Question

Acting with probable cause, the police arrested a man in connection with the armed robbery of a liquor store. After being given Miranda warnings, the man confessed to the robbery but denied his involvement with several other recent armed robberies of businesses in the area. He was formally charged with the one robbery and put into a cell with a paid informant working undercover for the police. The informant had been instructed to find out what he could about the other robberies but not to ask any questions. The informant began talking about a convenience store robbery in which a bystander was shot and seriously injured by the robber, and he deliberately misstated how it happened. The man, unaware that his cell mate was an informant, interrupted to correct him, bragging that he knew what really happened because he was there, and proceeded to make incriminating statements about the robbery. The man was subsequently charged with armed robbery and attempted murder in the convenience store robbery.
At a motion-to-suppress hearing on that charge, if the man's attorney moves to exclude the statements made to the informant, should the motion be granted?
A. Yes, because the informant deliberately elicited incriminating statements in violation of the man's Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
B. Yes, because the informant's conduct constituted custodial interrogation in violation of the man's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
C. No, because the man had not yet been charged with the robbery of the convenience store when he made the statements to the informant.
D. No, because the informant's conduct did not constitute interrogation.

Answer 1

Answer:

A

Explanation:

it could also be B but i know it is either C or D.