benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU / A defendant was prosecuted for murder. At trial, the prosecutor called a police…

Problem

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

question

A defendant was prosecuted for murder. At trial, the prosecutor called a police detective to testify. The detective, who questioned the defendant at the station house after his arrest, testified that the defendant initially declared his innocence. The detective further testified that when given the opportunity to take a lie detector test, the defendant refused. The defendant's attorney did not object to the detective's testimony. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to prison. The defendant, who is now represented by a new attorney, appeals, claiming that it was error to admit the detective's testimony. The appellate court should find

choices

  1. plain error, because the trial court should have acted on its own motion to order reference to the lie detector test stricken.
  2. plain error, because admission of the detective's testimony violated the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination.
  3. harmless error, because the defendant's trial attorney failed to preserve the argument by timely objection.
  4. harmless error, because the defendant's statements were admissions.

subject

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

Official source

initial import