Understanding Voluntariness in Interrogation

A courtroom scene showing an interrogation, with a police officer, a suspect, and legal books in the background, emphasizing themes of justice and legal rights.

Understanding Voluntariness in Interrogation

Test your knowledge on the common laws of voluntariness in police interrogations through our engaging quiz. Each question is designed to challenge your understanding of the factors that affect the validity of confessions and witnesses' statements.

Explore scenarios involving interrogations, confession pressures, and legal implications. Topics covered include:
- Atmosphere of oppression
- Hope of advantage
- Police trickery
- Lack of an operating mind
- Fear of prejudice

6 Questions2 MinutesCreated by QuestioningTruth42
When police officers brought Andy in for questioning about his role in a drug running operation, he had just been in a bar fight and was bleeding from his nose, eyebrow and knuckles. He was intoxicated and acting in a belligerent manner. The officers put him in a holding cell for 2 hours without giving him medical attention for his injuries. Andy slept in the cell for most of the time and was then awakened and questioned for hours without food or water. He was noticeably dazed and sleepy throughout the interview. Andy finally confessed to being involved in the drug running operation after 4 hours of interrogation. What 2 common-laws on voluntariness were breached in this example?
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Officer Salsari has a suspect in custody who he believes is guilty of arson. The suspect, Calvin, is suspected of starting fires in the apartment building he manages with his wife, Helen. Officer Salsari tells Calvin that if he confesses to starting the fires, they will go easy on his wife. What is this an example of?
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Amanda and Jeff were driving home after dinner one night. Jeff was driving and Amanda was in the passenger seat. Jeff lost control of his car and swerved into oncoming traffic. He was killed instantly and the driver and passenger in the car he hit were also killed. Amanda was injured but still alive. Based on eyewitness accounts of Jeff’s erratic driving, the police suspected that Jeff might have been intoxicated. Immediately following the accident, officers questioned Amanda about how many drinks they had consumed that evening. Amanda was visibly upset and appeared to be in shock while they questioned her, but she did say that they had been drinking at dinner. When this case went to trial months later, the judge deemed Amanda’s statements inadmissible in court. Which common-law on voluntariness was breached in this example?
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Donny is being questioned about his possible role in an armed robbery. The investigator tells Donny that if he doesn’t confess to the crime, he will be held in police custody and won’t be allowed to see his wife who is waiting for him at the police station. What is this an example of?
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Detectives Rodriguez and Smyth have been working a homicide case for 5 weeks without catching a break. A young woman named Althea was brutally raped and murdered in her apartment late one night. The suspect wore a condom and carefully cleaned the body and crime scene leaving no physical evidence behind. After diligent detective work, they finally discovered that her ex-boyfriend, Sammy had been released from prison 2 days before the murder and that when he was in prison he had told his cell mate that he planned to go see Althea when he was released. Based on interviews with Althea’s friends and family members the detectives discovered that Althea had played a role in Sammy’s incarceration and that Sammy had found that out while in prison. They bring Sammy in for questioning but he won’t answer any of their questions and eventually asks for a lawyer. The detectives are sure Sammy is responsible for murdering Althea and they decide to get a fellow officer to impersonate a public defender. They send this “public defender” in to speak with Sammy and Sammy confesses to raping and murdering Althea. When this case went to trial months later, the judge deemed Sammy’s confession inadmissible in court. Which common-law on voluntariness was breached in this example?
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
Lack of an operating mind; atmosphere of oppression
{"name":"Understanding Voluntariness in Interrogation", "url":"https://www.quiz-maker.com/QPREVIEW","txt":"Test your knowledge on the common laws of voluntariness in police interrogations through our engaging quiz. Each question is designed to challenge your understanding of the factors that affect the validity of confessions and witnesses' statements.Explore scenarios involving interrogations, confession pressures, and legal implications. Topics covered include:- Atmosphere of oppression- Hope of advantage- Police trickery- Lack of an operating mind- Fear of prejudice","img":"https:/images/course5.png"}
Powered by: Quiz Maker