer' is generally considered an unambiguous invocation.
Why the other options are wrong
- B. Even if not coerced, a confession obtained in violation of a Miranda right to counsel is inadmissible.
- C. The issue is not whether they were given a chance to call, but whether questioning ceased once the right to counsel was invoked.
- D. Under Miranda, an ambiguous statement about a lawyer is not enough to stop questioning, but 'I think I should talk to a lawyer' is generally considered unambiguous, requiring cessation of questioning.
Miranda Right to Counsel Invocation
Once a suspect in custody unequivocally invokes their right to an attorney (e.g., 'I want a lawyer' or similar clear statement), police interrogation must cease.
- Invocation must be unambiguous.
- Once invoked, police cannot reinitiate questioning unless counsel is present or the suspect initiates further contact.
- Applies to custodial interrogations.
Memory trick: SILENCE and LAWYER are YOUR RIGHTS.