Ambiguous Invocation
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- CRIMINAL1
Example wrong choices
14585_boathouse_fire · CRIMINAL · Choice AYes, because Peter effectively asserted the right to counsel, and the question "Why would you want to talk with a lawyer?" constituted custodial interrogation.
Why it's attractive
Treats the ambiguous lawyer remark as if it were a clear invocation.
Why it's wrong
Treats the ambiguous lawyer remark as if it were a clear invocation.
14585_boathouse_fire · CRIMINAL · Choice BYes, because although Peter did not effectively assert the right to counsel, his conduct before making the statement did not constitute a valid waiver of his Miranda rights.
Why it's attractive
Invents a waiver problem after the facts already gave a yes.
Why it's wrong
Invents a waiver problem after the facts already gave a yes.
14585_boathouse_fire · CRIMINAL · Choice CNo, because although Peter effectively asserted the right to counsel, the question "Why would you want to talk with a lawyer?" did not constitute custodial interrogation.
Why it's attractive
Focuses on whether the detective's follow-up was interrogation instead of whether Peter clearly invoked counsel.
Why it's wrong
Focuses on whether the detective's follow-up was interrogation instead of whether Peter clearly invoked counsel.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →