MIDTERM EXAM, ODD SEMESTER, ACADEMIC YEAR 2021/2022

Subject : English
Date/Time Allocation : 2 November 2021, 90 minutes
Faculty of
Lecturer : Christopher Cason
Law
Class : English B
Exam Model : Open Book
BISMILLAHIRRAHMANIRRAHIIM

Instructions:
1. Please pray to the Almighty God before answering the questions!
2. Read the questions carefully and thoroughly, then answer the questions in accordance with the
command as stated in each question!
3. Do the exam at home! Submit on Tuesday, the Second day of November 2021 before 3:30 p.m.
And send it to/via Google Classroom
4. Please ask questions if there is something you don’t understand 085329942539

Student Name: IRMA AYU ANDARI

Student ID Number: 20410724

CPMK 1: Students are able to explain vocabulary and structure. (Weight: 40 %. four (4) points for
each question)

I. Grammar

Active/Passive voice

For each sentence, identify whether it is “active” or “passive” then change the sentence to the
other voice (Active to Passive or Passive to Active):

Example:

Q: The man was seen leaving the scene of the crime

A: Passive. Someone saw the man leaving the scene of the crime.

1. The police violated my constitutional rights

My constitutional right was violated by the poliice

______________________________________________________________________________

2. The courts will protect the civil rights of citizens.

The civil rights of citizens will be protected by the courts

______________________________________________________________________________

3. The Miranda case has been considered by legal scholars to be important legal precedent.

The legal scholars has been considering The Miranda case to be important legal precedent.

______________________________________________________________________________

4. Although it started in Arizona, all states courts must follow the holding of the U.S. Supreme
Court.

Although it started in Arizona, The holding of the U.S. Supreme Court must be followed by all
states courts.
______________________________________________________________________________

5. Miranda must have felt relief to have his conviction overturned

Miranda must have felt relief to have conviction his overturned

_______________________________________________________________________________

Sentence structure

6. Mark the following sentence that is a simple sentence:

a. [ ] Because of the importance of the bill of rights, police are required to follow
formal procedures when detaining criminal suspects.
b. [ ] Miranda’s due process rights were clearly violated.
c. [ ] Although the defendant was not under arrest at the time, the police were still
required to read him his constitutional rights.
d. [ ] When it was decided, the Miranda case overturned the conviction, and it
became binding precedent in the United States.

7. Mark the following sentence that is a complex sentence:

e. [ ] Because of the importance of the bill of rights, police are required to follow
formal procedures when detaining criminal suspects.
f. [ ] Miranda’s due process rights were clearly violated.
g. [ ] Although the defendant was not under arrest at the time, the police were still
required to read him his constitutional rights.
h. [ ] When it was decided, the Miranda case overturned the conviction, and it
became binding precedent in the United States.

8. Mark the following sentence that is a compound sentence:

 i. [ ] Because of the importance of the bill of rights, police are required to follow
formal procedures when detaining criminal suspects.
j. [ ] Miranda’s due process rights were clearly violated.
k. [ ] Although the defendant was not under arrest at the time, the police were still
required to read him his constitutional rights.
l. [ ] When it was decided, the Miranda case overturned the conviction, and it
became binding precedent in the United States.

9. Mark the following sentence that is a complex-compound sentence:

m. [ ] Because of the importance of the bill of rights, police are required to follow
formal procedures when detaining criminal suspects.
n. [ ] Miranda’s due process rights were clearly violated.
o. [ ] Although the defendant was not under arrest at the time, the police were still
required to read him his constitutional rights.
p. [ ] When it was decided, the Miranda case overturned the conviction, and it
became binding precedent in the United States.

10. Combine the two simple sentences into one (1) compound sentence:

The case had a favorable result.

The case took over 10 years for a final decision.

the case had a favorable result but the case took over 10 years for a final decision
__________________________________________________________________________

CPMK 2: Students are able to demonstrate reading, writing, listening, and speaking practice
(Weight: 60%)

For the remaining questions, refer to the following court decision:

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

A
Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified
by the complaining witness. He was then interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which
resulted in a signed, written confession. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to
the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years
imprisonment on each count. [Four different cases were consolidated into one case: No. 759,
Miranda v. Arizona; No. 760, Vignera v. New York; No. 761, Westover v. United States; and No.
584, California v. Stewart.]

B
The constitutional issue we decide in each of these cases is the admissibility of statements obtained
from a defendant questioned while in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way.

C
In previous cases, we have recognized that “[I]t has become firmly embedded in English as well as
in American jurisprudence. So deeply did the iniquities of the ancient system impress themselves
upon the minds of the American colonists that the States, with one accord, made a denial of the
right to question an accused person a part of their fundamental law, so that a maxim, which in
England was a mere rule of evidence, became clothed in this country with the impregnability of a
constitutional enactment." Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 596-597 (1896). In stating the
obligation of the judiciary to apply these constitutional rights, this Court declared in Weems v.
United States, 217 U. S. 349, 373 (1910)

D
Again, we stress that the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically, rather than
physically, oriented. As we have stated before, "Since Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227, this
Court has recognized that coercion can be mental as well as physical, and that the blood of the
accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition."

E
Even without employing brutality, the "third degree" or the specific stratagems described above, the
very fact of custodial interrogation exacts a heavy toll on individual liberty, and trades on the
weakness of individuals. [Footnote 24] This fact may be illustrated simply by referring to three
confession cases decided by this Court in the Term immediately preceding our Escobedo decision.
In Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293 (1963), the defendant was a 19-year-old heroin addict,
described as a "near mental defective," id. at 307-310. The defendant in Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.
S. 528 (1963), was a woman who confessed to the arresting officer after being importuned to
"cooperate" in order to prevent her children from being taken by relief authorities. This Court, as in
those cases, reversed the conviction of a defendant in Haynes v. Washington, 373 U. S. 503 (1963),
whose persistent request during his interrogation was to phone his wife or attorney. [Footnote 25] In
other settings, these individuals might have exercised their constitutional rights. In the
incommunicado police-dominated atmosphere, they succumbed.

