A confession obtained violates the right to counsel if which factor occurs?

A confession obtained violates the right to counsel if which factor occurs?

• A. A valid knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver was made
• B. The confession was deliberately solicited by the police
• C. The defendant had counsel present
• D. The confession was recorded on video

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that once a suspect in custody asks for a lawyer, police must stop questioning. If they deliberately go back and elicit a confession after that invocation, the confession is generally inadmissible because it violates the protection against coercion and the right to counsel. This deliberate elicitation shows the police tried to bypass the warning and counsel, which is exactly what the rule condemns. So the factor that makes the confession violate the right to counsel is the police deliberately soliciting it after the request for counsel. A valid knowing and voluntary waiver could make later statements admissible, the presence of counsel typically protects the suspect, and recording the confession by video doesn’t itself cause a violation.

The key idea is that once a suspect in custody asks for a lawyer, police must stop questioning. If they deliberately go back and elicit a confession after that invocation, the confession is generally inadmissible because it violates the protection against coercion and the right to counsel. This deliberate elicitation shows the police tried to bypass the warning and counsel, which is exactly what the rule condemns.

So the factor that makes the confession violate the right to counsel is the police deliberately soliciting it after the request for counsel. A valid knowing and voluntary waiver could make later statements admissible, the presence of counsel typically protects the suspect, and recording the confession by video doesn’t itself cause a violation.