Fact pattern (custodial interrogation)
Jordan Lee is arrested for suspected burglary and is taken to a small interview room at the police station. The door is closed. An officer tells Jordan, “You’re not free to leave until we clear this up.”
Before asking questions, the officer does not read Miranda warnings. The officer starts asking Jordan where they were that night and says, “If you cooperate, I can tell the prosecutor you helped yourself.”
After several minutes, Jordan says, “I think I should talk to a lawyer.” The officer replies, “Lawyers just slow things down. If you didn’t do anything, you don’t need one,” and continues questioning.
Jordan then says, “I’m done talking,” but the officer keeps asking questions anyway. A little later, Jordan says, “Fine—I was at the house,” and signs a written statement.
Assume this all happened in the United States and Jordan is 17 years old.
What is the primary purpose of an interrogation?
Which amendment protects against self-incrimination?
What is a confession?
When are confessions most reliable?
In 3–5 sentences, explain whether Jordan’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated. Use at least two facts from the scenario (custody, Miranda warnings, asking for a lawyer, remaining silent) to support your reasoning.
When Jordan said, “I think I should talk to a lawyer,” what should the officer have done to best protect Jordan’s Fifth Amendment rights during custodial interrogation?
Because the officer did not read Miranda warnings, which evidence is most likely to be excluded under the Fifth Amendment?
At the start of the interview (before Jordan asked for a lawyer), was police questioning likely a “custodial interrogation” that required Miranda warnings?
After Jordan said, “I’m done talking,” and the officer kept questioning, what is the best conclusion?