Carlos is taken into custody for theft. During the questioning, he indicates that he wants legal representation. The officers continue to interrogate him without providing a lawyer. What is the most likely consequence regarding any remarks Carlos made after requesting legal assistance?
Carlos’s remarks are admissible provided he voluntarily waived his right to legal representation.
Carlos’s remarks are used as evidence since he was informed of his rights upon arrest.
Carlos’s remarks are inadmissible because his request for legal representation was not honored.
Carlos’s remarks are admissible because the officers did not promise to delay questioning.
After Carlos invoked his right to legal representation, the police must cease questioning until his lawyer is present. Continuing the interrogation without honoring his request violates his Sixth Amendment rights, rendering any subsequent statements inadmissible in court. Other options suggest conditional admissibility or rely on aspects not directly relevant to the invocation of the right to counsel, which do not align with constitutional protections.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does invoking the right to legal representation mean?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the Sixth Amendment rights related to legal representation?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What happens if police continue questioning after a request for an attorney?