F
In the cases before us today, given this background, we concern ourselves primarily with this
interrogation atmosphere and the evils it can bring. In No. 759, Miranda v. Arizona, the police
arrested the defendant and took him to a special interrogation room, where they secured a
confession. In No. 760, Vignera v. New York, the defendant made oral admissions to the police after
interrogation in the afternoon, and then signed an inculpatory statement upon being questioned by
an assistant district attorney later the same evening. In No. 761, Westover v. United States, the
defendant was handed over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by local authorities after they had
detained and interrogated him for a lengthy period, both at night and the following morning. After
some two hours of questioning, the federal officers had obtained signed statements from the
defendant. Lastly, in No. 584, California v. Stewart, the local police held the defendant five days in
the station and interrogated him on nine separate occasions before they secured his inculpatory
statement.

G
In these cases, we might not find the defendants' statements to have been involuntary in traditional
terms. Our concern for adequate safeguards to protect precious Fifth Amendment rights is, of
course, not lessened in the slightest. In each of the cases, the defendant was thrust into an unfamiliar
atmosphere and run through menacing police interrogation procedures.

H
Stewart was charged with kidnapping to commit robbery, rape, and murder. At his trial, transcripts
of the first interrogation and the confession at the last interrogation were introduced in evidence.
The jury found Stewart guilty of robbery and first-degree murder, and fixed the penalty as death.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of California reversed. 62 Cal. 2d 571, 400 P.2d 97, 43 Cal. Rptr.
201. It held that, under this Court's decision in Escobedo, Stewart should have been advised of his
right to remain silent and of his right to counsel, and that it would not presume in the face of a silent
record that the police advised Stewart of his rights. [Footnote 70]

I
We affirm. [Footnote 71] In dealing with custodial interrogation, we will not presume that a
defendant has been effectively apprised of his rights and that his privilege against self-incrimination
has been adequately safeguarded on a record that does not show that any warnings have been given
or that any effective alternative has been employed. Nor can a knowing and intelligent waiver of
these rights be assumed on a silent record. Furthermore, Stewart's steadfast denial of the alleged
offenses through eight of the nine interrogations over a period of five days is subject to no other
construction than that he was compelled by persistent interrogation to forgo his Fifth Amendment
privilege.

J
Therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, the judgments of the Supreme Court of Arizona in No.
759, of the New York Court of Appeals in No. 760, and of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in No. 761, are reversed. The judgment of the Supreme Court of California in No. 584 is
affirmed.

II. Paraphrasing and Summarizing

For Questions 11-12, fill in the blanks with appropriate word(s) completing the paraphrase (note:
there can be more than one correct answer) (10 points each):

11. Original Sentence: The defendant in Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U. S. 528 (1963), was a woman who
confessed to the arresting officer after being importuned to "cooperate" in order to prevent
her children from being taken by relief authorities.

Paraphrase: In Lynumn v. Illionois, the defendant was a woman who threatened to take away
the defendant’ s children to coerce her into relief authorities

12. Original Sentence: Again, we stress that the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is
psychologically, rather than physically, oriented.

Paraphrase: We emphasize that _the modern interrogation is not interrogation, but instead
physical in nature.

For Question 13, paraphrase the following sentence using your own words (note: there can be
more than one correct answer) (10 points):

13. Original Sentence: Nor can a knowing and intelligent waiver of these rights be assumed on a
silent record.
The jury found Stewart guilty of robbery and first-degree murder, and fixed the penalty as death.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of California reversed. 62 Cal. 2d 571, 400 P.2d 97, 43 Cal. Rptr.
201. It held that, under this Court's decision in Escobedo, Stewart should have been advised of his
right to remain silent and of his right to counsel,

Paraphrase:
For Question 14, summarize paragraph “F” from the case. Use only between 25-35 words for your
summary and do not include case names. (note: there can be more than one correct answer) (20
points):

14. Summary of Paragraph F

In the cases before us today, given this background, we concern ourselves primarily with this
interrogation atmosphere and the evils it can bring. In No. 759, Miranda v. Arizona, the police
arrested the defendant and took him to a special interrogation room, where they secured a
confession. In No. 760, Vignera v. New York, the defendant made oral admissions to the police
after interrogation in the afternoon, and then signed an inculpatory statement upon being
questioned by an assistant district attorney later the same evening. In No. 761, Westover v. United
States, the defendant was handed over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by local authorities
after they had detained and interrogated him for a lengthy period, both at night and the following
morning. After some two hours of questioning, the federal officers had obtained signed
statements from the defendant. Lastly, in No. 584, California v. Stewart, the local police held the
defendant five days in the station and interrogated him on nine separate occasions before they
secured his inculpatory statement.

15. III. The IRAC method

For question 15, Place the letter of the paragraph (A-J) in the appropriate category. Make sure to
categorize all Ten paragraphs:

16. IRAC structure

Category Paragraph Letter(s)

Background Facts A,E
Issue B
Rule C,D
Application L,J
Conclusion J

====== Good Luck ======

 Midterm Exam, Odd Semester, Academic Year 2021/2022 Verification
Verify
Date Verification Sign
(KaProdi/SekProdi/KaDep/Perwakilan KBK)