Question

An indigent defendant was arrested and charged with burglary. At his preliminary hearing, counsel was appointed. Unable to satisfy the conditions for his pre-trial release, the defendant was detained in jail awaiting trial on the burglary charge. While the defendant was in jail, a police detective questioned him about an unrelated murder charge without his lawyer present. Prior to questioning, the police detective revealed that she was a police officer and Mirandized the defendant. The defendant subsequently made an incriminating statement with regard to the murder, which lead to him being charged for that crime as well. At his trial for the murder, the defendant timely moved to suppress the statement he made to the police detective as having been obtained in violation of his constitutional rights.
Should the court grant this request?
A: No, because the defendant was in custody for an unrelated burglary.
B: No, because the defendant was given Miranda warnings before making his incriminating statement.
C: Yes, because the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to counsel was violated.
D: Yes, because the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated.

Answer 1

As far as I know I think it is B