Question

sixth amendment lesson worksheet
a 16 - year - old boy asked to speak to his probation officer - not a
lawyer:
the supreme court ruled that asking for a probation officer is not the same as asking for
a lawyer:
the court applied the \totality of the circumstances\ test to determine whether the
juveniles waiver of rights was valid:
juvenile rights during interrogation can be limited unless the request for counsel is
explicit:
the case focuses on interpreting the sixth amendment. the court examined whether the
defendant understood their rights:
the courts decision significantly impacted criminal procedure
nationwide:
part 3: was this interrogation legal?
read the interrogation scenarios below and determine whether the interrogation is legal
based on the circumstances:

1. police bring in jordan, age 28, for questioning about a robbery. after hearing the

miranda warning, jordan says: \im not saying anything until i have a lawyer. i want a
lawyer right now.\
police respond: \we can get to that later, but first we need to know where you were last
night,\ and they continue questioning.
was this interrogation legal?

1. alicia, age 15, is questioned about vandalism at school. she seems nervous and

confused. after being read her rights, she says: \can i talk to my counselor? she
always helps me when im stressed.\
police say: \your counselor cant help you right now. just tell us what happened,\ and keep
questioning.
was this interrogation legal?

1. devon, age 16, is accused of stealing a bicycle. after ten minutes of questioning, he

says: \maybe i need a lawyer or something... i dont know what im supposed to do.\
police reply: \you dont need a lawyer if youre telling the truth,\ and they continue
questioning. was this interrogation legal?

Explanation:

1. Jordan's Case:

• The Sixth Amendment gives the right to counsel. When Jordan clearly asked for a lawyer ("I want a lawyer right now"), the police should have stopped questioning. Continuing to question violates his right to counsel as established in cases like Miranda v. Arizona (right to remain silent and right to counsel; once counsel is requested, questioning should stop).

1. Alicia's Case:

• The problem states that asking for a probation officer (or in this case, a counselor which is similar in the context of the worksheet's earlier discussion) is not the same as asking for a lawyer. Also, juvenile rights during interrogation can be limited unless the request for counsel is explicit. Alicia asked for her counselor (not a lawyer - explicit request for counsel as per the legal standard in the worksheet's context) and the police's actions are in line with the "totality of the circumstances" (she is a minor, but her request was not for a lawyer).

1. Devon's Case:

• Devon's statement “Maybe I need a lawyer or something... I don't know what I'm supposed to do” is not an explicit request for a lawyer (it is ambiguous). According to the principle that juvenile rights during interrogation can be limited unless the request for counsel is explicit (as per the worksheet's earlier content), the police's continued questioning is legal as there was no clear - cut demand for a lawyer.

Answer:

1. Not legal
2. Legal
3. Legal