MBE Rules · Criminal Procedure
Miranda warnings
Miranda v. Arizona
The rule
Before custodial interrogation, police must warn the suspect of (1) right to remain silent, (2) anything said can be used against them, (3) right to attorney, (4) right to appointed attorney if indigent. Violation makes statements inadmissible in prosecution's case-in-chief (may be used for impeachment).
In plain English
Before questioning someone in custody, police must tell them their rights, like staying silent and having a lawyer. If they don't, what the person says can't be used in court, except to challenge their honesty.
Worked example
Officer A arrests the defendant and starts asking questions without giving Miranda warnings. The defendant confesses. In court, the confession can't be used to prove guilt, but it could be used if the defendant lies on the stand.
Memory hook
Miranda: Silence, Words, Lawyer, Free. Before questioning, silence is golden, words can hurt, lawyer's a must, and free if broke.
The trap
Students think: Miranda applies to all police encounters. Wrong, because it only applies to custodial interrogation. The actual test is custody + questioning.
How examiners test it
The MBE loves: suspect questioned in police station without warnings. Trap: assuming Miranda applies only if formal arrest, but custody means freedom curtailed.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.