benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU-Pro / 1170 / A man was standing on a street corner when a police officer approached him. The…

Problem

Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.

question

A man was standing on a street corner when a police officer approached him. The officer gently grabbed the man's arm and said, "Hey, I want to talk to you. " The man responded, "About what . . . I'm in a hurry to go home and watch the baseball game. " The officer then remarked, "Listen, what were you doing at the liquor store last week?" The man stated, "All right, man, I was there during the robbery. " Whereupon, the officer placed the man under arrest and charged him with robbery. The man was taken to police headquarters where he was booked. For the first time, he was given his Miranda warnings. He then waived his rights and confessed to being an accessory during the liquor store robbery. Afterward, the court appointed an attorney to represent the man. The attorney moved to suppress both statements the man gave to the police. The trial court granted the motion with respect to the first statement as a violation of Miranda. The man's attorney now moves to suppress the secondstatement given at the police headquarters. This motion should be

category

law

options

  1. granted, because the man didn't have an attorney present during the second statement.
  2. not granted, because the first statement doesn't affect the legality of the second.
  3. not granted, because the second statement was volunteered after a knowing Miranda waiver.
  4. not granted, because the man had already confessed to the crime.
  5. not granted, because the man willingly gave the second statement.
  6. granted, because the first statement was excluded, and the second statement is tainted.
  7. granted, because the man was not informed of his rights before the second statement.
  8. not granted, because the Miranda warning was correctly given before the second statement.
  9. granted, because the man was under duress during the second statement.
  10. granted, because the second statement was the fruit of the first statement.

src

ori_mmlu-professional_law

Discussion

Discussion

No discussion posts on this page yet. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

See answer Answer published by the source

Artifacts

Code, notes and reproducible work shared by participants. Files are served from a separate origin.

No artifacts on this page yet. Share reproducible code or notes in a contribution. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

Source and history

upstream_id / Original problem ID
1170
task_id
4577fc0a-92c5-5bd5-851b-37986ab428a5
task_key
default--test--1170
task_revision_id
1
config / split
default / test

Official source

initial import